![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/05\/PeterKeys2b.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nLucas Banzoli<\/a> is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ\u2019s human nature after His death.\u00a0He has a Master\u2019s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He\u2019s active on YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n The words of Lucas Banzoli will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>. I used\u00a0Google Translate<\/em>\u00a0to transfer his Portugese text into English.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n See other installments:<\/p>\n Part One: \u201cDisproofs\u201d #1-50<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n Part Three: \u201cDisproofs\u201d #101-150<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n Part Four: \u201cDisproofs\u201d #151-205<\/strong><\/a><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Continuing response to his article,\u00a0\u201c205 Provas Contra O Primado de Pedro\u201d<\/a>\u00a0(no date) [205 Proofs Against the Primacy of Peter<\/em>].\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 51.<\/strong> Paul places James as the first pillar of the Church in Galatians 2:9, placing him before Peter who only appears second. In addition to the fact that Peter is not the main pillar of the Church (as he would be if he were pope) and has to share his place with others, he is still mentioned behind James! Now, the \u201cpillar of the Church\u201d is a sign of leadership, of authority. Therefore, Peter is not the only leader, much less the first! <\/span><\/p>\n Already explained in my reply to #50. For further reading on this, see:<\/p>\n Did St. Paul Seek St. Peter\u2019s Approval for His Ministry? (+ Does The Word Order in Galatians 2:9 Suggest a Lowering of Peter\u2019s Primacy?)<\/a>\u00a0[4-27-17 and 9-4-17]<\/p>\n James Listed Before Peter (Gal 2:9)? (vs. Jason Engwer)<\/a>\u00a0[12-3-21]<\/p>\n 52.<\/strong> Peter had been entrusted with preaching the gospel to the circumcised (Jews), as was Paul to the uncircumcised (Gentiles) \u2013 Gal.2:6-8. Again, no hint of \u201cuniversal primacy\u201d is extant, as Peter is not bishop of Gentiles and Jews, but is indicated by Paul as having a ministry aimed at Jews, while he (Paul) is at Gentiles. In addition to the fact that if Peter were bishop in Rome he would be of the uncircumcised (Gentiles), we also have the sad realization that he does not occupy universal jurisdiction, but only a local ministry on the same level as Paul (Gal.2:6- 8). <\/span><\/p>\n The First Epistle of Peter is directed towards a wide audience (1:1: \u201cTo the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado\u2019cia, Asia, and Bithyn\u2019ia\u201d), and reads like pastoral guidance of the leader of the Church to the whole Church. Peter humbly calls himself a \u201cfellow elder.\u201d But it doesn\u2019t follow that he has no more authority<\/em> than the other bishops (Paul also called himself a deacon). In fact, he assumes authority<\/em>\u00a0throughout his epistle: \u201cgird up your minds\u201d (1:13); \u201cbe holy yourselves in all your conduct\u201d (1:15); \u201clove one another earnestly from the heart\u201d (1:22); \u201cSo put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander\u201d (2:1); \u201clong for the pure spiritual milk\u201d (2:2); \u201cabstain from the passions of the flesh\u201d (2:11); \u201cMaintain good conduct among the Gentiles\u201d (2:12); \u201cBe subject for the Lord\u2019s sake to every human institution\u201d (2:13); \u201cHonor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.\u201d (2:17); \u201d wives, be submissive to your husbands\u201d (3:1); \u201cLikewise you husbands, live considerately with your wives, bestowing honor on the woman\u201d (3:7); \u201chave unity of spirit, sympathy, love of the brethren, a tender heart and a humble mind.