And Blessed Jerome, although he says that the Lord made Peter the head of the Apostles, acknowledges that the promise given to the Apostle Peter was given to all the other Apostles. "You say," he writes, "the Church was founded on Peter; this is true, but in another place it is said about all the Apostles, that it was built on them, and they all received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven... In equal measure, the strength of the Church is established on them."

Thus, contrary to the assertion of the Vatican Council, from the point of view of the Apostles and according to the teaching of the Church from the earliest times, the stone that gives the Church strength and steadfastness, who gives Her invincibility through the gates of hell, is only the incarnate Son of God. All others are only living stones from which the house of God, the Church, is formed, and the Apostles and prophets are also the historical foundation on which the Church is built (Eph. II, 20), and in this historical first layer-foundation, the Apostle Peter undoubtedly plays an honorable and visible role. But the Stone, which gives strength and inviolability, is Christ alone. No one else, not even the greatest Apostle, is for the Church an unshakable and invincible foundation, therefore "the transfer of these qualities to the first in importance in the then undivided universal Church of Christ, the Bishop of Rome, is nothing else than the transfer to the creation and disciple of that which belongs only to the divine Teacher, belongs to the head of the new humanity – the Son of God," in which the Church is rooted in such a way, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, for its foundation is the Conqueror of hell Himself.

2) "Simone! Simone! Behold, Satan has asked to sow you as wheat. But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and thou shalt be converted and strengthen thy brethren" (Lk. XXII, 31–32).

"Every word here is important," writes the defender of the Vatican's teaching about the Pope, W. Johnson, in his work "One Lord, One Faith." – "Satan asked to sow you as wheat": a cruel test falls on the entire small corporation. "But I pray for you, that your faith may not fail." Our Lord singles out one from a small corporation and He prays for him specifically. "And when thou art converted, though he may fall partially, Divine Intercession shall preserve him, strengthen thy brethren"; and after the trial, St. Peter is to be the pillar and leader of the rest of the Apostles." "Our Lord consciously singles out St. Peter from a small corporation and emphasizes the fact that, as much as James and John would seem fit to be 'first and second,' the position of leadership is given to St. Peter..." What can be said about this interpretation of the words of the Savior? "A pitiful stretch! To interpret the words of the Savior in this way is a great impiety in the eyes of the Apostle Peter himself.

Poor little corporation! The Lord leaves it without His Divine Intercession at the onset of a severe trial, and, "singling out one from a small corporation – the Apostle Peter – He specifically prays for him"... And yet, in the presence of the Divine Intercession for one Peter, the "ordinary" members of the small corporation only fled at the onset of trials, and the Apostle Peter, who was singled out to be "the pillar and leader of the rest" of the members of the corporation, denied his Intercessor.

A special danger is approaching the ardent-hearted, impetuous Apostle Peter, which requires a special prayer for him: all eleven will flee, but only Peter will renounce the eleven. And this was the work of Satan: having received Judas, Satan decided to receive Peter as well, and only the deliberate prayer of Jesus Christ saved Peter from eternal destruction. To deduce from the quoted text (Lk. XXII, 31-32) to prove the superiority of the Roman throne is a strange and unnatural stretch. Restored through the prayer of Christ, the Apostle Peter, who has gone through severe trials, is called upon to "strengthen his brethren," and much later, instructing his brothers in the faith, Peter prays to God: "That He may strengthen, that He may make them immovable" (1 Pet. V, 10). The words of the Apostle Luke clearly state that the Apostle Peter was the first among the Apostles, but the first not in authority, not in office, but the first in temptations and dangers from Satan, and that only the prayer of Jesus saved him from the fate of Judas.

3) It is natural to see in the threefold words of the confession of Love for the Lord a counterbalance to the threefold denial, and in the threefold words of the Lord – the restoration of Peter to the apostolic calling and dignity (Jn. XXI, 15–20). And this passage of Holy Scripture does not provide a basis for papal claims to dominion in the Church, much less to infallibility. Let us also draw our attention to the following: a) Jesus Christ Himself does not call Peter by his apostolic name, but calls him three times by his pre-apostolic name – Simon, son of Jonah – why? b) And the angel says to the women: "Go and tell His disciples and Peter" (Mk. XVI, 7), placing Peter outside the disciples – why? But because after the threefold denial from Jesus (1st: "I do not know and do not understand what you say", 2nd: denial with an oath, 3rd: denial with an oath and godliness), the disciple of Jesus, one of the twelve, the Apostle Peter, did not appear in the courtyard of the high priest. In the courtyard of the high priest, a stone torn from the Rock ("petra") – Christ falls down to the simple fisherman Simon, son of Jonah; and on the shore of the Lake of Galilee, Simon the son of Jonah gradually rises, through a threefold question and his humble answer, to the former height of the Apostle: the fallen stone (petros) is reunited with its Rock (petra).

