Peter the Rock? What About Jesus?

For the purposes of this treatise, Roman Catholics (or simply Catholics, capitalized) are defined as those supporting the Church of Rome of the Vatican. While many of the writings cited will have an imprimatur of a Roman Catholic Bishop or Cardinal, not all do (having an imprimatur or not having one is not proof that a writing is completely accepted or not accepted by the Vatican, though having one does show that a high level Roman Catholic official approved the writing as 'Catholic'). The terms Holy See and Roman Catholic may be used interchangeably here to refer to the church that now occupies Vatican City. The term 'Catholic' is not intended to convey the Anglican, Eastern Orthodox, Church of God, or other non-Roman Catholic churches, though in some early writings cited (prior to 200 A.D.) that term is not necessarily referring what is now considered to be the Roman Catholic Church. The term Greco-Roman Catholic includes the Roman and/or Eastern Orthodox Catholics..

The Roman Catholic Church states that Jesus gave the authority and administration of the true Church to specifically, and perhaps only, to the Apostle Peter. Is this true?

This treatise will cite both Roman Catholic and historical sources as well as the Bible (NKJV unless otherwise specified) to determine whether or not Peter was the rock who alone received the keys of the kingdom, and if they remain in Rome.

The following, from The Catholic Encyclopedia, seems to be the major view held by many Roman Catholics:

However, the following Catholic statements, from The Catholic Encyclopedia, about Peter are true:

The third century writer Cyprian was a bishop of Carthage and is considered a Roman and Eastern Orthodoc Catholic saint. Notice the following (from http://vintage.aomin.org/Sermo131.html viewed 07/22/12):

Furthermore, the late fourth century Roman and Orthodox Catholic saint and doctor John Chrysostom clearly stated that the Apostle John, who Jesus called a son of thunder (Mark 3:17) and the one who learned upon Jesus (John 21:20), had the keys himself and Peter was a shepherd--not THE shepherd:

Since John outlived Peter, and was claimed to have had the keys, there is no way then that the prevailing Greco-Roman view was that the keys were limited to Peter and to Rome. John was NOT subservient to Linus or any other Roman elder, which is what the Roman Catholic Church implies (though I have never seen it state that).

Therefore, when we consider the views of Greco-Roman leaders like Cyprian and John Chrysostom, it should be obvious that the original Greco-Roman view was NOT that the Church of Rome above all other bishops.

Please understand that John Chrysostom is considered so important by the Church of Rome that he is one of four holding up the giant black throne in St. Peter's Cathedral in Vatican City (to view it, click on the following Might Satan’s throne be the ‘Cathedra Petri’?).

The current prevailing Roman Catholic position related to itself and Peter seems to be primarily based on what this treatise expects to show is a misinterpretation of this passage in Matthew 16:16-19:

An important problem (from a Roman Catholic perspective) is that it does not agree with the earliest traditions of the "Fathers" the Roman church.

For additional verification, the devout Roman Catholic historian Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger reminds us of the following facts (italics in original):

Furthermore, it should be noted that according to the 20th century Franciscan scholar Jean Briand:

But more important that early Roman Catholic "Fathers," something that many seem to overlook related to the statements in Matthew 16 is that Jesus' disciples most certainly did NOT interpret them to mean that Peter was the rock and supreme leader of them from that time forward.

The above took place at Jesus' last Passover, commonly referred to as the Last Supper. So, this was LONG AFTER the statement was made in Matthew 16:18-19.

The Roman Catholic saint Augustine seemed to be confused on the subject of the whether Peter or Jesus was the Rock:

Since Augustine was confused, it seems safe to conclude that the idea that Peter must be the Rock was not the universal position at least in the early fifth century.

A major problem from a Roman position (but first from the Church of God position) is that the now generally held Roman Catholic position is without proper biblical support.

This seems to have been the position of Roman Catholic "saint and doctor of the Church" Jerome:

Thus, apparently Jerome did not believe that Jesus made any particular promise to Peter that was to transfer to the Bishop of Rome and give supremacy.

Nearly all realize (including the Church of Rome) that the New Testament was written Greek and not Aramaic (now while it is possible that Matthew was first composed in Hebrew, the earliest extant versions are in Greek--see also Was the New Testament Written in Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic?). If Christ actually spoke that statement in the Aramaic language (which He may have), and He Himself meant that Peter was the rock, why would God have inspired Matthew to record two different words (one for Peter, petros, and the other for a massive rock, petra) in Greek? Matthew could have used the same word in Greek (or possibly Hebrew), but did not.

Also, John was inspired to write this, "Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, "You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas" (which is translated, A Stone)" (John 1:42). Note that John uses the essentially Aramaic term Cephas yet translates it in Greek to mean a stone, since he wrote that the Greek word for stone [petros] and not a massive rock [petra]. Thus in two places Peter is mentioned regarding a rock and a stone, it is clear that Peter is not the rock.

The only other times that the New Testament states that anyone is the Rock (petra) is when the term is used about Christ Himself, "And all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ" (1 Corinthians 10:4).

