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)
