# 2 Catholic-Protestant Exchange

Catholic:

Sir: Here’s my first answer to your questions # 1-8:

You seem to hang your argument that Peter was never Pope on your claim that Jesus restricted Peter to being only the apostle to the Jews, while making Paul the apostle to the Gentiles. Your reasoning runs like this: Since Peter was head of only a local church, he couldn’t have been the head of the Church, he could never have been Pope.

Indeed doesn’t Mt 10:5 say “These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans.” And, nicely corroborating everything, doesn’t Acts 9:15-16 say “ But the Lord said to Ananias, "Go! This man is my chosen instrument to carry my name before the Gentiles and their kings and before the people of Israel. I will show him how much he must suffer for my name."

Finally, and for good measure, didn’t the three pillars of the Church Peter, James, John confirmed Paul’s appointment as apostle to the Gentiles?


Very compelling reasons, were it not for two passages -- Acts 1:8 and Mt 24:14-- that seem to suggest otherwise.

Acts 1:8

“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."

Mt 24:14

“And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”


To me, it looks like these two passages are clear enough on one point: the kingdom is to be proclaimed to all nations and in all times, and the Apostles were to do it. Which is just as it should be, for, certainly, Jesus didn’t come to save only those people alive during his time, and only those the Apostles could reach. Surely, Jesus came to save all.

Which can only mean that both sets of passages quoted above are all true.

The Apostles skipped the Gentiles and avoided entering any town of the Samaritans. But the fact that they did doesn’t mean they didn’t venture into Gentile country perhaps at some later time; in the same way that, since God chose Paul as his chosen instrument to carry his name before the Gentiles and their kings, and to the people of Israel, it couldn’t possibly happen that Peter and the other apostles worked also with Gentiles.


See, this is another example of that funny “Protestant” either/or dichotomy: since salvation is a gift, it cannot be a reward, even for a human act which has God as its beginning and end; since it’s God who acts in man’s salvation, it couldn’t be man (which is the case, since it’s God and man, God’s grace working with man’s cooperation).

How and where did the Apostles die? Except for James (Acts 12:2), you don’t know, simply because the details are not found in the Bible (you couldn’t even say how Paul died, and for the same reason: it’s not found in the Bible).

How then, could you be sure that all of them died in Jerusalem? Which is the position that you would necessarily take if you insist the Apostles never worked with Gentiles