The term petra is never used referring to Peter in the Greek. The term petra is always translated as 'rock' or 'Rock' in the New Testament (NKJV) and always either refers to some type of rock (normally some type of massive rock, e.g. Matthew 7:24-25) or Jesus Christ.

Here is something from the Greek Orthodox Church on this (and they tend to have a lot of scholars with knowledge of koine Greek):

The Roman Catholic accepted Latin translation of John 1:42 is "Vulgate et adduxit eum ad Iesum intuitus autem eum Iesus dixit tu es Simon filius Iohanna tu vocaberis Cephas quod interpretatur Petrus."

Neither Cephas not Petrus are actual Latin words (they are the Latinized form of the words in Aramaic and Greek respectively). Yet even the Latin translation is acknowledging that Cephas (who is usually called Peter in the New Testament, as Peter is an Anglicized form of the word Petros) means petros (which is Latinized to Petrus).

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that the meaning of the name Petra (when referring to the town) means a rock:

The town of Petra was carved out of a massive rock. The term Sela, which the Catholic writer correctly translated as rock, is also so translated by by Biblesoft:

So petra means a massive rock, while petros refers to a stone or even a reed.

Now there is one place where the NKJV suggests that Jesus is another type of rock but again that is not from the Greek word petros, but this time is from the word akrogoniaios. In Ephesians 2:20 that term is translated as "chief cornerstone." A massive rock.

While many Roman Catholic writers suggest that only Peter can be referred to in Matthew 16:18, this is not so. As mentioned before, the term rock in that verse is clearly referring to Christ as the word petra was chosen.

There is one other point that many miss. Which is, AFTER, the 'rock statement' by Jesus, Jesus referred to Peter as Satan:

So consider that when Jesus spoke in Matthew 16:18, He was not then telling Peter, that Peter was the rock.

And while in Matthew 16:19, Jesus told Peter he would be given keys later, Jesus was speaking in the present tense in Matthew 16:18. There is no way that the then Rock would be quickly called Satan. Jesus, not Peter, was the rock in Matthew 16:18.

Other Scriptures: What Did Peter and Paul Teach?

This means that claims that salvation only comes through the Roman Catholic Church because it has Apostolic Succession from Peter is faulty as salvation only comes through Jesus. Perhaps it should be understood that we in the Philadelphia remnant of the COG acknowledge that Peter had a type of primacy while alive, but that his death location (even if it was Rome) would not necessarily confer a succession from that city (actually Jesus makes it clear that the same city for leadership throughout history would not be possible for the true church).

Did Peter Die in Rome?

What about Peter’s death? Notice what the Rheims New Testament records that Peter wrote just prior to it:

14. Being certain that the laying away of my tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord JESUS Christ also signified to me.
15. And I will do my diligence, you to have often after my decease also, that you may keep a memory of these things.
16. For, not having followed unlearned fables, have we made the power and ‘presence’
of our Lord JESUS Christ known to you: but made beholders of his greatness.
17. For, he receiving from God his father honour and glory, this manner of voice coming down to him from the magnifical glory, This is my beloved son in whom I have pleased myself, hear him.
18. And this voice we heard brought from heaven, when we were with him in the holy mount. (II Peter 1:14-18).

This is problematic as far as Rome is concerned. The reason is that the above passage seems to be teaching that John was still with Peter (John was part of the “we heard”). This is indirectly acknowledged by the ANNOTATIONS from Chapter 1 of I Peter from the Rheims New Testament of 1582 on page 515 as it states:

c By this it is plain, that either John, James, or Peter must be the author of this epistle, for these three only were present at the Transfiguration. Matt. 17:1

Since the particular above James is believed to have been killed by 39 A.D. in Judea (Acts 12:1), either the Apostle Peter died near then (which he did not, he died around three or so decades later) or the Apostle John must have still been with Peter.

Since there is no evidence that the Apostle John went to Rome in the 60s A.D., the available evidence (including from Roman Catholic sources) suggests that John was in Jerusalem or Asia Minor at that time. Plus, if John was in Jerusalem or Asia Minor then, since Peter seems to be claiming that John was with him, then Peter would have been in Jerusalem or Asia Minor just prior to his death. Hence, to claim that Peter spent much time in Rome or died in Rome seems to be inconsistent with the biblical record.

The place of Peter’s burial is also controversial.

Notice also the following:

The place of burial for ALL prophets and holy men of the Romans was in the sacred cemetery on Vatican Hill. This much is certain.

Notice what Werner Keller in his The Bible as History says about the so-called burial of the Catholics' Peter. (Before reading Keller's statement, let us remember that he is a thorough-going Catholic and firmly, himself, believed that the Apostle Peter was buried in Rome. However, the Bible shows nothing of the kind. Now, let's read Keller's comment — the official comment of the Roman Catholic Church):

"On the night of his death on the cross Peter's followers BURIED his body. As in the case of Jesus on the hill of Calvary it was wrapped in linen and secretly taken to a PAGAN BURIAL GROUND on the Via Cornelia, behind the stone structure of the arena. This PAGAN CEMETERY lay on a knoll called VATICANUS: the Latin word 'vatis' means a 'prophet' or 'SOOTHSAYER'. In days gone by there had been an Etruscan oracle on this spot" (p. 368).