\u201d (3:8); \u201cDo not return evil for evil or reviling for reviling\u201d (3:9); \u201cin your hearts reverence Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to make a defense\u201d (3:15: apologetics!); \u201d keep your conscience clear\u201d (3:16); \u201ckeep sane and sober for your prayers\u201d (4:7); \u201chold unfailing your love for one another\u201d (4:8); \u201cPractice hospitality ungrudgingly to one another\u201d (4:9); \u201cAs each has received a gift, employ it for one another\u201d (4:10); \u201cTend the flock of God that is your charge\u201d (5:2: addressed specifically to other bishops); \u201cyou that are younger be subject to the elders\u201d (5:5); \u201cHumble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God\u201d (5:6); \u201cBe sober, be watchful\u201d (5:8); and \u201cResist him, firm in your faith\u201d (5:9).<\/p>\n 53.<\/strong> Jesus is said to be the only cornerstone of the Church (Eph.2:20), and we are built \u201con the foundation of the apostles and prophets\u201d (Eph.2:20), not Peter. Once again, Peter is not indicated as the foundation or main stone of the Church, but only one among so many apostles and prophets, built on that one cornerstone that is Jesus Christ! <\/span><\/p>\n See my article, Can Christ & Peter Both be \u201cRocks\u201d?<\/a> [4-21-22] Excerpt:<\/p>\n [Some Protestants argue that] Scripture elsewhere calls Jesus Christ a \u201cRock\u201d; therefore (so the reasoning goes) Peter can\u2019t\u00a0possibly<\/em>\u00a0be called the\u00a0same thing<\/em>. This simply isn\u2019t true. The objection presupposes what I would argue is an unbiblical and hyper-rationalistic \u201ceither\/or\u201d outlook; whereas the Bible teaches a \u201cboth\/and\u201d point of view. Here are some of the passages brought up in order to set forth such a view:<\/p>\n Matthew 21:42<\/strong> (RSV) Jesus said to them, \u201cHave you never read in the scriptures: \u2018The very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was the Lord\u2019s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes\u2019?\u201d (cf. Mk 12:10; Lk 20:17-18)<\/p>\n Acts 4:11<\/strong>\u00a0as it is written, \u201cBehold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall; and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.\u201d<\/p>\n Romans 9:32-33<\/strong>\u00a0Why? Because they did not pursue it through faith, but as if it were based on works. They have stumbled over the stumbling stone, [33] as it is written, \u201cBehold, I am laying in Zion a stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall; and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.\u201d<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 10:4<\/strong>\u00a0. . . For they drank from the supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was Christ.<\/p>\n 1 Peter 2:4, 6-8<\/strong>\u00a0Come to him, to that living stone, rejected by men but in God\u2019s sight chosen and precious; . . . [6] For it stands in scripture: \u201cBehold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and he who believes in him will not be put to shame.\u201d [7] To you therefore who believe, he is precious, but for those who do not believe, \u201cThe very stone which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,\u201d [8] and \u201cA stone that will make men stumble, a rock that will make them fall\u201d; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Now, is this intended to\u00a0exclude<\/em>\u00a0anyone else being called a rock or a stone? No. In Scripture, creatures are often called in an essentially lesser sense or degree, things which God is called. There can be such a thing as a Big Rock (God) and a small rock or stone (men or a man). In fact, this is explicit biblical teaching. Note that in the passage from 1 Peter, above, I left out a verse. Here it is:<\/p>\n 1 Peter 2:5<\/strong>\u00a0and\u00a0like living stones be yourselves built into a spiritual house<\/span>, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The \u201cspiritual house\u201d is likely referring to the Church. Jesus, in the larger passage, was called a \u201cliving stone\u201d a \u201ccornerstone\u201d and \u201cthe head of the corner.\u201d Yet we Christians are also called \u201cliving stones\u201d in the same passage. Thus, there is no \u201ceither\/or\u201d pattern here.