“We teach and declare that, according to the gospel evidence, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the Lord.”
“Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.” (The First Vatican Council, chapter 1)
Peter’s Primacy Over the Apostles is not Logically Supported in the Scripture
The idea that Peter is pre-eminent over the apostles isn’t something that is directly supported at all in scripture. Jesus, the other apostles, and even Peter considered himself to be undistinguished from the other apostles. This would make sense, as Jesus embodied and instructed humility in His life and impressed on His disciples to the do the same.
Luke 22:24: A dispute also started among them over which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25 So Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ 26 Not so with you; instead the one who is greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is seated at the table, or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is seated at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.
This is pretty late into Jesus’ ministry, chronologically speaking, it is right after the Lord’s Supper if we take Luke’s account. Now, Luke is largely considered to be written in chronological order and so is Matthew. So, reason with me for a bit.
Jesus’ christening of Peter (Mat 16) occurred well before the Lord’s Supper (Mat 26). This is also the same in Mark, where Peter confesses in Mark 8 and the last supper occurs in Mark 14. Let’s cut the pretense, in all three synoptic Gospels, the question of who is the greatest is after Peter’s confession (Mat 16, Mark 9, Luke 22). So, if Peter is already the Rock of the Church who alone possess the keys to heaven, why are the other disciples bickering over who is the greatest? More important than that, why did Jesus not exalt Peter? Instead, Jesus preaches humility under God, and offers them all equal thrones.
Luke 22: “You are the ones who have remained with me in my trials. Thus I grant to you a kingdom, just as my Father granted to me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
Here it is again in Matthew:
Matthew 19:27: Then Peter said in reply, “See, we have left everything and followed you. What then will we have?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, I say to you, in the new world, when the Son of Man will sit on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
Why did Jesus not distinguish Peter or speak of an elevated office? Because He never wanted that, the only way to believe that is to entirely overlook and disrespect His ministry as a humbled servant under God. Which is why when the disciples ask Jesus to name one of them as the greatest, He strikes down any form of legal hierarchy with our opening verse of choice:
Luke 22:25 So Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those in authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ 26 Not so with you; instead the one who is greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is seated at the table, or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is seated at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.
Attaining offices of power is something ascribed to the foolishness of Gentiles. Jesus specifically says that His disciples are not to be like that. Much like when in Matthew 23 when Jesus condemns the Pharisees for flaunting their empty religious positions and tiles. Instead, Jesus ascribes His disciples a system of merit based on who humility and service. Of course, who alone is distinguished in this hierarchy? Jesus.
Peter (Still) Can’t Be the Rock or Cornerstone of the Church… and the Apostles Agree
We’re not done here yet, because even after Jesus ascended the apostles never insinuated Peter as holding a greater power, either. Peter being the Rock of the church would have certainly been news to Paul, who was apparently off laying his own foundation. Notice how the true foundation is still Jesus.
1 Corinthians 3:10 According to the grace of God given to me, like a skilled master builder I laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it. Let each one take care how he builds upon it. 11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
How could Paul be laying his own foundation if Peter is the foundation of the church? Even if Christ is the foundation Peter is laying, why is Paul laying his own if it was entrusted to Peter specifically? Paul actually refers to all Apostles as building upon the foundation of the church, not just Peter, in Ephesians 2:20:
Ephesians 2:20: You are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Christ Jesus himself is the cornerstone.
This only makes sense if the discerning Christian comes to the logical conclusion that Jesus built the church on the confession of Him as the Christ instead on Peter. This is why God referred to Himself as the sole Rock in Isaiah, Jesus refers to himself as the cornerstone in Matthew, and why Paul refers to Jesus as the sole foundation in Ephesians. Context matters. Context matters to Peter too, who not only considered the other apostles equal to him, but then explains that laypeople can obtain an equivalent to his faith through the righteousness of Jesus:
2 Peter 1:1: Simeon Peter, a slave and an apostle of Jesus Christ: To those who have obtained a faith of equal privilege with ours through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.
Peter Also Rejects this Notion of Primacy
Peter does not refer to himself as Holy Father, or Chief Shepherd, or High Bishop; he is simply one of the apostles. He refers to himself as a slave, not the representative of Christ, and claims to possess the same righteousness that Christ metes out to all committed Christians. I can do better though, let’s take a look at another one of Peter’s letters:
1 Peter 5:1: So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3 not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. 5 Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.”
Look at that, Peter considers himself a common elder. Why? Because Peter is not a power hungry, dogma addled fool, but instead a dedicated disciple of Jesus. Hence, Peter explains why the Christian church does not have a strict theological hierarchy by echoing Jesus’ words in Matthew. Jesus is still the chief shepherd, the flock is still God’s, and God still opposes the proud. No wonder Peter didn’t call himself Holy Father or Highest Bishop, or Chief Shepherd. Those titles were never his, and to take them would very clearly be displeasing to God.
This is why Peter refused to allow Cornelius to venerate him, he knew he was not to expect any special reverence.
Acts 10:25: So when Peter came in, Cornelius met him, fell at his feet, and worshiped him. But Peter helped him up, saying, “Stand up, I too am only a man.
The same reverence the Pope demands in being labeled as “His Holiness” and the clergy demand by being called titles such as “Father” are clearly not practiced in Peter. Peter refers to himself as a servant, an apostle, and an elder, nothing more. He didn’t consider himself to be doctrinally infallible, he didn’t consider himself elevated among the other apostles, and he didn’t want veneration from men. In this, Peter’s living out the teachings during his Discipleship in Christ.
Roman Catholicism Rejects the Will of Jesus by Propping Up the False Papacy With Pompous Titles and Undeserved Reverence, like Jesus said the Gentiles do
This Christian humility is lost in the Catholic Magisterium:
Let everyone revere the deacons as Jesus Christ, the bishop as the image of the Father, and the presbyters as the senate of God and the assembly of the apostles. For without them one cannot speak of the Church. (CCC, 1554).
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Unam Sanctam, 1302).
I dare you to find me one single instance, in the entirety of the New Testament, where a disciple or apostle asked to be revered or regarded as the image of Christ, literally or metaphorically. I especially implore you to find an instance of Peter stating that subjection to him is necessary for salvation.
Peter doesn’t feign humility and then demand glory either, like some hypocrite. He practices what he preaches.
If the Apostles Had an Earthly Leader it Would be James
In the incredibly important Council of Jerusalem, where the church was to decide its relationship with the Gentiles and how Gentiles would conduct themselves as Christians, the apostle James gave the final word on the council, not Peter:
Acts 15:12: The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written: 16 “‘After this I will return and rebuild David’s fallen tent. Its ruins I will rebuild, and I will restore it, 17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who bear my name, says the Lord, who does these things’ 18 things known from long ago.”
19 It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
This isn’t the first time the scriptures distinguish James amongst the other apostles. When Peter is saved from prison, he explicitly singles out James amongst the apostles:
Acts 12:17: But motioning to them with his hand to be silent, he described to them how the Lord had brought him out of the prison. And he said, “Tell these things to James and to the brothers.” Then he departed and went to another place.
This would also be a good place to state that Peter did not preside over the dispensing of the apostles. He himself was actually sent:
Acts 8:14: When the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had welcomed God’s message, they sent Peter and John to them. After they went down there, they prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Spirit.
Why is Luke putting all of this stock in distinguishing James, while not once exalting Peter to any form of headship, if Peter was regarded as the head of the church? Because Peter never was.