What an admission!

Keller ought to have better sense to know that this Peter buried in this cemetery, of all places, could NOT be the Apostle Peter. In the first place, Peter was a Jew, and they had to be buried in their own cemeteries. And even if by a happen-chance a Jew could be buried in a Roman cemetery, it is most unlikely that a Jew — especially one who attacked the Roman religion as the Apostle Peter did — would ever have been allowed into the most holy of pagan cemeteries! This cemetery was reserved for prophets, soothsayers and the great ones of pagan Rome. (Martin E. SIMON MAGUS SERIES - Simonites Establish UNIVERSAL Church. Good News, August 1964)

Essentially according to the Quo Vadis legend, Peter was buried in Rome. However, that account was not written until over a century after Peter died.

But there was something else that some have pointed to:

It is not before around 160 CE that we see some kind of interest by Roman Christians in the site by the construction a simple monument that consisted of a niche and a courtyard (the Tropaion Gaii). The monument was probably used for gatherings, but not as a marker as an individual grave, since memory of Peter’s original burying place was lost by the time the Tropaion was erected. The existence of the Tropaion did not result in the development of a Christian burial site, but was integrated into a middle-class non-Christian burial street. Only in the age of Constantine the site was firmly and finally taken over by Christians, thereby obliterating all earlier traces of burial activity apart from the immediate space around the Tropaion. ( Zangenberg, Jürgen; Labahn, Michael. Christians as a religious minority in a multicultural city: modes of interaction and identity formation in early Imperial Rome : studies on the basis of a seminar at the second conference of the European Association for Biblical Studies (EABS) from July 8-12, 2001, in Rome. Volume 243 of Journal for the study of the New Testament Library of New Testament Studies, the Series European studies on Christian origins. Continuum International Publishing Group, 2004, p. 132)

Furthermore that site must not have been accepted originally as, according to the Liber Pontificalis (the Book of Popes), it was Roman bishop Cornelius who supposedly moved the body of Peter to its present location (nearly two centuries after Peter died). Here is one written account:

XXII Cornelius (Pope 251-253 ... He during his pontificate at the request of a certain matron Lucina, took up the bodies of the apostles, blessed Peter and Paul up out of the catacombs by night; first the body of blessed Paul was received by the blessed Lucina] and laid in her own garden on the Via Ostiensis, near the place where he was beheaded; the body of the blessed Peter was received by the blessed Cornelius, the bishop, and laid near to the place where he was crucified, among the bodies of the holy bishops, in the shrine of Apollo, on the Mons Aureus, in the Batican, by the palace of Nero, on June 29. (Translated by Louise Ropes Loomis. The Book of the Popes (Liber Pontificalis. Originally published by Columbia University Press, NY 1916. 2006 edition by Evolution Publishing, Merchantville (NJ), pp. 25-26).

Hence, one of the earliest Roman Catholic writings attempting to demonstrate that Rome had a series of early bishops/popes states that Peter was NOT originally buried in Vatican hill, but in catacombs in the vicinity of Rome. There would be no point in moving Peter’s body if people actually had believed that the Tropaion Gaii marked the spot.

There are actually a lot of contradictions in records Roman Catholics have claimed demonstrate Peter was buried in Rome. Notice the following:

THE TOMBS OF THE APOSTLES ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL ...

The evidence from traditional sources as to the exact position of the spots where the two Apostles were martyred and afterwards buried is very detailed and complete, and, as is usual in topographical references, is accurate, even though the narratives, in which these references occur, are in the main apocryphal fictions of a late date.

The principal authorities in the case of St. Peter are as follows:

‘Liber Pontificalis': [Petrus] ‘sepultus est via Aurelia in templum Apollinis, iuxta locum ubi crucifixus est, iuxta palatium Neronianum, in Vaticanum, iuxta territorium Triumphale.'

Jerome, ‘De Viris Illustribus': ‘Sepultus est in Vaticano iuxta viam triumphalem totius orbis veneratione celebratur.'
260
‘Martyrium Beati Petri Apostoli': ‘Ad locum qui vocatur Naumachiae iuxta obeliscum Neronis in montem.'

‘Acta Petri': ‘Apud palatium neronianum iuxta obeliscum inter duas metas.'

‘Liber Pontificalis': [Cornelius] ‘posuit iuxta locum ubi crucifixus est, inter corpora sanctorum episcoporum, in templum Apollinis, in monte aureo, in vaticanum palatii neroniani.'

‘De locis S.S. Martyrum': ‘Petrus in parte occidentali civitatis iuxta viam Corneliam ad milliarium primum in corpore quiescit.'

