Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
11 Protestant Objections to Papal Authority Debunked

11 Protestant Objections to Papal Authority Debunked

Last updated on: July 17, 2026 at 6:39 pm by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

11 Protestant Objections to Papal Authority Debunked 2026-07-17T18:39:33-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

(vs. Lucas Banzoli)

This is the video of the same name (subtitle: “Protestant ‘Pope Fiction'”) and the initial transcript.

Lucas Banzoli is a Brazilian anti-Catholic apologist, 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. He has a Master’s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, is author of 27 self-published books, and is now very active on YouTube. His words will be in blue.

*****

I have refuted his work 69 times (see the Anti-Catholicism web page on my blog). This video is based on some of that. During one three-month period, Banzoli decided to “make a point of rebutting one by one” my counter-replies, but he only made 16 replies before he disappeared in February 2023 and was never heard from again. This is standard anti-Catholic practice with me. They always disappear when they get tired of having their arguments defeated from the Bible and Church history. “If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”: the old saying goes. But anti-Catholics refuse to do that, so they flee to the hills instead.

Lucas was replying to one of my best-known articles, “50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy”. [linked below]

#1 (No Leaders in the Church?) Dave’s study was extremely arbitrary and that it absolutely ignored the total content of the Scriptures that vigorously repudiate all his attempts. . . . Anyone who analyzes the New Testament . . . can easily see how what the Bible overthrows most is the supposed “primacy of Peter.” . . .

Jesus stated that the rulers of nations rule over them and important people exercise power over them, but that would not be the case among the disciples (Mt.10:42,43). Now, if Jesus agreed with the dominion that the pope exercises over others (bishops and clerics), then he would have said just the opposite, that is, that Peter was leader among them, just as the rulers of nations were leaders among them.

Jesus’ point was clearly not about mere leadership, but rather, the spirit in which a ruler rules. He is to be the servant of all, just as Jesus was (the perfect example):

Matthew 20:25 (RSV). . . “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.

Various translations in English bring out His meaning more clearly: “domineer over them” (NASB), “have absolute power . . . [tyrannizing them]” (Amplified), “foreign rulers like to order their people around . . . have full power over everyone they rule” (CEV), “show off their authority over them” (CEB), etc.

Thus, Jesus was simply saying that Christians must not be despots and tyrants, or have a power-hungry, domineering spirit, with a lust for power, like so many secular leaders. The ruler was to serve all. But Jesus had no beef against civil (or Church) government per se. When asked about taxes, He casually said, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s” (Mt 22:21). He wasn’t an anarchist, and believed in Church government, just as He believed in civil government.

The Apostle Paul appealed to Caesar and his Roman citizenship, to be spared from crucifixion (Acts 25:11-12), and he wrote, “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Rom 13:1). Peter commanded Christians to “Be subject for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, or to governors . . . Honor the emperor” (1 Pet 2:13-14, 17). The emperor at the time he wrote was Nero.

Jesus made Peter the leader of the disciples and His new Church, by making him the Rock upon which His Church was built, giving him (and he alone) the keys of the kingdom, and telling him to “Feed my lambs . . . Tend my sheep . . . Feed my sheep” (Jn 21:15-17), and “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).

#2 (“Keys of the Kingdom” Are Peter’s Alone) It was not only Peter who had the power to “bind or loose”, for this authority was given by Christ to all the disciples (Mt.18:18). Again, Peter appears in the same condition of equality with the other apostles, being that they were invested with the same authority as him!

They were all given the same authority only insofar as they all could impose penances or forgive sins (grant absolution); that is, exercise “binding and loosing.” Every priest and bishop today can do that. It doesn’t make them equal to the pope in authority (or all of the disciples equal to Peter in office). In any event, Peter alone was given the “keys of the kingdom” and this meant a singular office of great authority. Many Protestant commentators agree. Here are seven:

The keys are the symbol of authority, . . . the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. (W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, [Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1971], 196)

The image of keys (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration . . . (Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament [Downer’s Grove, Illinois: Intervarsity Press, 1993], 90, 256)

The keys of the kingdom would be committed to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority. (George Buttrick et al, editors, The Interpreter’s Bible [New York: Abingdon, 1951], 453)

The authority of Peter is to be over the Church, and this authority is represented by the keys. (S. T. Lachs, A Rabbinic Commentary on the New Testament: The Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke [Hoboken, New Jersey: Ktav, 1987], 256)

Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ . . . is . . . that of the steward . . . . whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household. (R. T. France, Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1989], 247)

Peter’s role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church. (M. Eugene Boring, Matthew, in Pheme Perkins et al, editors, The New Interpreter’s Bible, vol. 8 [Nashville, Tennessee: Abingdon Press, 1995], 346)

Jesus commits to Peter the keys of his house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house. (Oscar Cullman, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, translated by Floyd V. Filson [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953], 203)

Peter was not the only one who had the “keys”, for Paul and Barnabas “opened the door of faith to the Gentiles” (Acts 24:27), all the apostles had the authority of the keys to “bind and loose” in Matthew 18:18, and the Pharisees themselves held it, but did not use it correctly (Luke 11:52).

“Keys of the kingdom” was a technical term, referring back to Isaiah 22. They were only given to Peter. Acts 24:27 has nothing to do with that. Nor was it applied to the other disciples in Matthew 18:18 because the privileges of the key-bearer were more extensive and exclusive than the powers of “binding and loosing”, as I demonstrated above from seven eminent Protestant commentators.

#3 (Peter’s Denials Compared to Paul’s Persecutions) Peter was the only disciple who publicly denied Jesus in his death (Mt. 26:69-70). He continued to deny Jesus, even after cursing and swearing (Mt.26:74).

Peter, before he had the Holy Spirit, exhibited the usual human weakness, alongside great faith and zeal. Once he was indwelt with the Holy Spirit, after the Resurrection and Pentecost, then he was a bold and fearless leader, eventually being martyred by being crucified upside down.

We could have a field day pointing out the many sins of anyone before they committed themselves to Jesus as a disciple. We need only look as far as St. Paul, for starters. He recalled later in his life: “I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women,” (Acts 22:4; cf. 9:4; 22:7; 26:11, 14; Gal 1:13, 23; 1 Tim 1:13). He lamented his own past: “I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God” (1 Cor 15:9); “I am the foremost of sinners” (1 Tim 1:15).

If we’re gonna run down the past sins of apostles, then we should apply this “indignation” equally to Paul. After all, it takes a lot more sinful will to decide to persecute Christians and kill them for the crime of believing that Jesus was Lord and Messiah, than to lose courage in a moment of fear for one’s life, and deny Jesus as a result. Peter immediately repented upon hearing the cock crow (Mt 26:75; Lk 22:62). His sin and moment of weakness — due to a rational fear for his life in that terrible circumstance — literally lasted just a few minutes. But Paul’s sins went on for some time, and he was so stubborn that he had to be knocked to the ground and more or less forced to convert to Christ. We need to keep things in perspective.

#4 (Peter the Spokesman of the Disciples) Although it is often Peter who goes ahead in answering Christ’s questions [or asking Him things], at other times it is not him. For example, in John 11:26 this role is occupied in the person of Thomas, encouraging all the other disciples to go to death for Christ (John 11:16).

It is Judas (not the Iscariot) who asks about the manifestation of Christ in our lives (Jn.14:22). Again we see that Peter was far from being the one every time someone takes the floor!

This doesn’t defeat my argument that he is responding to, which was: “Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles” (#35 in my original article), not always. And that is significant. It doesn’t have to be 100% / every time / no exceptions, for it to have force as an argument. Being the spokesman “often” shows that the NT is indicating his leadership: in this particular way along with 119 other ways that I compiled in my latest paper about Petrine primacy: all pointing in the same direction.

#5 (Disciples and Access to Jesus) When some “Greeks” wanted to address Jesus, they didn’t go looking for the “leader” Peter as “the mouth of the apostles” to communicate to Jesus. On the contrary, they preferred to address Philip (Jn.12:20). Curiously, Philip also didn’t bother to go to the “leader” Peter, but to Andrew (Jn.12:22). Nor was he concerned to transmit to the “leader” Peter, but he brought the message to Jesus (Jn.12:22). Again, any authority of Peter over the other disciples is unknown!

This doesn’t prove anything whatsoever against Peter’s authority. They simply wanted to “see” Jesus, in most likelihood saw Philip first, and so asked him to lead them to Jesus. Philip didn’t have to go to Peter to figure out where Jesus was. Andrew was probably simply close at hand, so Philip may have asked him something like, “hey these guys want to see Jesus, do you think it’s okay?” and/or, “do you know where Jesus is?” I don’t see that Peter had to be involved every time someone wanted to simply see Jesus. People who desired that would simply ask anyone associated with Jesus who could get them to Him. This is irrelevant in this discussion and just plain silly and desperate. But this sort of majoring on the minors is very typical in “anti-papal” polemics.