\u00a0Both<\/em>\u00a0things can be true. If there can be little stones along with God as the Big Rock, then there can\u00a0also<\/em>\u00a0conceivably be the \u201cchief\u201d of these secondary stones, and that would be Peter, based on the data of Matthew 16:18. And there\u2019s more, too:<\/p>\n Ephesians 2:19-22<\/strong>\u00a0So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of\u00a0the household of God,<\/span>\u00a0[20]\u00a0built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,<\/span> [21] in whom the\u00a0whole structure<\/span>\u00a0is joined together and grows into a\u00a0holy temple<\/span>\u00a0in the Lord; [22] in whom you also are\u00a0built into it\u00a0<\/span>for a\u00a0dwelling place of God\u00a0<\/span>in the Spirit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This is again referring to the Church (2:19), which is \u201cbuilt upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets\u201d (2:20). Thus we have\u00a0precisely the same notion<\/em>\u00a0that Catholics contend is expressed in Matthew 16:18: there is a secondary \/ \u201cco-worker\u201d sense in which the Church is built upon men. Here it is the twelve apostles and prophets as well. In Matthew it\u2019s Peter, as the\u00a0leader<\/em>\u00a0and foremost of the apostles. And then in the next verse we have the \u201cBig Rock\u201d: \u201cChrist Jesus himself being the cornerstone\u201d. So there is no false dichotomy. One is not in opposition to the other. Another passage teaches the same thing (without mentioning Jesus in this particular instance):<\/p>\n Revelation 21:14<\/strong>\u00a0And the wall of the city had\u00a0twelve foundations<\/span>, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This sort of typology is, as I stated, common in Scripture.<\/p>\n 54.<\/strong> Once again, Jesus is singled out as the only foundation (1 Cor.3:11). Peter himself declared that the rock in question was Jesus (1 Pet. 2:4), and that he (like other Christians) were \u201cliving stones\u201d built on the main stone (1 Pet. 2:4-6). <\/span><\/p>\n See my reply to #53.<\/p>\n 55.<\/strong> Peter, in writing his two well-known epistles, NEVER identified himself with the terms the Catholic Church inadvertently assigned to him: pope, prince of apostles, chief, head, bishop of bishops \u2013 these are all terms totally unknown to Peter. He simply identifies himself the way he was: \u201capostle\u201d (1Pe.1:1) and \u201cservant\u201d (2Pe.1:1). As much as Catholicism invented many myths about Peter that emerged much later, there is nothing in the writings of this same apostle that could indicate a greater ostentation than that of \u201capostle\u201d and \u201cservant\u201d, as well as all the other apostles!<\/span><\/p>\n See my reply to #52. So what? Much ado about nothing. Paul never called himself an \u201cevangelist\u201d either, even though he was the greatest evangelist of all time, and he uses the word three times<\/a>.\u00a0 Does it follow that he is not<\/em> an evangelist? Jesus never called Himself \u201cGod\u201d or \u201cGod the Son.\u201d God the Father never calls Himself that<\/em> in the Bible, even though He is called this name by others many times<\/a>. Does it follow, then, that He ought not<\/em> be called \u201cGod the Father\u201d?<\/p>\n 56.<\/strong> Peter had \u201cneither silver nor gold\u201d (Acts 3:6). Popes, however, have ample amounts of both!<\/span><\/p>\n See my articles, Biblical Evidence & Defenses for Expensive Church Buildings<\/a> and Dialogue on Biblical Views Re Following Jesus & Riches.<\/a><\/p>\n 57.<\/strong> At no time does Paul or any other apostle identify in the figure of Peter a maximum authority in their writings. Rather, what we see is Paul clearly stating that God \u201cappointed some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers\u201d (Eph.4:11). Note that neither \u201cpope\u201d nor anything of the sort appears to be an office in the Church. Simply put, Paul innocently \u201cforgets\u201d precisely what is most important within the Catholic Church! <\/span><\/p>\n The pope is the bishop of Rome. Lucas forgot to include Paul\u2019s mention of bishops (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-2; Titus 1:7<\/a>). We\u2019ve already discussed whether James or Peter or both jointly presided over the council of Jerusalem. Bishops preside over local councils and popes preside over ecumenical ones. So we see the papacy and the episcopacy in kernel form here, and we have an infallible council (with Paul spreading its binding decree): something that is anathema to Protestantism. This is exactly what we would expect at this stage: a primitive development of what was later much more developed.