From these notices it will be seen that three roads are mentioned—the Via Aurelia (Nova), the Via Triumphalis, and the Via Cornelia. These three roads met at a point close to the Pons Neronianus or Triumphalis. Between the Via Aurelia Nova and the Via Cornelia stood the Circus of Nero, between the Via Cornelia and the Via Triumphalis the Vatican hill. The Circus of Nero was the scene of the Games at which a multitude of Christians perished by horrible tortures in the spring of 65 A.D., and here according to the ‘Acta Petri' suffered St. Peter ‘iuxta obeliscum inter duas metas'—that is on the spina at a point equidistant from the two goals, where the obelisk stood, the same obelisk removed in 1586 to the front of the Basilica. The palatium Neronianum and the Naumachia were appellations given in later days to the remains of the Circus, which was destroyed when Constantine built the first Basilica above St. Peter's tomb. The Mons Aureus (a corruption of Aurelius) was so called from its proximity to the Via Aurelia Nova, later the name was extended to the Janiculum also, the southern part of which is still called Montorio.

Templum Apollinis. Duchesne writes (‘Lib. Pont.' i. 120): ‘Quant au temple d'Apollon, il y a, clans cette désignation, un souvenir du célèbre sanctuaire de Cybèle, qui s'élévait tout près du cirque et de la basilique, et qui fut, jusqu'aux dernières années du ive siècle, le théâtre des cérémonies sanglantes du taurobolium et du criobolium . . . Le Collège des xv. viri sacris faciundis, qui était chargé du culte de cette déesse, étaient aussi directeurs du culte d'Apollon.' In any case there was a building on this spot popularly known as the templum Apollinis, witness the notice in the ‘Liber Pontificalis' of Pope Silvester (314–335 A.D.): ‘eodem tempore Augustus Constantinus fecit basilicam 261beato Petro apostolo in templum Apollinis.' (Duchesne, ‘Lib. Pont.' i. 176.)

The body of St. Peter then was buried in a small cemetery on the Vatican hill close to the place where he was crucified. Over this tomb Anencletus erected his memoria, and in the immediate vicinity the first twelve bishops of Rome, with the exception of Clement and Alexander, were according to the ‘Liber Pontificalis' laid to rest—in each case the phrase recurs ‘sepultus est iuxta corpus beati Petri in Vaticanum.' In time the entire space available was filled up. ...

That the bodies of the Apostles did not continuously remain undisturbed in their first resting places is one of those traditions which can be supported by a body of evidence, leaving indeed some points doubtful and obscure, but as regards the main fact almost conclusive. In that Kalendar of the Church known as the ‘Feriale Philocalianum' (about 354 A.D.) under the heading ‘Depositio Martyrum' occurs the following entry:

‘III. Kal. Iul. Petri in Catacumbas et Pauli Ostense—Tusco et Basso cons.'

The names of the Consuls fix the date as 258 A.D. and show that this entry is taken from some official source. It is clearly unintelligible as it stands. De Rossi however discovered at Berne a Codex of the ‘Martirologium Hieronymianum' which exhibits the same entry in a fuller form:

‘III. Kal. Iul. Romae natale apostolorum sanctorum Petri et Pauli—Petri in Vaticano via Aurelia Pauli vero in Via Ostensi, 264utrumque in Catacumbis, passi sub Nerone, Basso et Tusco consulibus.'

This can only mean that on June 29 the Feast of the Apostles was kept in three places or stations—at the Vatican, on the Ostian Road, and in a place known as the Catacombs in memory of some event which took place in the consulate of Tuscus and Bassus, 258 A.D. ...

The Apocryphal ‘Acta' say that the bodies were taken to the Catacombs immediately after the martyrdom of the Apostles and were removed to the tombs that had been prepared on the Vatican and on the Ostian Way one year and seven months afterwards. The Itineraries or Pilgrim Guides of the fifth and sixth centuries make the sojourn to be forty years: ... but that the relics of the Apostles remained in the Platonia at least until the year 284 the ‘Acta' of St. Sebastian testify. According to these ‘Acta ' the Saint was buried in the Catacomb which still bears 267his name close to the Platonia because he had in a vision expressed the wish that his body might lie near the vestigia of the holy Apostles.

There is another difficulty to be surmounted. In the biography of Pope Cornelius, 251–253 A.D., in the ‘Liber Pontificalis' the statement is made that at the request of a certain matron Lucina by name the bodies of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul were taken up by night; and that Lucina first buried the blessed Paul in her own ground (in praedio suo) on the Ostian Road and then that Cornelius placed the body of Peter close to the spot where he was crucified among the bodies of the holy bishops—‘in templum Apollinis, in Monte Aureo in Vaticanum palatii Neroniani iii Kai. Iul.' Now it is clear that if the bodies of the Apostles were only brought to the cemetery ad Calacumbas in 258 A.D., they cannot have been restored to their former tombs some years earlier. (Edmundson G. Church in Rome in the First Century. Longmans, Green, 1913, pp. 259-267)

There are problems with the sources that supposedly point to Peter's Roman burial.

Interestingly the conclusion of the one who supposedly identified the body of Peter in Vatican Hill was that he was not convinced it was Peter:

Antonio Ferrua . . . was the Jesuit archaeologist responsible for uncovering what is believed to be the tomb of St Peter in the grottoes under St Peter’s Basilica in Rome . . . Ferrua’s discovery came, however, quite by chance.

In 1939 Pope Pius XI died and plans were made to bury him beside Pius X in the crypt below the basilica. But when workmen began to dig under St Peter’s they came upon the floor of Constantine’s original basilica, beneath which was a necropolis, a street of Roman tombs dating from the 2nd century AD . . .

