There are
many good books that refute the Roman Catholic dogmas relating to the papacy
and its authority, including my personal favourite:
Edward
Denny, Papalism:
A Treatise on the Claims of the Papacy as Set Forth in the Encyclical
Satis Cognitum (1912)
A recent
book that addresses many modern Roman Catholic apologists (e.g., Steve Ray; Trent
Horn; Jimmy Akin) is that of
Paul Pavao, Rome's Audacious Claim: Should EveryChristian Be Subject to the Pope? (Selmer, Tenn.: Greatest Stories Ever
Told, 2019)
Not only does he engage with the best Rome has to offer, Pavao does
not engage in an “all but the kitchen sink” approach of some of the weaker
critics of the Papacy, and even refutes the lame petros/petra argument:
The common Protestant argument that Peter
(Gr. Petros) cannot be “the rock”
(Gr. Petra) because petros means “pebble” and petra means “boulder” is not true. Petros does not necessarily mean pebble,
nor necessarily differ from Petra.
Peter could not have been called Petra,
because Petra is feminine. Finally,
Jesus was almost certainly speaking in Aramaic, where both words would have
been Kephas. (p. 28)