<\/p>\n 58<\/strong>. When the Judean brothers heard that the Gentiles had heard the word of God, they criticized Peter for having food in the house of uncircumcised men (Acts 11:1-3). They would hardly have done this if Peter were infallible pope, as they would be going against a superior authority, being subordinate to them. but spends a long time giving explanations about it (Acts 11:4-7). <\/span><\/p>\n That has to do with behavior, not promulgation of doctrine or infallibility (just as with Paul\u2019s criticism of Peter for hypocrisy in Galatians). Since we have never claimed that popes are perfect, it\u2019s is a non sequitur<\/em>. Popes can be, and are, criticized in a variety of ways. I\u2019ve done it myself. There is such a thing as respectful, substantive criticism.<\/p>\n 59.<\/strong> If there was a \u201cpope\u201d (which comes from the word \u201cfather\u201d), Jesus would not have said that \u201ccall no one on earth your father, for one is your Father, which is in heaven\u201d (Mt.23: 9).<\/span><\/p>\n This is a silly, classic anti-Catholic canard. The sky would fall and western civilization would come to an end if this<\/em> wasn\u2019t inevitably trotted out. See my articles, \u201cCall No Man Father\u201d vs. Priests Addressed as \u201cFather\u201d?<\/a>\u00a0[National Catholic Register<\/em>, 8-9-18] and Biblical Evidence for \u201cHoly Father\u201d & \u201cVicar of Christ\u201d<\/a> [9-12-15].<\/p>\n 60.<\/strong> It is not Peter the Supreme Pontiff, but Jesus. Just as the OT priests were a shadow of the NT priests (ministers of God), so the high priest was a figure of a greater priest, superior to the \u201cordinary\u201d priests. If Peter were pope, he would be the perfect figure identifiable as this \u201cHigh Priest\u201d, or \u201cSupreme Pontiff\u201d (as Catholics themselves attribute to him, as well as to other popes). However, biblically only Jesus is our High Priest (Heb.6:20; 10:21; 7:23-25; 8:4)!<\/span><\/p>\n This is a substanceless \u201cargument\u201d. Jesus is the quintessential high priest in the sense of presenting Himself once and for all at His crucifixion as a sacrifice on our behalf to the Father (Heb 10:10-14). No created human being does that, and no one has offered animal sacrifice like the OT priests did, since 70 AD, so this is a non sequitur<\/em>. There is simply no comparison of this with popes.<\/p>\n 61.<\/strong> Furthermore, the prerequisite for fulfilling OT figures and becoming Supreme Pontiff in light of the New Covenant included having a \u201cpermanent priesthood\u201d and \u201cliving forever to intercede for them\u201d (Heb.7:23-25). ). Furthermore, he also needed to be \u201choly, blameless, pure, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens\u201d (Heb.7:26). Now all these things do not fit the figure of Peter, but only in Christ. Therefore, Peter was not the High Priest\/High Pontiff! <\/span><\/p>\n Again, the papacy has nothing to do with this. Jesus as high priest was figured in the OT by the high priest offering sacrifices at the temple and entering the Holy of Holies once a year on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur). That\u2019s why Jesus is called the Lamb of God.<\/p>\n 62.<\/strong> Finally, when an analogy is drawn between the Supreme Pontiff in heaven and the Supreme Pontiff (Priest) on earth, it is not to speak of Peter, but of the Israelites who presented the \u201cofferings prescribed by the law\u201d (Heb.8 :4). Again, Peter is not indicated as being the Supreme Pontiff on earth, as this title was only given to him later by the Catholic Church, as well as the other popes. <\/span><\/p>\n There is<\/em> no such analogy. It\u2019s fundamentally confused. Yes, the pope is \u201chigh priest\u201d or \u201csupreme priest\u201d (pontiff<\/em>), but it\u2019s in the sense of New Testament priests<\/a>, not OT priests, who offer animal sacrifice. The One who fulfilled their model was Jesus, Who sacrificed Himself as the innocent Lamb of God.