First Pope Peter – Just another absurdity of the Church of Rome

Deutsch

If you dig a little deeper into the myths and legends of the Roman Catholic Church, contradictions and absurdities often emerge. The “first Pope Peter” is one such example.

Some legends about Peter?

Peter, also known as the “Chief Apostle,” is the key figure on whom the Roman Catholic Church bases its own foundation. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and thus also the first Pope of the Roman Church. Peter died a martyr’s death in Rome, according to the generally accepted narrative. But was this actually the case?

In contrast to Paul’s stay in Rome, there is no evidence in the New Testament that Peter ever visited Rome. There are no references to it. Acts 27 and 28 do, however, provide two chapters for Paul, which describe his journey to Rome and his arrival. The Epistle to the Romans also attests to his prior contact with the church in Rome. But nothing of the sort can be found for Peter.

Peter in Rome? Where does it say that?

The Roman Catholic Church, however, insists that Peter and Paul died together in 65 AD, and that Peter had previously been a bishop. While this is not proof, it is nevertheless striking that Paul, who according to the Church of Rome must have met Peter on site, made no written mention of this. In summary, the New Testament provides no indication of Peter’s stay in Rome, nor of any contact with the church there.

Might the style of Peter’s self-designation not have at least emphasized his (future) position? In 2 Peter 1, Peter begins his letter with the following:
“Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:“

As a contrast, a “common” self-designation of a Pope (Gregory XVI, Encyclical Mirari vos, 1832):
“Encyclical of our most holy father, Pope Peter, by the divine providence of the First of this name, addressed to all patriarchs, primates, archbishops and bishops.” (Source: The History of Romanism, John Dowling, 1845, page 46)

A visible clash of humility and arrogance.

Peter was not the rock

That Peter was also supposed to be the rock and to have exclusively received the keys to heaven is another legend of the Roman Catholic Church. This interpretation only entered the Church over time and is not even supported by early Catholic “saints,” but is viewed entirely differently (Info).

It becomes embarrassing for the Church of Rome when they even violate their own rules with their reinterpretation of the Peter and the Rock passage. The “great Church Father” Augustine of Hippo interpreted this statement as follows:
“You are Peter, and on this rock which you have confessed, on this rock which you have acknowledged, saying: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ I will build my Church; that is, on myself, the Son of the living God, I will build my Church.“

Bending and breaking

In the Church of Rome, the guiding principle is “unanimem consensum patrum” (unanimem consensum patrum). Their teachings stand and are also the foundation. This places the new interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19, which conjures up a legitimate succession of the Roman Catholic Church, in conflict. This claim contradicts the statements of the Church’s own fathers. After all, they were the immediate successors of the apostles. Well aware of the conflict, even devout Catholics have stepped into the breach and declared “unanimem consensum patrum” not necessarily binding for all church fathers. (Source). This was never meant that way, because “the Church cannot contradict itself.”

Another absurdity of the Church of Rome

According to Roman Catholic tradition, “Pope Number Two” was Linus. The immediate successor after Peter, according to legend. However, the Church of Rome also notes that the Apostle John outlived his (spiritual) brother Peter by 30 years. If Peter were the supreme leader of the entire Church and Linus his successor, it would follow that, in the understanding of the Roman Catholic hierarchy, John must have been subordinate to Peter, and subsequently to Linus, just as all bishops today are specifically subordinate to the bishop in Rome.

Of Linus, however, only his name and his alleged existence are known. He was not one of the apostles. However, Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12:28:
“And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.“

According to Roman Catholic legend, Linus, a “nobody,” took the place on the “Chair of Peter.” This is in stark contradiction to the Gospel. The more closely one examines the fable about Peter as the first pope, the more absurd this story becomes.

Why Peter as the “first choice”?

Why should Peter be the “chosen first pope” of the Church? Paul was demonstrably in Rome, but Peter was not. Moreover, Paul, along with James and John, have a more immaculate biography than Peter. Just moments after Peter’s confession, Jesus Christ, after repeatedly announcing His own death, made a striking statement (Matthew 16:22-23):
“Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.“

Jesus Christ recognized that Peter was clearly influenced by Satan. As caring as Peter’s statement may sound, his desire to prevent Jesus from suffering would have thwarted the only possible plan of salvation. After all, that was the central goal of the great adversary. It was Peter, in his hot temper, who struck off the ear of a temple guard who was leading Jesus away with a sword.

Peter also distinguished himself by denying Jesus Christ three times after his arrest, despite declaring that he would defend him, even if it cost him his life. Peter even swore that he didn’t know Jesus Christ at all when confronted with the possibility of being a follower of Jesus Christ.

There were “better apostles” to choose from

Peter’s character traits contrast with those of John, for example. After Jesus Christ was arrested, all the disciples fled in all directions. One even lost his clothes in his panicked flight. But John was the only disciple present at the crucifixion. All the others had stayed in the background or hidden. Paul is the “greatest theologian” among the disciples, and James is the brother of Jesus. With them, especially with Paul actually in Rome, the Church of Rome would have had far better candidates as “first pope” than with Peter.

Peter was influenced by Satan, used violence with the sword, and denied Jesus Christ on three counts. Are these actually the qualifications favored by the Church of Rome?
Ein klares “Ja” wäre an dieser Stelle keine Überraschung.

Peter was purified

To champion Peter. He recognized his mistake, as well as his character flaws, and deeply repented. When Peter denied Jesus, Jesus looked at Peter, after all, Jesus had predicted this denial. Peter broke down in tears and has been purified ever since, thanks to the grace and mercy of Jesus Christ.

It seems as if the Church of Rome took Peter as a model in his still-present state of denial of Jesus Christ and “adopted” him for its own purposes.

Bible verses from King James Version (1611)