St. Peter never went to Rome

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)

There is no historical evidence much less biblical basis, for the claim that Peter was once bishop of Rome. It is based only on legends. 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)

It is sad to note that what the Catholic Church gives as the "best proof" in its claim of being the true church crumbles in the light of historical facts. At best, its claim concerning Peter is based only on legends. Any student of history worth his salt knows that testimonies based on traditions and legends are not reliable at all.

"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)