<\/p>\n 63.<\/strong> The Chief Shepherd appointed by Peter himself is not himself, but Christ (1Pe.5:4). <\/span><\/p>\n As Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid wrote:<\/p>\n Jesus is the shepherd of his flock the Church (Jn 10:16), yet he shares his shepherdhood in a subordinate way with others, beginning with Peter (Jn 21:15-17) and extending it later to others (Eph 4:11) . . . Jesus says he\u2019s the only shepherd (Jn 10:11-16), yet this seemingly exclusive statement doesn\u2019t conflict with him making Peter shepherd . . . or with his calling others to be shepherds as well (Eph 4:11). Peter emphasizes that Jesus shares his role as shepherd with others by calling Jesus the chief shepherd . . . (1 Pet 5:4). Note also that the Greek construction of John 10:16 . . . is the same as 1 Timothy 2:5 (. . . one mediator . . .). The apostles and their successors the bishops, are truly shepherds also. (\u201cAny Friend of God\u2019s is a Friend of Mine\u201d<\/a>,\u00a0This Rock<\/em>, Sep. 1992, 7-13)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 64.<\/strong> Peter writes so that those who shepherd do not act as rulers of the flock (1Pe.5:3), exactly the attitude of the popes, who dominate the entire \u201cflock\u201d called the Roman Catholic Church! <\/span><\/p>\n This gets back to what I discussed in my reply to #3 in Part One<\/a>. The pope is not to \u201clord it over\u201d the flock or be a tyrant or despot. Jesus and the New Testament are not against leadership<\/em>; they oppose tyrannous leadership and dictatorship<\/em>. Peter, writing to elders, expresses precisely the same thing:<\/p>\n 1 Peter 5:2-3\u00a0<\/strong> Tend the flock of God that is your charge, not by constraint but willingly, not for shameful gain but eagerly, [3] not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n I\u2019ve often noted that the pope affects the day-to-day life of the Catholic far less than many Protestants\u2019 daily lives are affected by their own pastors. The pope doesn\u2019t know I exist. But once in 1986 (on the advice of two pastor friends), I dared to respectfully criticize my Protestant pastor after he claimed \u2014 like a good Protestant \u2014 that everyone should \u201ckeep your pastors honest\u201d. What was the result of that? I was denounced from the pulpit and lied about, and my ministry (I was an apologist and evangelist then, too, on college campuses, commissioned by this very pastor) was trashed. That<\/em> was being a petty dictator: precisely what Jesus and Peter commanded us to never be.<\/p>\n Was James \u201cdominating the entire flock\u201d when he issued the proclamation of the council of Jerusalem, which claimed to be led by the Holy Spirit? If not, how is what popes do any different? How is it even different from what Luther and Calvin did? Martin Luther said things, after all, like the following:<\/p>\n Is that<\/em> \u201cdomineering\u201d? Is that being a \u201cruler\u201d? No pope has ever spoken like that, which is why I have called Luther a \u201csuper-pope.\u201d Erasmus wrote about Luther (after vainly trying to \u201cdialogue\u201d with him):<\/p>\n I want you and your adherents to know that I am not . . . so faint-hearted as to be disturbed by your insults. But the fact that you are so disparaging, derogatory, and utterly contemptuous towards my\u00a0Discussion<\/em>\u00a0argues that it is not as contemptible as you make out. If it did not bear down on you, your pen would not have produced such outrageous insults to its author.<\/p>\n [Y]ou are so impudent in your insults . . . so unrestrained in your abuse when you are hemmed in by arguments, that no one, even if he bent over backwards to be fair to you, could find any excuses for your spirit. (Erasmus responding to Martin Luther,\u00a0Hyperaspistes<\/em>\u00a0[1526], pp. 103, 140 in Vol. 76 in\u00a0Collected Works<\/em>\u00a0[1999] )<\/p><\/blockquote>\n 65.