Skip to main content

The Papal Claim of Peter as First Pope Debunked

Roman Catholics claim to be the one true Church that Christ built. However the previous entry you have read why the Roman Catholic Church is NOT Christian. So it's time to promptly debunk the stand of the Vatican in trying to prove that the Popes succeeded from the line of Peter. Now let's get straight to debunking this fraud.

Okay first if you happen to be a Catholic, you'd say, "That's not right. Read Matthew 16:18.". However that verse is frequently taken out of CONTEXT just as most are (which this blog will do later with every other cult) however fails to see that the Rock could NOT be Peter. Peter was Petros or the small stone and the rock is Petra the big rock. In other words, it will be like this, "You are Peter and upon this rock (the Good News Version renders it as you are the rock and upon this Rock still differentiating Peter from the Rock) I will build my church." in which Peter is told that upon the rock, Jesus will build His church. He is appointing Peter as the first New Testament pastor and soon others will. Later in Matthew 18:18 (another verse taken out of context by Catholicism and other cults) EVERY disciple is given the power to loose and bind- which relates to the Gospel and NOT being the final authority instead of Scripture.

Now here are also some things to prove Peter could not be the Pope:

1.) The Bible says that Jesus is the Rock of Ages (1 Corinthians 10:4, 1 Peter 2:8).

Paul and Peter agreed in their apostolic writings that Jesus is the Rock. Jesus is the Rock as God is the Rock and Jesus is the second Person of God Almighty. Everywhere in the Old Testament, the Rock was always the LORD. For Peter to claim to be the Rock is to dare and usurp a title belonging to God alone. This makes the Pope an antichrist himself.

2.) The Bible is clear that Jesus is the Head of the Church NOT Peter (Ephesians 1:22-23, Colossians 1:18-24).

 The Popes do not only blaspheme Jesus when they claim to be the Rock but also when they claim to be the Head of the Church. Since there can only be ONE HEAD and NOT TWO HEADS therefore, either the Pope is the head of the Church or Jesus is. It can't be both as the Popes throughout the centuries contradicted their predecessors and the Bible.  Peter would not dare claim himself as the Head of the Church!

3.) Peter was married (Matthew 8:14, Mark 1:30, Luke 4:38).

 That's one truth. So now in a hasty attempt to justify the papacy, they say that Peter forsook his wife by quoting Luke 18:28 but it's again OUT OF CONTEXT. However if Peter neglected feeding his family he would be worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8). What Peter really meant to forsake is that he chose Jesus above everything else. 1 Corinthians 9:5 affirms Peter was still with his wife except he was called Cephas. Also Peter in 1 Timothy 3:1-6 would affirm Peter's pastorhood to be valid as Peter was a husband of one wife.

4.) Papal infallibility could not apply to Peter by any means (Galatians 2:11-12).

Peter later committed doctrinal error. However in a grave attempt to defend the claim, some Catholic faith defenders and their mentors can also resolve to more word games like saying, "Papal infallibility means the Holy Spirit guides the Pope to avoid making error in terms of doctrine." Another crazy word game that can be played is if the Pope is wrong then he is not speaking in authority. Then again, it leads to another truth revealed in Mark 7:8-13 about how men's decisions fall into frequent error. Then they say, "Peter accepted correction." but Peter was already wrong in areas of doctrine. Would have Peter been wrong about about something else aside from doctrine then Papal Infallibility and Peter as the first Pope would've worked. 

5.) Peter regarded himself not as lord of other pastors but simply as another elder of the Church (1 Peter 5:1-3).

 Examining 1 Peter 5:1-3, Peter rejected the idea of being elder over elder and lords over God's heritage which is what the Catholic church is teaching. In 1 Peter 1:4 the Shepherd can only be Jesus Christ otherwise he would be contradicting with John 10:1. Verse 5 requires humility. The Popes are mostly show-offs. Peter as another elder would be too different than the idea that Peter is the elder of elders. He was a fellow pastor not the supreme pastor. The central government of the Church is in Heaven! Nowhere in the Bible is Peter recognized above the other apostles! Galatians 2:9 lists him as the SECOND PILLAR OF FAITH not the first!

6.) The letter of Paul to the Romans, Peter was NOWHERE to be found at the last greetings.

This again challenges the claims of the papacy of Peter as the bishop of Rome. Peter may have gone to Rome later but he didn't stay there as he was a pastor in Jerusalem. Galatians 2:7 shows the apostolic work of Peter was to be circumcised but Paul was the apostle to the uncircumcised. If Peter were the bishop of Rome, Paul would have greeted him with the other believers or also he would have not have to write to the Romans if Peter were there. Some may argue that he was out of town. But even if Peter were out of town but think but Paul would still ahve gien his regards.

7.) Also, in Mark 16:9-11, the risen Jesus showed Himself first to Mary Magdalene.

 That would also be a little bit of a challenge isn't it? Peter didn't get the privilege. 

8.) Paul wrote more of the Bible than Peter did!

Paul wrote most of the doctrine of the New Testament than Peter did although they DID NOT contradict with each other (1 Peter 3:16).

9.) Peter rejected men bowing down to him reverently (Acts 10:26) while the Popes do.

 For Catholics to say they are not worshiping the Pope can't be denied. They do more than bow down in respect, by calling him "holy father" that's already worship.

By looking at it, Peter could not be the first Pope as Catholics claim. This article is bound to get many angry but the truth must be told!  Here's a disturbing quote from the Vatican Council I about my stand that Peter could not be the first Pope:
"If any one, therefore shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church, or that he directly directly and immediately received a primacy of honor only and not of true and proper jurisdiction- let him be anathema." 

Seriously Roman Catholics need to reexamine Peter closely especially his two writings, his first apostolic sermon and so on. In fact, if there are any real apostolic successors, it would be the fundamental Christian pastors who stick their customs and traditions SOLELY on God's Word and not man's ever changing tradition.