How alien to the whole gospel of Christ is the idea of headship, the primacy of authority, in the Church and among the Apostles, is eloquently testified by the conversation of Jesus Christ with the sons of Zebedee (Matt. XX, 21–28; Mk. X, 37–45; Lux. XXII, 24–27). This is a principle of the pagans, alien to the spirit of Christ. "When they heard, ten were indignant with the two brothers," says the Apostle Matthew; "And when they heard it, ten began to be indignant with James and John," confirms the Apostle Mark. Twelve were divided: ten were indignant at two, though not two, but ten, two were mistaken. But indignation is an atmosphere that should not exist among the twelve, and therefore the Teacher with all clarity and with all sharpness condemns the striving for the primacy of two out of the twelve, and thereby restores peace among them.

Why does Rome still continue to place the Apostle Peter in the first place among the twelve? And another question: why does Rome consider the bishop of Rome to be the successor of the Apostle Peter, and not the bishop of Jerusalem or Antioch? After all, according to the ancient reliable tradition, the Apostle Peter first played a leading role in Jerusalem, and only later did it pass to James; and the Church of Antioch, in which believers first began to be called Christians, was founded by Peter. The Latins do not give an answer to this. In Origen we read: "Ignatius, the second bishop after Peter"; in Eusebius: "Peter, the supreme Apostle, having first founded his Church in Antioch, goes to Rome, preaching the Gospel; he, after the Church in Antioch, was the first to preside over the Church in Rome until his death." And Pope Innocent, in a letter to Bishop Alexander of Antioch, calls the Church of Antioch "the first cathedra of the first Apostle."

It would be strange to deny that the Apostle Peter has a leading role in the life of the Christian community, but this role in no way provides grounds for the claims of the Romans to Peter's supremacy and infallibility.

Yes, the Apostle Peter proposes to elect a twelfth to replace the departed Judas, and he speaks in the name of the Apostles before the people and before the authorities, through him the Holy Spirit rebukes and punishes Ananias and Sapphira, he is the first to preach to the Gentiles, with his speech the opening of the Apostolic Council. The Apostle Peter enjoys a certain authority among the Apostles: he is the first among them, but not the ruler over the Apostles, not their leader, but the first among equals, and this is confirmed by the following facts: the Apostle Peter proposes, but all the Apostles elect Judas's deputy; hearing that the Samaritans had received the word of God, the Apostles who were in Jerusalem sent Peter and John to them; on the question of receiving Gentile believers into the Church, the decision is made not by Peter alone, but by the Apostolic Council; Peter opens the council with his speech, but James adds to his proposal, and it is accepted by all with the addition of James.

Nor is the Roman idea of papal infallibility successive from the Apostle Peter unfounded, for the Apostle Peter could not pass on to his "successor" that infallibility in matters of Truth, which he himself did not possess. We have precise indications from the Holy Scriptures that the Apostle Peter himself wavered in the truth: immediately after confessing Christ as the Son of God on behalf of all the disciples, Peter is confused by the words of Jesus about the impending torments and His death on the cross, and, taking Jesus aside, begins to object to Him: "Be merciful to Thyself, O Lord," for which he immediately receives a stern rebuff from the lips of Christ: "Get thee behind me, Satan; thou art a stumbling block unto me: for thou thinkest not of the things of God, but of the things of men," and this is said immediately after Christ blesses him: "Thou art Peter..." And after this comes his falling away, renunciation of Christ and restoration to the apostolic dignity.

In spite of a certain leading role, we see that even after the descent of the Holy Spirit, the Apostle Peter does not remain infallible: in Antioch he gives rise to reproaches against him by deviating from the decision that he himself, together with the other Apostles, together with the other Apostles, deviates from the decision that he himself, together with the other Apostles, drew at the Jerusalem Council, and receives a severe rebuke from the Apostle Paul. And the Acts of the Apostles and the entire history of the Church, although they teach us to honor with reverent love the podvig and lofty ministry of the Apostle Peter, do not provide any basis for a theory that deduces from this ministry of the Apostle the claims to dominion over the Church of his "successor," the Bishop of Rome. The dominion over the Church and infallibility in matters of faith did not belong to the Apostle Peter, otherwise – how could the Apostle Paul so boldly contradict him in Antioch and reproach him with "hypocrisy"? And if the Apostle Peter had supremacy over all the eleven, then how could the Apostles, together with John, send him to Samaria? And why was the Apostolic Council needed then?

Characteristic of the Vatican's development of the theory of the supremacy of the pope is the introduction into the Roman Trebnik (about 1600) of the words according to which Christ allegedly handed over to the Apostle Peter the kingdoms of the whole world: "Thou art the shepherd of the sheep, to thee God has handed over all the kingdoms of the world." The Gospel does not know such words of Christ to Peter, these words were spoken to Christ by the tempter: "I will give Thee all the kingdoms of the world."