Catholics believe that Peter was the first vicar of Christ and was the first pope. A Catholic pamphlet asserts this, thus: "Yes, Peter was the first Vicar of Christ. . . Peter was the first Pope." (Why Millions call him ''Holy Father," p.6)
Surprisingly, however, this same pamphlet of the Catholic Church categorically states that "Christ Never Called Peter 'Pope' (Ibid. p. I).
Church historian Renwick gives us this historical finding:
"We may note, however, that there was no foundation for the claim of the Roman Church that Peter was bishop of Rome for twenty-five years from 42 to 67 A.D." (The Story of the Church, pp. 14-15)
Author Loraine Boettner says in the book, Roman Catholicism:
"There is in fact no New Testament evidence, nor any historical proof of any kind, Peter ever was in Rome. All rests on legend." (p. 117)
"All of this makes it quite certain that Peter never was in Rome at all. Not one of the early church fathers gives any support to the belief that Peter was a bishop in Rome until Jerome in the fifth century." (Roman Catholicism, p. 122)
The early fathers of the Catholic Church were not convinced that Peter had become bishop of Rome or that he ever had reached the place for that matter. Notably, they were not the only ones who dismissed this belief. Even Catholic scholars reject such claim. Bishop Stephen Neill says:
"Most scholars reject as unhistorical the tradition that the Apostle Peter was, and was recognized as being, the first Bishop of Rome." (The Christian Society, p. 36)
In the magazine The Sunday Times, published on December 24, 1950, the Roman pontiff came out with an announcement:
"...the Pope announced officially the discovery of the tomb of Saint Peter beneath the great Basilica which bears his name. But the Pope said that it was not possible to prove with certainty that the human bones found in the tomb were really those of Saint Peter." (pp. 1,2)
"Finding no trace of the papacy in the days of the apostles I said to myself, I shall find what I am in search of in the annals of the church. Well, I say it frankly I have sought for a pope in the first four centuries, and I have not found him." [Bishop Strossmayer's Speech (in the Vatican Council of 1870), p. 10]
Having found no trace of the papacy in the era of the apostles in the New Testament, the good bishop continued his search in the annals of church history but, alas, he found out that there was no trace of the papacy in the first four centuries after the death of the apostles either. His findings were a devastating blow on the allegation that Apostle Peter had reached Rome and served as its bishop. Said he:
"But it is said on all sides, Was not St. Peter at Rome? Was he not crucified with his head down? Are not the pulpits in which he taught, the altars at which he said the mass, in this eternal city? St. Peter having been at Rome, my venerable brethren, rests only on tradition..." (Ibid, p. 9)
There is no evidence in both the New Testament and history books that Peter ever was in Rome. Thus, the papacy's claim of apostolic succession is plainly baseless. And, instead of coming out with positive evidence for the alleged authority and infallibility of the papacy, Strossmayer came out with this revealing conclusion:
"This century is unfortunate, as for nearly 150 years the popes have fallen from all the virtues of their predecessors, and have become apostates rather than apostles' ." (Ibid, p. 20)
His words said it all. The Catholic Church is not the true Church. It is the apostate Church
Against Biblical Facts
The claim that Apostle Peter had once become a bishop of Rome is against the teachings of the Bible. Peter had a particular assignment where he performed his ministry. In Galatians 2:7-8, this is recorded:
"On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. "For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles." (New Intemational Version)
Rome was known to be a Gentile world. It was Apostle Paul, not Apostle Peter, who had jurisdiction over the Gentiles as he was particularly assigned as the apostle to the Gentiles. Peter was apostle to the Jews and he could not have left his post and gone to Rome to preach there. It is not surprising, therefore, that church historians and even Catholic authorities themselves could not find any trace or indication that Apostle Peter had ever been in Rome and assumed the office of Bishop in that ancient city.
"The New Testament does not so much as give us a single unmistakable intimation that Peter was ever in Rome; and, even if the reality of such a visit be allowed, his connection with the church at Rome remains before the eyes of history a dim and misty thing compared with his connection with the church at Jerusalem. There is nothing in the nature of the case to assure us that Peter would fix upon the Bishop of Rome The Roman theory runs here into the region of pure assumption, and impinges, moreover, upon a very considerable incongruity." (History of the Christian Church, v. 1, pp. 70-72)
No comments:
Post a Comment