With a clear track record of the Roman Catholic Church committing numerous forgeries, lies, and deceptions why would you assume that Peter was the Rock and the foundation of their doctrine?
I am a Protestant minister, a traditional Congregationalist, and I take exception to that. I am unaware of any institutional problems of actual dishonesty regarding doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church. The only period of time where there existed what some people call “pious frauds” I am aware of is the period immediately leading up to the Reformation, relating to the sale of indulgences, which was a practice that in the wake of the Reformation, the Roman church recognized as prone to abuse and discontinued. Otherwise, any lies and deceptions would be the same as in any other church, which is to say, there exist politics in every church, and unfortunately not everyone who is ordained is worthy to be a presbyter or bishop.
Now, specifically regarding Peter being the Rock, the Oriental Orthodox churches believe this, as do some Eastern Orthodox, in that Peter according to tradition recognized by all three churches was the initial leader of the Church in Antioch, before moving to Rome. Additionally, Mark the Evangelist is traditionally recognized by all Orthodox Christians (Eastern and Oriental) and by many Anglicans including the large number who live in Egypt as being Peter’s disciple and the first leader of the church in Alexandria.
Consequently, there are three “Petrine Sees”, Antioch, Rome and Alexandria, and in the early church, these three churches were the most important centers of Christian leadership during the period between the destruction and rebuilding of Jerusalem in the early second and early fourth century, prior to the relocation of the Roman capital to Byzantion, which became known as Constantinople and as New Rome.
There is a compelling scriptural and historical reason for Peter to have travelled to Rome to lead the church there, and his name is Simon Magus. All of the ancient histories agree he travelled west, impersonating the Apostles, and ultimately wound up in Rome. Whereas Paul was a prisoner in Rome, and ministered to the gentiles through his disciples, it makes sense that Peter would go to Rome to evangelize the Jewish population and also to debunk Simon Magus.
We see examples in the New Testament of Peter having a limited role as servant-leader, not absolute, because Paul, for example, was free to disagree with him firmly and persuaded him to his position, and James the son of Alfeus, the first bishop of the Church of Jerusalem and author of the epistle clearly was presiding at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, but it is clear, and indeed undisputed among the great Protestant reformers (Hus, Luther, Calvin, Cranmer, Melancthon, and others) that Peter did have some leadership role, and the Orthodox agree, even though they, particularly the Eastern Orthodox, interpret Matthew 16 as attributing much of the authority mentioned therein to the Apostles as a whole, which seems reasonable to me.
However, I completely reject the idea of any malfeasance or intentional deception regarding the general doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church. They may be mistaken on some points, but that does not prove any kind of malfeasance. Conversely, I believe we can show malfeasance in several non-Christian cults which exist on the fringes of Christianity and seek to bait and trap Christians, for example, the Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, and Christian Science (which fortunately is dying off; that cult is particularly insidious because of its policy of discouraging to an extreme degree members from seeking medical attention, which has lead to many premature and preventable deaths such as that of Jim Henson, who died from an untreated throat infection; conversely, the Roman Catholic Church and other mainstream churches including Adventists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists and other denominations, and the Jewish community, built many exceedingly good hospitals around the world).