<\/strong> Peter wrote in the position of \u201celder\u201d (1Pe.5:1). The Catholic Church declares a priest to be \u201cinferior to a bishop\u201d (Council of Trent, Can.7, 967), and further states that priests cannot exercise certain functions because they are of an inferior order (Council of Trent, Can.7, 960). Now, was Peter, writing as \u201can elder\u201d (1Pe.5:1), of a lower order? Could he be pope, since the priest cannot perform \u201ccertain functions\u201d? Here is the testimony of the Catholic Church itself regarding the demotion of the position of priest as an \u201cinferior order\u201d, which would hurt the very concept of Peter \u2013 who was a priest \u2013 being the most superior order existing in the Church! <\/span><\/p>\n As I noted before, Paul often called himself a deacon<\/em> or minister<\/em> (1 Cor 3:5; 4:1; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:23; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23-25), yet no one would claim he was only a deacon, and nothing else. And he never (far as I can tell) called himself an \u201cevangelist.\u201d \u201cElders\u201d in the Bible sometimes meant the equivalent of \u201clocal pastor \/ priest\u201d or \u201cbishop.\u201d James was the bishop of Jerusalem, as many Protestants agree, but he is called an elder at the council of Jerusalem. The offices were somewhat fluid at this early stage, because ecclesiology was only in its infancy.<\/p>\n 66.<\/strong> Furthermore, Peter wrote to the elders, saying that \u201cI do so in the same capacity as an elder with them\u201d (1Pe.5:1), that is, on an equality with them, and not superiority, as would be the case if he exercised a primacy over all others!<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s routine \u201cpapal talk.\u201d The pope will often say \u201cfellow bishops\u201d because he is a bishop (of Rome) as well as pope. None of this proves anything, anymore than Paul calling lessers \u201cbrethren\u201d (many many times<\/a>) \u201cproves\u201d that they are on the same level as him. Even Jesus called His disciples \u201cfriends\u201d (Jn 15:13-15). Does that mean He isn\u2019t above them? Paul calls Christians \u201cfellow heirs with Christ\u201d (Rom 8:17) and \u201cGod\u2019s fellow workers\u201d (1 Cor 3:9), and he calls other Christians \u201cfellow workers\u201d and \u201cfellow soldiers\u201d and \u201cfellow servants\u201d (see the references<\/a>). These are desperate arguments, and lack understanding of biblical language and idiom and even the repeated scriptural admonition to be humble and have an attitude of servanthood.<\/p>\n 67.<\/strong> It is the duty of all bishops and elders to shepherd God\u2019s flock, and not Peter\u2019s alone (1Pe.5:1,2; Acts.10:28). It was everyone\u2019s duty to \u201cfeed the church of God\u201d (Acts 10:28). <\/span><\/p>\n Yes, of course it is.<\/p>\n Christ specifically addressed Peter on the occasion of John 21:17 because of the apostle\u2019s denials mentioned earlier. Peter denied Jesus three times, and Christ gave him the opportunity to reaffirm his love for his Master three times. <\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s the standard \u201canti-papal\u201d interpretation of that passage, and I agree that it is part<\/em> of its meaning, but not all<\/em> of it. The meaning and intention of \u201cFeed my lambs . . . Tend my sheep . . . Feed my sheep\u201d and \u201cstrengthen your brethren\u201d (Lk 22:32) are not wiped out or nullified, simply because it was partly the process of restoring Peter.<\/p>\n This was the same process that Paul went through after having killed Christians. God said, \u201che is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel\u201d (Acts 9:15). Thus, Paul\u2019s future as the Great Evangelist was laid out to him at the beginning of His ministry. Likewise, after Peter repented of his momentary weakness and fear for his life (far less of a sin than Paul\u2019s), Jesus (Who is God) revealed to him his role as the leader and Shepherd of the Church: to \u201cfeed\u201d and \u201ctend\u201d and \u201cstrengthen\u201d the flock.\u00a0 It couldn\u2019t be any more clear than it is.<\/p>\n 68.