Under the supervision of Monsignor Ludwig Kaas, the Administrator of St Peter’s, the Vatican appointed four archaeologists, including Ferrua, to investigate the tombs . . . Ferrua’s discovery was shrouded in controversy; in 1953, after the death of Monsignor Kaas, it was revealed by a workman that he had discovered some other bones which Kaas had ordered to be removed from the repository and stored at the Vatican. When these were later identified as the remains of an elderly man, it was concluded that these were the bones of the saint.

“The relics of St Peter,” announced Pope Paul VI on June 26 1968, “have been identified in a manner which we believe convincing”; the following day, after a ceremony in front of the aedicula, the remains were restored to the repository.

Ferrua was more circumspect. Aware of the scepticism that surrounded even the analysis of the Greek fragment – which others had read as Petros endei or “Peter is not here” – he recently told the Italian Catholic newspaper L’Avvenire that he was “not convinced” that the saint’s bones had been found ... A man of deep faith, Ferrua was a rigorous scholar, much admired for his refusal to allow his beliefs to compromise his work (The Rev Antonio Ferrua. Telegraph, London – May 29, 2003 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1431338/The-Rev-Antonio-Ferrua.html viewed 07/20/09).

Thus, the one credited for finding Peter’s body was unconvinced by the evidence he had investigated.

Pope Urban VIII threw out the artifacts that were found when they were looking for Peter's relics under the Vatican in the 1600s, because it was obvious to him (and others) they were digging up a pagan cemetery Curran J. The Bones of Saint Peter? Classics Ireland Vol. 3 (1996), pp. 18-46).

Various ones have stated that Margherita Guardducci positively identified Peter's remains. Various ones challenged that (e.g. Curran J. The Bones of Saint Peter? Classics Ireland Vol. 3 (1996), pp. 18-46), and Pope John Paul II refused to discuss that with her, despite her repeated requests. She and others concluded that because some remains were in high-cost blue clothes, that was partially why this had to be Peter's body (O'Neill J. The Fisherman's Tomb. Our Sunday Visitor, 2018)--but that only shows that someone wealthy (or considered important) was buried.

There are some who claim an inscription "Peter was there" or "Peter is inside" is proof that bones found in the Vatican were Peter the Apostle. Others have said that the incomplete inscription should be translated as "Peter is not here" (e.g. Curran J. The Bones of Saint Peter? Classics Ireland Vol. 3 (1996), pp. 18-46). But either way, an inscription of a later date is not proof one way or the other.

It should be noted that there is also the view that Peter died in Judea and was interred in the Mount of Olives—an ossuary box bearing the inscription “Shimon Bar Jonah” has been found and some believe it may be referring to the Simon Bar-Jonah (Fingegan J. The Archaeology of the New Testament. Princeton: Princeton University Press, reprt 1979, pp. 359-375) that became the Apostle Peter as per Matthew 16:17—and although that is inconclusive, it is probably stronger contemporary “evidence” than Rome seems to have as Peter’s original burial site.

Here is some limited information about it written by F. Paul Peterson in 1960, edited by James Tabor, and somewhat shortened by me:

While visiting a friend in Switzerland, I heard of what seemed to me, one of the greatest discoveries since the time of Christ—that Peter was buried in Jerusalem and not in Rome…

After talking to many priests and investigating various sources of information, I finally was greatly rewarded by learning where I could buy the only known book on the subject, which was also written in Italian. It is called, “Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit”, printed in 1958 at the Tipografia del PP. Francescani, in Jerusalem. It was written by P. B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik, both Roman Catholic priests…

In Jerusalem I spoke to many Franciscan priests who all read, finally, though reluctantly, that the bones of Simon Bar Jona (St. Peter) were found in Jerusalem, on the Franciscan monastery site called, “Dominus Flevit” (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives…the names of Christian Biblical characters were found on the ossuaries (bone boxes). The names of Mary and Martha were found on one box and right next to it was one with the name of Lazarus, their brother. Other names of early Christians were found on other boxes. Of greatest interest, however, was that which was found within twelve feet from the place where the remains of Mary, Martha and Lazarus were found—the remains of St. Peter. They were found in an ossuary, on the outside of which was clearly and beautifully written in Aramaic, “Simon Bar Jona”…

Then I asked, “Does Father Bagatti (co-writer of the book in Italian on the subject, and archaeologist) really believe that those are the bones of St. Peter?” “Yes, he does,” was the reply. Then I asked, “But what does the Pope think of all this?” That was a thousand dollar question and he gave me a million dollar answer. “Well,” he confidentially answered in a hushed voice, “Father Bagatti told me personally that three years ago he went to the Pope (Pius XII) in Rome and showed him the evidence and the Pope said to him, ‘Well, we will have to make some changes, but for the time being, keep this thing quiet’.” In awe I asked also in a subdued voice, “So the Pope really believes that those are the bones of St. Peter?” “Yes,” was his answer. “The documentary evidence is there, he could not help but believe.” …

