Fifteen Reasons Why Peter was not the Supreme Pontiff
by Miles McKee

One of the great pillars the Roman Church uses to attempt to establish their false claim to being the “ONE TRUE AND HOLY APOSTOLIC CHURCH” is that of Peter being the first Pope. Christ Jesus, according to this theory, appointed Peter as the Head and Chief Apostle of the church and as such Peter became the Bishop of Rome around AD 42.. Since that time, they say, there has been an unbroken succession of Popes which constitute the true apostolic succession. Thus we must all bow before them and come under their dominion and authority (for the saving of our souls).

Reason Two: Peter had every chance to tell us all about how he was the main man. After all, he wrote two epistles and is thought to have dictated Mark’s Gospel. But nowhere in his writings does he mention that he is the chief bishop. In fact, he says just the opposite when he writes, “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ”(1 Peter 5:1). If Rome is correct about him he should have written, “The elders among you I exhort, who am the vicar of Christ and his representative upon the earth.”

Reason Four: A council of the apostles and brethren was held at Jerusalem (Acts 15:6-29) Peter was in attendance and spoke and yet everyone, including Peter, bowed to James’ ruling on that occasion. The thing to further notice is that, when they sent out a reply from the council, Peter again, was not given the Primacy. Note what the Bible says, “And they wrote letters by them after this manner; the apostles and elders and brethren send greeting”(Acts 15:23). If Rome is correct in her theory, this Jerusalem Council was in direct opposition to the doctrine of Christ and not enlightened. They knew nothing of this Roman nonsense of the primacy of Peter.

If Peter had been the Vicar of Christ, our Lord’s visible substitute on earth, then the whole Council of Jerusalem should have been condemned because (a) Peter was not given his due place and honor in that they followed James’ ruling, and (b) in the subsequent ruling there was no mention of Peter’s superior place. Is it any wonder that Rome refuses to take her doctrine from Scripture alone? She cannot afford to, as it exposes her as fraudulent and deceitful in her telling of history.

Reason Five: Galatians 2:9 says, “James, a pillar, Peter, the foundation and John, another pillar” Woops! Does it really say that? It should do so if Rome is correct about the primacy of Peter. But I misquoted that Scripture. Here’s what it actually says, “James, Peter, and John, who seemed to be pillars.” Peter was one of several pillars, not the foundation. To believe in the teaching that the true church was founded by Jesus on Peter is to place your trust in fairy tales.

Reason Six: Paul withstood Peter to the face, because he was to be blamed (Galatians 2:11). Paul dare not have done this if Peter was the actual Vicar of Christ! And if Peter were the Vicar of Christ, he would have done nothing worthy of rebuke!

Reason Seven: When Paul lists the ascension gifts which the Lord gave to the Church in Ephesians 4:11, there is no mention of the role, primacy, or supremacy of Peter! Had the Holy Spirit known of the role of the Vicar of Christ, He would surely have mentioned it. If Rome is correct about Peter, Ephesians 4:11 should read, “And he gave the Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome to be first, foremost and chief among you. He is the substitute for the Lord Jesus here on earth. As the prince of Apostles, he is the Holy Father, the way, the truth, and the life, the father of princes and kings and the Great High Priest (Supreme Pontiff) of the Universal Church.”

“Oh this is too extreme”, you say. I heartily agree! But the extremity lies at the feet of the Pope and his church and not at mine. These inflated and exalted claims are the actual claims that the Pope of Rome and his faithful followers make for him. Modern day followers of the Pope would have us forget the following anti –scriptural claims concerning the Pope:

“For thou art the shepherd, thou art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the husbandman; finally, thou art another God on earth.” (Christopher Marcellus, Oration in the Fifth Lateran Council, Session IV (1512), in Mansi SC, Vol. 32, col. 761. Latin.)

“Therefore the decision of the Pope and the decision of God constitute one decision. . . . Since, therefore, an appeal is always made from an inferior judge to a superior, just as no one is greater than himself, so no appeal holds when made from the Pope to God, because there is one consistory of the Pope himself and of God Himself.” (Augustinus Triumphus, Summa de Potestate Ecclesiastica, 1483, questio 6. Latin.)

“But the supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.” (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter, “On the Chief Duties of Christians as Citizens,” dated January 10, 1890, trans. in The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, New York: Benzinger, 1903, p. 193.)