#6 (Does Being “Sent” on a Mission Imply Inferiority?) Jesus said that “no one sent is greater than the one who sent him” (Jn.13:16). Interestingly, it was not Peter who sent the missionaries of the church, but he himself who received orders from the others and was sent by the apostles: “The apostles in Jerusalem, hearing that Samaria had accepted the word of God, sent Peter and John there” (Acts 8:14). Therefore, according to Christ’s rules (“the one sent is not greater than the one who sent him”), Peter could only be, at most, on an equal footing with the other apostles. Exactly what all the evidence points to!

This doesn’t follow. Jesus made a proverbial-type statement that doesn’t apply literally to every particular that includes the same word, “sent.” Nor does being commissioned or sent necessarily mean that the one sent is equal or lesser than the ones sending him. If so, then Paul would be no more important or significant than the non-apostolic “elders” at the council of Jerusalem who sent him to Antioch (Acts 15:22, 25), or Simeon, Lucius, and Manaen at Antioch who “sent” him off for further missionary work (Acts 13:1, 3). But ultimately, it was the Holy Spirit, anyway, who sent Paul (Acts 13:2, 4). The Thessalonian “brethren” also “sent” Paul to Berea (Acts 17:1, 10). And the Berean “brethren immediately sent Paul off on his way to the sea” (17:14). So Paul was not greater or more important in the Church than any of these people? That’s what follows from Lucas’ false premise. Therefore, it collapses as a falsehood, by reductio ad absurdum, and this has no relevance to Peter being the leader of the apostles and the Church.

#7 (John “Loved” More Than Peter?) Peter was not “the disciple whom Jesus loved”, but John (John 13:26).

This is plain silly. Virtually all conservative Protestant Bible commentators agree that this description was John referring to himself in his Gospel, and — in humility — not naming himself or saying “I” or “me”. The phrase only appears in John, four times (13:23; 20:2; 21:7, 20; cf. “the other disciple”: 20:2-4, 8). It means nothing more than that and doesn’t imply preference or favoritism. In the same book, Jesus stated three times to the collective of the disciples that He “loved” all of them (Jn 13:34; 15:9, 12), and the Gospel of John also notes that He “loved” Martha and Lazarus (11:5), and all those who kept His commandments and loved Him (14:21). Thus, once again, “much ado about nothing.” It’s remarkable how much this occurs in Lucas’ polemics.

#8 (First in the Empty Tomb, After the Resurrection) The first of the disciples to arrive at the tomb was John, not Peter (Jn.20:4).

So what? All this means is that he could run faster. What does that have to do with being pope? All popes have to be the fastest runners at the Olympics? What’s interesting here is how John acted when he got there first. He didn’t go in the tomb. He waited for Peter, who did go in (Jn 20:5-8). After Peter did that, John followed. It seems pretty clear that this is deference to a leader.

#9 (Peter “Equal” to Cornelius?) Peter was equal to Cornelius, placing himself in the same position as a man, not “above” him (Acts 10:25-26).

Yes; as human beings, because Cornelius “fell down at his feet and worshiped him” (10:25). Peter pointing out that he was a man like Cornelius and therefore was not to be worshiped has no relevance to whether he was pope. No pope (being a man) should be worshiped, either. This is the dumbest and most laughable objection so far. Pathetic . . .

#10 (Who Made the Jerusalem Council Go Silent?) When James spoke, everyone was silent (Acts 15:13).

That was actually 15:12, and it was after Peter spoke, not James. I thank Lucas for confirming one of my arguments. If he thought it was significant if indeed silence had occurred after James’ speech, then he must think so if it happened after Peter talked (which is the actual case). Glad to find a rare agreement!

#11 (Was it Required for Peter to be Called, or Call Himself “Pope”?) 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 – these are all terms totally unknown to Peter. He simply identifies himself the way he was: “apostle” (1Pe.1:1) and “servant” (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 “apostle” and “servant”, as well as all the other apostles!

Paul never called himself an “evangelist” either, even though he was the greatest evangelist of all time, and he uses the word three times. Does it follow that he is not an evangelist? Jesus never called Himself “God” or “God the Son” or even “Savior.” Therefore, He was none of those things, according to this convoluted supposed reasoning? God the Father never calls Himself that in the Bible, even though He is referred to by this name by others many times. Does it follow, then, that He ought not be called “God the Father”?