<\/strong> Peter was rebuked by Paul face to face in Antioch, \u201cbecause he was reprehensible\u201d (Gal.2:11). A Catholic would never call the Pope \u201creprehensible\u201d, nor would he resist him in the face! <\/span><\/p>\n As explained several times, popes have the gift of infallibility (and that in very particular specified conditions only), not impeccability. Maybe one day Protestant anti-Catholic polemicists will be able to grasp this simple distinction. But obviously, that day hasn\u2019t arrived yet. Patience, Lord!\u00a0 As to Catholics supposedly never rebuking popes, that is sheer nonsense. Saints and Doctors of the Church like St. Francis of Assisi, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Bernard of Clairvaux, and St. Dominic have done that in no uncertain terms.<\/p>\n There were also many instances of morally inferior popes (e.g., during the Renaissance) being soundly rebuked by holy priests and laymen. This is nothing novel whatsoever in Catholic ecclesiology. No one knows better than Catholics the distinction between the nobility of an office and (too often) the [relative] sanctity of the person holding it at any given time.<\/p>\n 69.<\/strong> Furthermore, Paul asserts that Peter \u201cwas not walking according to the truth of the gospel\u201d (Gal.2:14), and that he had acted in \u201chypocrisy\u201d (Gal.2:13). A pope who is infallible in matters of faith could hardly be classified in this way. <\/span><\/p>\n Again, this proves that Lucas has no clue whatsoever<\/em> as to the meaning and limited application of infallibility, which has nothing directly <\/em>to do with good conduct and behavior. It\u2019s equal parts sad and absurd that Catholics have to keep explaining this till we\u2019re blue in the face. The anti-Catholics never learn<\/em> this. It\u2019s no more difficult than a first-grader learning to read.<\/p>\n Jesus excoriated the Pharisees for hypocrisy more than anything else. Yet at the same time<\/em> He told His disciples to \u201cpractice and observe whatever they tell you, but not what they do; for they preach, but do not practice\u201d (Mt 23:3). The Pharisees weren\u2019t even followers of Christ, yet Jesus still<\/em> told His followers to obey their teaching. Thus, we see that instances of hypocrisy do not wipe out a person\u2019s teaching authority: that they have on other grounds.<\/p>\n If Peter were pope, Paul would have respected Peter\u2019s ultimate and infallible authority in the decision he made, rather than rebuking him in public and in letter, not to mention the supposed \u201cauthority\u201d that Peter had over him! <\/span><\/p>\n It wasn\u2019t an instance<\/em> of infallible authority. Peter wasn\u2019t binding anyone else to it. He simply acted hypocritically.<\/p>\n 70.<\/strong> Peter \u201cfeared those of the circumcision\u201d (Gal.2:12). If Peter were pope, it would be Jewish Christians who should fear him! <\/span><\/p>\n Peter was temporarily hypocritical, no more. It has nothing to do with his authority.<\/p>\n 71<\/strong>. Peter acted with dissimulation when he saw that \u201csome from James\u201d arrived (Gal.2:12), starting to separate himself from the Gentiles because of this (v.12). If James were under Peter\u2019s leadership, there would be no reason to fear him, nor to censure the Gentiles for fear of those who came from James. The episode makes no sense in the view that Peter was above James in apostolic authority. If that were so, Peter would not fear an \u201cinferior\u201d himself, much less those sent \u201cfrom\u201d him! On the contrary, it would be Peter himself who would give orders and maintain his position of authority as leader.<\/span><\/p>\n This merely expands upon the last three criticisms, which are already answered.<\/p>\n Evidence that Peter did not exercise primacy over John <\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n 72.<\/strong> John, along with Matthew, was the only apostle among the 12 who composed a gospel. <\/span><\/p>\n Many believe that Peter was the main source behind the content of the Gospel of Mark, which was in turn (according to the prevailing scholarly view) largely copied or followed by Matthew and Luke. It matters not if he dictated it; Paul did the same in some (possibly all) of his letters, as we know.