I did not have the opportunity to see priest Bagatti while in Jerusalem. I wrote to him, however, on March 15, 1960, as follows: “I have spoken with a number of Franciscan priests and monks and they have told me about you and the book of which you are a co-writer. I had hoped to see you and to compliment you on such a great discovery, but time would not permit. Having heard so much about you and that you are an archaeologist (with the evidence in hand), I was convinced, with you, concerning the ancient burial ground that the remains found in the ossuary with the name on it, ‘Simon Bar Jona’, written in Aramaic, were those of St. Peter.” It is remarkable that in his reply he did not contradict my statement, which he certainly would have done if he honestly could have done so. “I was very much convinced with you – … that the remains found in the ossuary … were those of St. Peter.” This confirms the talk I had with the Franciscan monk in Bethlehem and the story he told me of Priest Bagatti’s going to the Pope with the evidence concerning the bones of St. Peter in Jerusalem. In his letter one can see that he is careful because of the Pope’s admonition to keep this discovery quiet. (Peterson F. Paul. Saint Peter’s Tomb: The Discovery of Peter’s Tomb in Jerusalem in 1953. http://www.jesusdynasty.com/blog/2007/04/03/has-the-ossuary-of-simon-peter-aka-simeon-son-of-jonah-been-found/ viewed 02/17/11)

The Jerusalem burial of Peter is not currently taught by the Church of Rome. Thus, it appears to me, at least, that scholars (including Catholic ones) tend to understand that it is questionable if Peter was buried in Rome and if his body is actually in St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City (see also What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History?).

Notice also the following misleading claim from Roman Catholic author John O'Neill:

Ignatius of Antioch, an early Christian who knew Peter, wrote while being brought to Rome for execution in 105 that he would be joining Peter and Paul who were buried there. (O'Neill J. The Fisherman's Tomb. Our Sunday Visitor, 2018, p. 70)

Ignoring that we do not have proof that Ignatius knew Peter, Ignatius did not write that Peter and Paul were buried in Rome.

This is what Ignatius actually wrote about Peter and Paul:

I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885)

The above does NOT say Peter and Paul were buried in Rome.

Now, this becomes more important when you realize something else that John O'Neill wrote:

Why is Rome the "headquarters" for Catholicism? On first impression it seems an unlikely choice. ...

Ephesus, Antioch, or especially Jerusalem would seem to a far better historical claim to be the capital of Christianity. ...

Catholics believe that ... the papal line has continued unabated, with a clear connection to Peter and to Rome. ... if scientific evidence proven the long-held tradition of Peter's burial beneath the Vatican to be false, it would cause people both within and outside of the Church to call into question much more fundamental Christian teachings. (O'Neill J. The Fisherman's Tomb. Our Sunday Visitor, 2018, pp. 55-56)

Yes, Ephesus made more sense. And the supposed MAIN REASON THAT ROME WAS CHOSEN WAS BECAUSE PETER WAS KILLED/BURIED THERE.

Since there is no proof that Peter died in Rome, this makes the Roman Catholic claims for Rome even more hollow.

It is only the true Church of God, which traces its roots from Jerusalem to Ephesus in Asia minor and elsewhere, that has the type of spiritual succession and continuity to the original faith of the apostles that those associated with the Roman and Eastern Orthodox Catholic faiths claim to have

While at least one book written by a Roman Catholic attempts to claim that the letters from Ignatius (to the Romans) and allegedly Clement (to the Corinthians) prove the primacy of Rome, even the author of that book admits the following:

There is no clear statement in either Clement or Ignatius, in the form of a dogmatic pronouncement of Rome's primacy ... (Ray, Stephen K. Upon This Rock. St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church. Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, p. 141).

There is no statement in scripture pointing to the primacy of Rome.

It should also be understood that Jesus referred to Himself as the chief cornerstone in the Gospels (Matthew 21:42; Mark 12:10; Luke 20:17), not Peter.

Also, Paul, not Peter, was the apostle to the Gentiles. Notice also what he wrote the Romans:

15 Nevertheless, brethren, I have written more boldly to you on some points, as reminding you, because of the grace given to me by God, 16 that I might be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering of the Gentiles might be acceptable, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. (Romans 15:15-16)

Paul should have written that Peter--if he was the first Bishop of Rome--was their leader, but Paul did not. Because that was not the case.

Notice also:

The teaching of Catholic historians tells us that Simon Peter went to Rome at the same time as Simon Magus in order to thwart his evils.

This was during the reign of Claudius. After successfully combating the Magus, they tell us, Peter assumed the Roman bishopric and ruled it until the Neronian persecutions of 68 A.D., during which Peter was supposed to have been crucified upside down on Vatican hill. This is the basic story and Catholic writers never shirk in attempting to defend it. Some of them say that this general account is one of the most provable of historical events.

But is it?

The fact remains, many ecclesiastical authors of the second century, Justin Martyr among them, give information completely negating Peter's supposed Roman bishopric. This is admitted by virtually all scholars — except conservative Catholics (Ency. Biblica, col. 4554). But, more important than this, the records of the True Church of God — the writings of the New Testament — absolutely refute the Roman Catholic claim. ...

We are told by Paul himself that it was he — not Peter — who was going to officially found the Roman Church.

