Catholic authorities say that Apostle Peter never went to Rome

Authorities: Their Testimonies

Lest we be accused of being partial in presenting evidences belying the pronouncement of the Catholic Church concerning Peter upon which its claim of being the true Church hinges, let us take some of the testimonies of different authorities, including authorities of the Catholic Church itself. Did the early fathers of the Catholic Church support the idea that Peter once served as bishop in Rome and therefore, became the first pope of the Roman Church? Boettner gives this answer:

"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)

Catholic scholars themselves who know and understand their church history belie the claim of the Catholic Church. Even archaeologists who had done exhaustive research on the matter could not find any conclusive evidence that Peter the apostle had once visited Rome and became its first bishop or pope. Let's take this revealing account:

"Exhaustive research by archaeologists has been made down through the centuries to find some inscription in the Catacombs and other ruins of ancient places in Rome that would indicate that Peter at least visited Rome. But the only things found which gave any promise at all were some bones of uncertain origin. L.H. Lehmann, who was educated for the priesthood at the University for the Propagation of the Faith, in Rome, tells us of a lecture by a noted Roman archaeologist, Professor Marucchi, given before his class, in which he said that no shred of evidence of Peter's having been in the Eternal City had ever been unearthed, and of another archaeologist, Di Rossi who declared that for forty years, his greatest ambition had been to unearth in Rome some inscription which would verify the papal claim that the apostle Peter was actually in Rome, but that he was forced to admit that he had given up hope of success in his search. He had the promise of handsome rewards by the church if he succeeded." (Roman Catholicism, pp. 118-119)

In spite of the concerted efforts, motivation, and promise of handsome reward from the Catholic Church, archaeologists have failed in finding decisive evidence to prove the claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome or that, at least, he had reached this ancient city. And although there were some bones found in the diggings, these were of uncertain origin. The pope himself, who is supposed to be a firm believer as he is the alleged successor of Peter, was skeptical that these "bones... were really those of... Peter." 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)

The Catholic faithful should ponder on this bold but honest-to-goodness admission from no less than the supreme head of the Catholic Church. At any rate, nobody can blame the pope for doubting the authenticity of the findings. The matter of apostolic succession upon which the papacy bases its authority has been a long standing controversy in the Catholic Church. At the Vatican Council in 1870, the papacy's theory of apostolic succession came under fire from a high-ranking official of the Catholic Church, Bishop Strossmayer. He said in his speech before his fellow bishops.

"Now, having read the whole New Testament, I declare before God, with my hand raised to that great crucifix, that I have found no trace of the papacy as it exists at this moment." [Bishop Strossmayer's Speech (in the Vatican Council of 1870), p. 4]

Bishop Strossmayer testified that there is no trace of the papacy in the New Testament. He was that certain that he made his testimony with a solemn oath. This coming from no ordinary authority of the Catholic Church. Who was Bishop Strossmayer? Below are some data about him:

Bishop Joseph Georgre Strossmayer

"STROSSMAYER, JOSEPH GEORGE (1815-1905). Roman Catholic Bishop. Born of German parents in Croatia, he was ordained to the priesthood in 1838 and nine years later, became professor of canon law at Vienna. In 1850, he was elevated to the bishopric of Bosnien with its seat at Diakovar." ( The New Intemational Dictionary of the Christian Church)

Startling as the account may seem, this bishop delivered his speech before a great council of the Catholic Church where almost all its bishops in various parts of the world were represented. Going further into his speech, he said:

"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.