“We [the pope] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter “The Reunion of Christendom,” dated June 20, 1894, trans. in The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII, p. 304.)

The Bible knows nothing of this nonsense and any reasonable, right thinking person must admit that these kind of claims smell of blasphemy!

Matthew 16:18 does indeed say, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” However, this verse, when examined in the Greek, renders much light. Jesus said, “Thou art Peter” (Gk. 'petros'), a word which signifies a stone or pebble; but when Jesus says, “upon this rock”, the word for rock is 'petra' which means properly “an immovable rock”. Jesus neither then said, nor ever will say: “Peter I’m going to build my church on you.” What He did say, however, was that He would build his church on the rock. What rock? The rock of the great confession that Peter the pebble had confessed concerning Jesus, “Thou art the Christ the son of the living God.” But Rome’s false interpretation of this verse has been demolished many times by able and brilliant Bible believing scholars. However, many converts to Rome are unaffected by the facts. They have such a high regard for the truth that they are sparing with its everyday use!

Reason Nine: The apostle Paul would be very surprised to discover that Peter had somehow managed to usurp him as the apostle to the Gentiles. Paul relates how when, “James, Peter, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision” (Galatians 2:9). Notice how Peter was to minister to the Jews (the circumcision). But Rome was a gentile church in a gentile city. What business, therefore, had Peter exercising supremacy there? None! Furthermore, Paul claims that it is he, not Peter who has the ‘care of all the churches” (2 Corinthians 11:28); yet Rome claims this role for Peter and his successors. This claim is the kind of error, which happens when the Bible is willfully rejected as the final authority.

But remember, Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that He was the one chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. He says, "I have written the more boldly unto you——because of the grace that is given to me by God that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable" (Romans 15: 15-16).

Can it get any clearer than that!? Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed.." Peter was not and never was the Apostle to the Gentiles—-and Rome was a gentile church. What Rome has done is to twist history. And here’s the rub; nowadays when we expose her lies we are the ones who are accused of being un-Christian.

Reason Ten: If Peter was the first Pope why did he not establish the Romans in the faith? Paul writes to the Romans saying, "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11). Surely this is embarrassing for Rome: Peter, I’m sure, would have something to say about it too! Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED in the faith even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter came to Rome in AD 42 and stayed until AD 49 when he was expelled by an edict of Claudius against the Jews. What, we then must ask, was he doing with his time? Certainly not establishing the believers if Paul’s estimation of their condition is correct.

According to the Church of Rome, however, Peter then returned to the ‘Holy City’ from 54 to 57 and again from 62 to 67, when he was martyred. We must ask, if Peter was absent from Rome so much how then could he have been the Bishop and spiritual overseer of the Roman Church? Rome answers that Peter had responsibilities over all the churches and thus had to be involved with much traveling like some kind of forerunner of Pope John Paul the second. Wait a minute! You can’t have it both ways! If he was head of every church, what business had he being Bishop over just one? Something is going to suffer if one tries to minister in that fashion! Anyhow, it’s, as shown in Reason 5, a nonsense to say that Peter was over all the churches. The only responsibility he had was as Apostle to the Jews! Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Rome was a Gentile Church!

Reason Eleven: If Peter was the Bishop of Rome and had responsibility for it, why in the world did Paul even bother going there and writing to them? Why did Paul wish to establish them? Paul’s method of ministry was no secret. He forcefully tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man’s foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION" (Rom. 15:20). If Peter had actually founded the Roman Church some ten years before, this statement is a real attack on Peter as it totally disregards his abilities as a foundation builder. But Paul is not attacking Peter because it would, as we have already said, be news to Paul that Peter founded the Church at Rome!

Reason Thirteen: Let’s fast forward some four years. We now find Paul has been taken to Rome as a prisoner in order to stand trial before Caesar. When the Christian community in Rome heard of Paul’s arrival, they all went to meet him. We read, "When the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us" (Acts 28:15). Notice, it was the brethren, the church, who met him. And observe who is not mentioned by name -- Peter. Again, Rome can not be allowed to have it both ways. Either Peter was there and was regarded as merely one of the brothers or he was not there. If he was there, as Rome insists, we must note that he was, therefore, neither regarded as the supreme world nor as the leader and Bishop or Rome; he was merely one of the brethren.