"I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11).

Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before — in the reign of Claudius.

What nonsense!

Of course you understand that NEITHER Peter nor Paul established the Catholic Church!

But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome. ...

We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically 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 "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church. (Martin E. SIMON MAGUS SERIES - Peter Was NOT The First Pope! Good News, June 1964)

As Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, Peter simply was not.

This would suggest that most early Christian leaders did not accept that the keys were passed down through Peter and none of the other apostles.

Actually, some Roman Catholic leaders, including many of those considered to be early Greco-Roman Catholic saints agree with the position this article has taken.

It needs to be understood that as far back as the second century, both Irenaeus and Tertullian taught that some version of "apostolic succession" occurred in areas other than Rome.

In addition, look at what the third century bishop of Carthage and martyr Cyprian wrote:

Cyprian clearly did not understand that all authority went to Peter and not the other apostles. And it is true that Peter was originally the predominant one--but upon his death, it would seem that one of the surviving apostles, like the Apostle John, and not a local elder such as Linus, would have held the highest amount of authority on earth (see also Apostolic Succession).

Now many other Roman Catholics seem to ignore this interpretation and point to Matthew 16:18-19 as proof that the authority of the Church was given to just to Peter and his successors out of Rome. Let's repeat those verses here:

Since the Bible teaches that the Rock is Christ (1 Corinthians 10:4), are these verses specifically limited to Peter? And, anyway, who would his successor biblically be?

In his letter to the Ephesians the Apostle Paul makes clear that the Church was not just built on Peter but is built on the foundation of the apostles (plural) AND the prophets, with Jesus as the chief cornerstone, and including all the members in the church as well:

This may also be telling us that just like Peter was a predominant apostle until his death that Ephesus itself would be the predominant church (until, as Revelation 2 shows, Smyrna gained predominance). Interestingly, Jesus commends the Church at Ephesus because, "you have tested those who say they are apostles and are not, and have found them liars" (Revelation 2:2)--in other words, the Church at Ephesus had the ability to know who the true leaders of the Christian church actually were. This is never said about the Roman Church.

It should be noted that even some Roman Catholic writers believed that the authority granted in Matthew 16:19 was not limited to Peter. For example:

And that, to a degree, is correct. If Christ only gave Peter, and not the other apostles, the power to bind and loose, He would not have said the following to all the disciples:

Jesus was speaking to all of His disciples (those who became apostles) in the verses above, "At that time the disciples came to Jesus saying, "Who then is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?" (Matthew 18:1). This would have been the perfect opportunity for Christ to state Peter if he would be. Obviously, the disciples clearly did not understand that Peter was to be the greatest based on what Jesus taught in Matthew 16:18-19. Instead, after explaining how they needed to be humble, Jesus taught that they all had a type of binding and loosing authority in the church.

Many have misunderstood about the binding and loosening. The following explantion by Dr. Craig S. Keener in a book by Dr. William D. Mounce clarifies the original intent to the scriptures:

No human being has the power to eliminate the Ten Commandments, negate scripture, nor do anything contrary to the "word of truth" (2 Timothy 2:15, DRB) as "scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35, DRB). Since "God is a God not of disorder" (1 Corinthians 14:33, NJB), or as translated elsewhere as "God is not the author of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33, NKJV), God is not having His leaders going around Him to contradict Him.

Since the Roman Church now claims that the "power of the keys" is present in its entire priesthood (Power of the Keys. The Catholic Encyclopedia), would it not make sense that the "power of the keys" would also be granted to the other Apostles that Christ personally ordained?

Furthermore, even into the 21st century, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of churches of the Eastern Orthodox based in cities such as Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Alexandria who were founded by someone other than the Apostle Peter (which tradition states were founded by the Apostles Andrew, James, and the gospel-writer Mark, respectively).

It should also be noted that the "keys" mentioned in Matthew 16 had to do with the kingdom of heaven--this is something that, sadly, the Church of Rome does not understand. For details on that as well as the biblical understanding, check out the free online booklet The Gospel of the Kingdom of God.

Hence it seems clear that since Christ Himself needed to open the door with the keys, that He still had them, and that all the keys were not exclusively passed successively through Peter.

It is of major interest to note that Eliakim ( from the Latin translation of the Hebrew), who was given the keys in Isaiah 22, is not otherwise shown to be of the highest prominence in the Bible (though he is mentioned in several places). Thus to say that this is what Christ meant to Peter, based at least partially on Isaiah 22:19-22 simply does not follow from the biblical facts.

Thus, Jesus was saying that some who claimed to be experts in religion took away the "key of knowledge"--this has happened to and within the Greco-Roman churches It has been the true Church of God that has stood for the knowledge of the faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3; for detail, see Continuing History of the Church of God).

Some (but not most Roman Catholic scholars) have suggested that "the power of the keys" exclusively gave the Roman successors of Peter and their designees the power to forgive sins, but that is not what Jesus taught. Look at the following passage:

The above passage clearly shows that His disciples, and not just Peter, received the Holy Spirit with the related abilities regarding sins. This was in no possible way limited to Peter and not in any way limited to Rome and its descendants.

