Roman Catholic tradition places Peter in Rome and names him as the first pope. An immediate question might be, “How does Roman Catholic tradition measure up to scripture and historical facts relating to Peter’s travels during his lifetime?” For one to have a fuller understanding of the papacy, some examination of how the pope is view by certain Catholic Apologists might be in order.

In describing the pope one writer offers a grandiose, god-like description of one who is just another human being. He avers,

Our Lord God the pope; another God upon earth, king of kings, and lord of lords. The same is the dominion of God and the pope. To believe that our Lord God the pope might not decree, as he decreed, it were a matter of heresy. The power of the pope is greater than all created power, and extends itself to things celestial, terrestrial, and infernal. The pope doeth whatsoever he listeth [wills], even things unlawful, and is more than God.1

Surely, this is reminiscent of some of the paganism that is mentioned in the Bible. One cannot, in conscience laud any man with titles that should be reserved for Jehovah alone!

This is a woeful departure from the way Peter describes himself in his epistles. The humility of a Galilean fisherman dutifully serving the true head of the church, Jesus Christ, show through in many of his writings.2 Consider how Peter described himself in the following passages. 2 Peter 1:1 “Simon Peter, a bondservant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained like precious faith with us by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ.”

Peter never offers any inspired words describing himself as the head of the church or an exalted figure within the body of Christ. 1 Peter 2:5-7 says, “You also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, ‘Behold, I lay in Zion a Chief Cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believers on Him will bey on means be put to shame.’ Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, ‘The Stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone.’” Contextually, he speaks of Christ as the chief cornerstone and never implicates himself as the foundation of the church.

Moreover, there is absolutely no reliable evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. When the gospels close and the book of Acts is finished, they picture Peter as being in Jerusalem. Paul speaks of meeting Peter in the eastern Mediterranean. The book of Acts describes Peter and James as being leaders in the church located in Jerusalem. Acts 21:18 says, “On the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present” (cf. I Peter 5:1).

Peter is not even mentioned in Paul’s epistle to the church at Rome which would be a rather odd omission given the fact that Paul listed several wonderful servants in the church (cf.

Romans 16:1ff). When one considers all the individuals listed by Paul is seems unlikely that Peter was in Rome. Furthermore, Peter’s reference to “Babylon” in I Peter 5:13 hardly proves he was ever present in the city.3

There is no extant biblical source that places Peter in Rome at any time. This is a stark departure from the assertions of Catholic apologists.4 One writer says,

In short, there is no early textual evidence for Peter in Rome, so for some people, it’s very hard to believe that he ever traveled there…The absence of connection between Peter and Rome in the New Testament, the lack of references to him in our earliest Roman Christian literature, and what we know of Peter’s background and character all combine to make it unlikely, to my mind, that he ever went to Rome.5

All these things taken together make it unlikely that Peter was ever in Rome!

Finally, Catholic doctrine teaches that, under certain conditions, the pope proclamations are infallible. Pope Pius IX stated,

…[W]hen the Roman pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed His Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.6

Unlike the statements made by Pius IX, Peter was a mere mortal who made mistakes (cf. Galatians 2:9). Even speaking ex cathedra, popes are not infallible—the word of God is the only litmus test for right and wrong (John 17:17). Romans 3:4a says, “Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.”

1 Dissertations on the Prophecies (1831). London: B. Blake, Bell-Yard, Temple-Bar, p. 456.
2 Thanks to Wayne Jackon’s article over this topic. His treatment of this topic can be found at Peter Vs. the Papacy | Christian Courier.com

Unlike the statements made by Pius IX, Peter was a mere mortal who made mistakes (cf. Galatians 2:9). Even speaking ex cathedra, popes are not infallible—the word of God is the only litmus test for right and wrong (John 17:17). Romans 3:4a says, “Certainly not! Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.”