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 “appointed some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers” (Eph.4:11). Note that neither “pope” nor anything of the sort appears to be an office in the Church. Simply put, Paul innocently “forgets” precisely what is most important within the Catholic Church!

The pope is the bishop of Rome. Lucas forgot to include Paul’s mention of bishops (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-2; Titus 1:7). The office of the papacy, apart from all of the many actions and descriptions in the Bible that show that Peter was the leader of the Church, simply flows from the office of bishop (Phil 1:1; 1 Tim 3:1-2; Titus 1:7, and in Greek, episkopos, translated differently in RSV, also in Acts 1:20; 20:28). See the usage of “elder” (presbyteros) in the Bible also, from Acts to 3 John. Peter calls himself a “fellow elder” in 1 Peter 5:1, and he calls God a “bishop” in 1 Peter 1:25. In Acts, Paul calls elders “overseers” (episkopos):

Acts 20:17, 28 And from Mile’tus he sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders [presbyteros] of the church. . . . [28] Take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers [episkopos], to care for the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son.

Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (one-volume edition) explains further:

In Acts 14:23 Paul and Barnabas ordain elders in the Gentile churches [“they had appointed elders for them in every church”]. The address of 20:18ff. shows that they are to be overseers and pastors administering the apostles’ legacy, following their example and protecting the people against error. The designation of the elders as bishops in 20:28 . . . is of special interest. . . .

Titus is to ordain presbyteroi (1:5) [“appoint elders in every town as I directed you”] . . . The bishops and presbyters seem to be much the same (cf. Tit. 1:5, 7ff.). Yet the bishop is always in the singular and the presbyters are always plural. (p. 933)

St. Peter, then, in light of all of his leadership and teaching qualities, as massively evidenced in Holy Scripture, is a “super-bishop”: that is, the first pope. Paul and Titus also act in “pope-like ways” when they appoint elders in various churches, who essentially function as what we know to be bishops. Popes appoint bishops. All of this shows that an office of the papacy is quite biblical, and popes have successors, just as Paul, analogously, appoints a bishop, Timothy, as his successor (in conjunction with a “council of elders” that ordained him; 1 Timothy 1:1-4, 12, 18-19; 4:6, 11-16; 6:12, 20; 2 Timothy 1:2, 6, 11-14; 2:1-2, 15, 24-26; 4:1-2, 5.

Peter’s first epistle — in large part, at the very least — reads like a primitive papal encyclical. In one section, he writes to those whom we call today priests or pastors, as follows:

1 Peter 5:1-3 So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder . . . [2] Tend the flock of God that is your charge, . . . [3] not as domineering over those in your charge but being examples to the flock.

Peter’s first epistle has a much wider scope than Paul’s letters to local congregations did: “To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,” (1:1), which is characteristic of the universality of a papal encyclical. It suggests a person who has authority over the Church at large.

The New Bible Dictionary (edited by J. D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1962 ed., 973), states that “the address is the widest in the New Testament.” Likewise, The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (edited by Allen C. Myers, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1987, 820): “The letter is apparently intended to be a circular document with wide distribution.”

To be continued . . .

SOURCES

The material in this video was drawn from:

Reply to Lucas Banzoli’s 205 Potshots at St. Peter (4 parts)

Lucas was replying to one of my best-known articles, 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy. I’ve since greatly expanded and revised that:

St. Peter the First Pope: 120 Bible Proofs

St. Peter & the Papal Office: 130 One-Sentence Proofs

RELATED BOOK

Biblical Proofs for an Infallible Church and Papacy (March 2012, 150 pages, $9.99 for PDF + ePUB)

***

Summary: Dave & Kenny dismantle eleven weak anti-papal objections from Brazilian apologist Lucas Banzoli: a man with a master’s in theology who has been refuted by Dave 69 times.

*
***
*

Practical Matters: This is the most comprehensive and multi-faceted Catholic apologetics blog: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT. I offer more than 5,000 free online articles, fifty-eight books, and many scores of videos at the Catholic Bible Highlights YouTube channel (please subscribe!). If you believe my full-time apostolate is worth supporting, please seriously consider financially supporting it. PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. You’ll see the term “Dave Armstrong Bookstore”. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle and 100% tax-deductible donations if desired), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million!