One of the most ironic things about Catholicism is that in order to defend their own alleged authority, they must destroy their own alleged foundations. This is most easily demonstrated with the Papacy. In the modern Catholic Church, there is no higher authority than the Pope. It is claimed that the rock upon which Christ builds His Church is Peter, and that the Popes are his successors. He, and the successors of the other Apostles, supposedly have teaching authority so great that "...no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,--wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold,..." (Council of Trent, Session 4, "Decree Concerning the Edition, and the Use, of the Sacred Books").
Effectively, the Pope has more authority than the Bible. But what do we do when a supposed Pope wrote the Bible? Peter isn't a historical figure known from a narrative he never penned. Rather, aside from the possibility that he had a hand in Mark's Gospel, Peter also wrote two epistles.
Now, Catholics are quite divided on when to listen to the Pope. But there is one time when they agree he is infallible: When he speaks "ex cathedra". Conveniently, this doesn't happen very often, but given that the Catholic Church also teaches "both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence", and even "...Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit...", it seems absurd to dismiss a single word of Peter's epistles. In these epistles, we have the supposed first Pope writing, in his office as Christ's Apostle, under direct inspiration of God.
And that he was writing under divine inspiration, for that matter. In 2 Peter 1:16-21, we read "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty. For He received from God the Father honor and glory when such a voice came to Him from the Excellent Glory: “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain. And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation, for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit."
Now, while Catholics, in keeping with the decree of Trent, often expect us to privately interpret this scripture to mean you can't privately interpret scripture, this shows us the true origins of scripture. It isn't some cleverly devised fable, but rather, is a result of the Holy Spirit moving God's messengers to speak and write. Peter also had the advantage, not only of observation, but having the Holy Spirit remind him of what he observed (John 14:26). And so Peter is able to say "And so we have the prophetic word confirmed, which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts". Now tell me, what do lights do? They enable you to see. If you need someone's help to see a light, it's because you're blind, so a surgeon must fix or replace your eyes. But scripture itself is a light. We need no one to help us see it, but rather, it helps us see everything else.
In this same epistle, Peter also confirms the canonical status of Paul's works. In 2 Peter 3:16, Peter not only affirms that Paul's epistles are scripture, written "...according to the wisdom given to him..." (v15), but that twisting what is written in them leads to destruction. Just like "...the rest of the Scriptures." In other words, even while Peter and Paul were still breathing, the scriptures were known to the Church. This puts quite a damper on the Catholic claim that there was no Bible until some 400 years later, until they made it so...
In confirming Paul's epistles, Peter also did us the favor of affirming 1 Corinthians 4:6: "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other." This single verse, confirmed to be scripture comparable to the Torah by the supposed first Pope, destroys the notion that Peter even could be the first Pope. Why? Because thinking of Peter as the Pope would be thinking of him what was not written. There is no Papacy in scripture. In fact, Jesus flat out said "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." (Matthew 23:9). Now, if we're not supposed to call anyone on Earth our father, because God is our Father, what right have we to call a fraudulent successor of Peter "Holy Father"? Especially given that this is not written of him.
In fact, it isn't written of him anywhere in the first few centuries of the Church. Catholics will search in vain for references to such a character. In fact, irony of ironies, Augustine did not even believe Peter was the rock! Rather, he believed "The rock is Christ, Who gave to His apostles that they also should be called rocks, 'thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church". (Commentary on Amos).
When, exactly, the Papacy evolved is disputed, but its absence in the early Church is blinding. Thus, Catholics rely on John Henry Newman's concept of "Development of Doctrine". That is, the standard Catholic excuse for why Church history is not as Catholic as they want you to believe it was. According to this theory, Catholicism has always been fundamentally the same religion, but its doctrines needed clarifying over time. Thus, its doctrines appear absent, much like the Trinity, but later councils would go on to show that such things were true the whole time.
But this still doesn't solve the problem of the missing Papacy, simply because true doctrines, like the Trinity, are actually not missing. When I go to Trinity-deniers, I don't appeal to some council. In fact, ironically, they do. They go to the councils and say "see? The early Church didn't believe the Trinity, this council just made it up." So, what do I do? I go to scripture. Because the Bible really does say there is one God, but it also identifies 3 separate, co-equal beings, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as God. That is the Trinity! Thus, since the early Church believed scripture, they believed the Trinity.
But if you want to find the Papacy in scripture, you're going to have to look for general condemnations of certain sins and heresies. "Do not call anyone on earth your father;". Oop, Catholics call the Pope their Holy Father. "...that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other." Oop, Catholics think of the Pope beyond what is written of them, and it certainly causes them to be puffed up.
We could go on for quite some time just showing the ways in which Peter alone differed from the Popes of history (and I have). The idea that Peter was the first Pope, or any kind of Pope at all, is one of the most anti-historical beliefs in the modern Catholic Church. But it does mean that we, as Christians, have full permission from the Catholic Church to study the actual words of scripture. Not that we needed it, but apparently, Catholics need to be told they have that same luxury. Thus, I conclude this article by begging Catholics to listen to "the first Pope". The sooner you get your nose in the Bible, the sooner you will see the heresy that is Catholicism, and flee the devil to your true refuge: Jesus Christ. Let Peter decrease, that Christ may increase.