Was the Apostle Peter the founder of Catholicism and its first pope? According to Catholic tradition, the Universal Church was established in Rome in 33 A.D. It was some time later that Paul arrived in the city to begin a work. If Peter had already established God’s church in Rome, why did Paul go there to do exactly that? That Paul was the one who founded God’s church in Rome is indicated in Romans 1:11 where he says that he wanted to “establish” the people of the Rome church, meaning to finalize their place in God’s family. Again, If Peter had founded God’s church in Rome, would not he have been the one to “establish” the people in the church there? He would have done this long before Paul arrived.

Further proof that it was Paul, not Peter who founded the Church of God in Rome is revealed in Romans 15:20 where Paul states that he would “not build on another man’s foundation.” If Peter had “laid the foundation” of the Rome church some ten years earlier, then Paul would have been doing exactly that by attempting to lead and establish the people in Peter’s church. Also, in Paul’s epistle to the people in the Rome church he greeted by name a number of the parishioners. Would he not have greeted their leader also?

Paul was imprisoned in Rome for teaching God’s Word (Acts 28:15). As leader of the church that was doing the same thing, would not Peter have also been imprisoned? When Paul arrived in Rome he summoned the “chief of the Jews” to explain Christ and His doctrines to them (Acts 28:17). Would not Peter have already done this, having been in Rome and in charge of the church there for many years? Also, the Jewish leaders told Paul that they had not even heard of Jesus of Nazareth. Nor were they aware of the religious organization named for Him. These Jewish leaders had heard of Paul who was in prison in their city. If Peter had been leading a Christ-exalting church there for a decade, would these Jewish leaders not have at least heard of it? Also, Paul was in Rome for several years where he wrote the epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians, to Philemon and to the Hebrews. In those letters he mentioned by name several church people living in Rome. But not once does he mention Peter, the supposed leader of God’s church in that city. And would not Paul, when writing of his soon-coming death, have told the people of Rome to attend the church led by Peter? He did not. Also Paul, when writing to Timothy (2 Tim. 4:11), noted that Christians in Rome had forsaken him during his trial, that “only Luke is with me.” Is it not incredible that the fiery Apostle Peter was missing in action when the heat against the church was being turned up and Paul was on trial for his life?

Where was Peter during the time the Catholic Church claims he was in Rome directing the activities of the church he supposedly founded? Around 45 A.D. we find him in prison in Jerusalem (Acts 12:3,4). In 49 A.D. he was still in Jerusalem, this time attending the council called by the apostles concerning the question of circumcision (Acts 15:7-21). Around 51 A.D. he was in Antioch of Syria where he conflicted with Paul because he would not eat with the Gentiles (Gal. 2:14). The Biblical record reveals that during the time when he was supposedly running the church he founded in Rome, he was nowhere near the city.

Not only was Peter not the Bishop of Rome and the Catholic Church’s first pope, but neither in Scripture nor in secular history do we find evidence that he was EVER IN ROME. Had the apostle Peter established God’s church in Rome–SUPPOSEDLY THE ONLY CHURCH GOD RECOGNIZES AND THE ONLY VENUE THROUGH WHICH ONE CAN BE SAVED–would its founder and leader not have at least mentioned that church in some of his writings? He did not. In fact, NOT ONE TIME IN ANY OF HIS WRITINGS DID PETER MENTION THE CITY OF ROME. Having put the “Peter was the founder of the Catholic Church and her first pope” fallacy to rest, let us return to Simon of Samaria. To be continued. L.J.