<\/p>\n 73.<\/strong> John was the only apostle chosen by the Lord to have the revelation of the Apocalypse, on the island of Patmos, concerning the final and eschatological events. <\/span><\/p>\n Great. It doesn\u2019t make him pope. Peter had a vision about all foods being clean. Peter raised people from the dead, and his shadow healed people.<\/p>\n 74.<\/strong> John wrote more epistles than Peter, in addition to the gospel itself and the Revelation. As Jerome well said, perfectly defining this whole picture: \u201cPeter is an Apostle, and John is an Apostle \u2013 one is a married man, the other a virgin; but Peter is only an Apostle, while John is an Apostle, an Evangelist, and a Prophet. An Apostle, because he wrote to the Churches as a teacher; an Evangelist, because he composed a Gospel, which no other Apostle, except Matthew, did; a prophet, because he saw on the island of Patmos, where he had been exiled by the Emperor Domitian as a martyr of the Lord, an Apocalypse containing the limitless mysteries of the future\u201d (Against Jovinian) <\/span><\/p>\n Solomon wrote more than both of them, and he ended up fallen away from God.<\/p>\n 75.<\/strong> Of all the disciples, John was the only one considered the \u201cbeloved disciple\u201d (Jn.13:26; Jn.13:25). <\/span><\/p>\n This is silly and inexcusably ignorant, for anyone who is theologically educated, as Lucas is. It was already covered in my reply to #19 in Part One<\/a>, which had exactly the same content. So now we\u2019re repeating<\/em> items in the long list of 205?<\/p>\n 76.<\/strong> Even as he and Peter ran to the tomb, there is a clear distinction between \u201cSimon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved\u201d (John 20:2), clearly differentiating that this \u201cdisciple whom Jesus loved\u201d it was the other (John), and not Peter himself. <\/span><\/p>\n This is just a silly variation of #19 and #76. Are we to believe that Jesus didn\u2019t love Peter at all, or only loved John, among the disciples? We can\u2019t, because the Bible tells us otherwise, as I already explained, with #19. Jesus stated to the collective<\/em>\u00a0of the disciples that He \u201cloved\u201d\u00a0all<\/em>\u00a0of them (Jn 13:34; 15:12).<\/p>\n 77.<\/strong> John was the only disciple who leaned on Jesus\u2019 chest (Jn.13:23). <\/span><\/p>\n Peter was the only one whom the Bible noted was specifically prayed for by Jesus (\u201cI have prayed for you that your faith may not fail\u201d: Lk 22:32). The prayer even had to do with what Catholics call indefectibility<\/em>: the inability to fall away from the faith or proclaim a falsehood as binding (a gift that we believe the pope has). So even this had something to do with his role as leader \/ pope. Which of these two things is the more important and significant?<\/p>\n 78.<\/strong> John was the only disciple chosen by Jesus to know which disciple would betray him (Jn.13:26).<\/span><\/p>\n John asked Him, and so He told Him. I don\u2019t see that this is all that significant. Jesus would have answered the same with any<\/em> of the disciples, I believe.<\/p>\n 79.<\/strong> John had to correct in writing an error of Peter\u2019s that had spread among the brothers, that he should not die (Jn.21:20-24). <\/span><\/p>\n Good for him. God used a donkey to communicate truth to Balaam (Num 22:21-39). When Lucas can come up with a list of \u201c50 Biblical Reasons for Johannine Primacy\u201d then he can come back and present an argument that is worthy to be regarded as equal in force with mine. As it is, he came up with 13, or 26% as many arguments as I produced for Peter. Whoop-de do! Is anyone<\/em> impressed by that?<\/p>\n 80.<\/strong> John was the first disciple to reach the tomb (Jn.20:4). <\/span><\/p>\n This is a replica of #27: \u201cThe first of the disciples to arrive at the tomb was John, not Peter (Jn.20:4).\u201d<\/span> Since I answered that in Part One<\/a>, there is no need to repeat myself. Now we see how Lucas gets to 205 potshots; he repeats<\/em> a bunch of these twice. Not<\/em> impressive . . .<\/p>\n\n
\n