Peter was never "pope"
The Pope is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, the bishop of Rome, and Roman Catholics believe that this makes him the head of the universal Christian Church. This claim hinges on something called “apostolic succession”, that the pope’s authority has been transferred from the previous pope, and the one before that, and the one before that, all the way back to the apostle Peter. Peter was without a doubt an apostle and a hugely influential and important person who is worthy of praise. But was he pope? Was Peter the supreme leader of universal Christianity whose authority could be transferred to successors? I say no, and here’s a few reasons why.
Acts 15 - James makes a ruling
In Acts 15, Luke writes about the Jerusalem Council, an important meeting of the early church. In the presence of other apostles, including Peter, James makes a ruling about whether or not Gentiles were required to uphold the entire Old Testament law. Peter speaks and affirms that Gentiles may be saved, but it’s James who specifically gives judgement.
After they finished speaking, James replied, “Brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first visited the Gentiles, to take from them a people for his name. And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written, “‘After this I will return, and I will rebuild the tent of David that has fallen; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will restore it, that the remnant of mankind may seek the Lord, and all the Gentiles who are called by my name, says the Lord, who makes these things known from of old.’ but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood. Therefore my judgment is that we should not trouble those of the Gentiles who turn to God, but should write to them to abstain from the things polluted by idols, and from sexual immorality, and from what has been strangled, and from blood.
Acts 15:13-20 Emphasis added
If Peter was the supreme chief of Christianity, he would have been the one to render this judgement. It isn’t like James was issuing this statement on Peter’s behalf or in his absence. Peter had just finished speaking before James made this judgement. Peter was clearly an influential and important person worthy of respect, but he isn’t filling the role of “pope” here.
1 Peter 5 - Peter identifies himself as an elder
1 Peter is a letter written by Peter. Let’s take a look, first, at how he introduces himself.
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for sprinkling with his blood: May grace and peace be multiplied to you.
“An apostle of Jesus Christ” is certainly a notable title, and again worthy of respect. However, if Peter was the head of the entire church, it would be reasonably expected that he would introduce himself that way. A few chapters later, Peter refers to himself as a “fellow elder”.
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: 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;
Peter is indeed displaying humility in a passage that instructs elders how to shepherd their flock. He very specifically refers to himself as a “fellow elder” and not as “pope” or in any other way that would indicate he has a unique designation of primacy. It would seem that Peter certainly didn’t think he was the pope.
Acts 17 - Search the scriptures
Let’s take a quick peek at Acts 17:11 and then discuss why it’s important.
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.
This verse describes how it’s critical to validate the things we are taught are upheld by scripture. If someone teaches a doctrine that contradicts the Bible, the Bible is the authority and the contradictory teaching should be corrected or discarded.
Why am I bringing this up? Because the doctrine of papacy is found nowhere in scripture. Roman Catholics point to this passage in Matthew 16.
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
The problem is that this interaction completely fails to affirm the papacy. It isn’t clear that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus will build the church. It seems more likely that the rock of the church is Jesus (the stone the builders rejected who is now the cornerstone) or Peter’s proclamation that Jesus is the Son of God (a fundamental premise of Christianity).
If Peter is the rock, then this passage still fails to affirm the papacy. It says nothing about apostolic succession (that the title of The Rock is transferrable), authority over the church, infallibility, or any other special designation. If you accept that Peter is the rock referred to in this scripture, it’s more likely that Jesus was charging Peter to go be an influential figure in the early church, to build up the church with sound teachings and evangelism (something he certainly fulfilled), not granting him unique authority. Only a couple verses later, Jesus firmly corrects Peter.
But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.” And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord! This shall never happen to you.”
Not very pope-y.
The Gospel According to Mark was written by, of course, Mark. Mark was a close companion of Peter and Mark’s Gospel is basically Peter’s testimony. Let’s look at the same interaction we just looked at in Matthew as it’s recorded in Mark.
And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?” And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.” And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.” And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him.
Nothing at all about a rock, about building the church upon anything. Instead, it seems that Mark/Peter was concerned principally with highlighting the important part of this interaction: Jesus is the Christ. If Jesus’ statement that Peter was being granted any specific authority or unique title or anything else at all that remotely supports the papacy, wouldn’t the gospel composed mostly of Peter’s testimony include it?
Indeed there is no scripture whatsoever to support the office or designation of pope.
The problem with human organizations
Roman Catholics have to refer to the teachings of church fathers and apocryphal texts (important and valuable, to be sure, but not scripture) to try and support their more controversial doctrines because the Bible doesn’t support them. God established the Levites as spiritual authority and they became corrupt and were extremely fallible. Why would we suppose that an organization of men would be any different? What reason is there to suppose that any human could ever be infallible? Tradition is great when the Bible supports it. But there is nothing a human can say or teach and no tradition formed by humans that holds the same authority as the living Word of God, the Bible.
The doctrine of the papacy is clearly not present in the Bible, so we must see it for what it is: a result of corrupt and fallible humans claiming power and the authority of God for themselves. Peter was certainly never pope, and therefore the entire premise is flawed and demands rejection.
Here is a video to watch on this topic that goes into more detail.