While it may be possible that Peter visited and even died in Rome, that of itself would not seem to be a reason for the city of Rome to have to be the place of the headquarters of the true church. There also is no known early document (one within 100 years of his death) that states that upon his death Peter bequeathed the cathedra (literally the "chair" indicating ecclesiastical authority) to anyone (recall also that Jesus Himself died in Jerusalem, and the importance of His death to the Church is more significant than that of Peter).

Also, it was not until nearly two hundred years after Peter died that any Roman bishop ever claimed authority based upon Matthew 16. Notice the writing from a Roman Catholic priest and scholar:

When Jesus discussed the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16) with Peter, this was in the Jerusalem area. When the Holy Spirit was given in Acts 2, this was in the area of Jerusalem. Peter and the other apostles spent a great deal of time in Asia Minor.

Furthermore, Rome was a Gentile area, not full of circumcised Israelites. Who does the Bible teach had that responsibility? Look at what Paul wrote:

Thus it does not appear that Peter was considered to be the bishop of Rome during Paul's lifetime (and they both died about the same time).

If Peter, and he alone, had the keys, the fact that, according to The Catholic Encyclopedia "Peter pursued his Apostolic labours in various districts of Asia Minor" shows that PETER COULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE BISHOP OF ROME FOR MUCH OF THE TIME THAT HE HAD THE KEYS! IT IS AN ABSOLUTE FACT THAT PETER WAS NOT THE BISHOP OF ROME BEGINNING WITH THE START OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH that began on the Pentecost after Jesus was resurrected (Acts 1-2), circa 30 A.D.. NOR COULD PETER HAVE POSSIBLY BEEN BISHOP OF ROME FOR MUCH OF THE THIRTY-PLUS YEARS AFTER THAT TIME AS HE TRAVELED WITHIN ASIA MINOR AND TO JERUSALEM REPEATEDLY. Rome is simply not close enough to Asia Minor or Jerusalem for Peter to have been based out of Rome. Thus Antioch or other regions within Asia Minor would seem to have been the main areas that Peter possibly could have had an episcopate.

Actually, the book of Galatians specifically mentions that Paul visited Peter on two occasions, and both of those were in Jerusalem and not Rome. Why? Because Rome was still not the headquarters of the Church at a very late time in Peter's life. This is clearly documented from the Bible:

What does all that mean? Well, since according to The Catholic Encyclopedia, "St. Paul's conversion was not prior to 34, nor his escape from Damascus and his first visit to Jerusalem, to 37" (St. Paul. Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911). Thus the earliest possible date for Paul to have made his second recorded visit with Peter was 54 A.D. (3 years plus 17 plus 34 A.D., and it may have been closer to 57 A.D.). And from there, Peter told Paul to go to the Gentiles again. Hence Peter could not have become the Apostle to the Gentiles in Rome until much later (if at all), thus the keys (if Peter alone had them) were not Roman keys!

Those "keys" were clearly in Jerusalem and Asia Minor for all (or nearly all) of Peter's life.

In the 20th century, the late Pastor General of the old Radio, then Worldwide, Church of God taught:

As far as Greco-Romans go, even in the late second/early third century Origen wrote:

Hence, the idea that the keys were not unique to Peter was known to others and is not a new concept.

So, if Origen is such a true teacher, those associated with Rome should recognize that the Bible is correct and that the "keys" were not given to Peter alone.

As mentioned previously, even into the 21st century, the Roman Catholic Church recognizes the legitimacy of the ordination and practices of the churches of the Eastern Orthodox based in cities such as Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. In addition, the Roman Catholic Church accepts the legitimacy of the Orthodox Church of Antioch--a church that claims that it too was founded by Peter. Hence, there seems to be a contradiction here as Rome tends to claim that Peter alone received the keys.

Because Peter is mentioned first in a variety of lists in the New Testament, some associated with Rome have concluded that this is proof of his total supremacy over the other apostles.

The first is that it is not true--he have a primacy, but not when he was in error. And the second is that this is not how the New Testament shows how the others always treated Peter.

Notice some correct observations about the matter and the Gospel According to John from an Orthodox scholar:

So, in John's account, Peter is not always first. Perhaps I should also add that often Peter and John are listed together in scripture in such a way as to suggest that John was the best trained to be the main successor of Peter. And the fact that John lived between 20-38 years after Peter died, suggests that perhaps that is what God had in mind.

Furthermore, to prove my second point, notice the following from the Apostle Paul:

Hence, Paul did not consider that Peter had total authority over him or he would not have rebuked him.

As previously alluded to, the Orthodox Churches of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem were also recognized by the Roman Church as legitimate. However, they never accepted the position that they were to be subservient to the Bishop of Rome.

The Petrine theory, that most Roman Catholics accept, holds that Peter’s successors are to decide doctrinal matters for the Church. Yet, at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D., records show that the Roman bishop, Sylvester I, did not attend.

This was a significant doctrinal conference. And this shows that the Roman bishop exercised no primacy over when the date of Easter was set as a replacement for the biblical Passover, and when Sunday worship officially replaced the biblical seventh-day Sabbath. The Council of Nicaea was called and presided over not by a Roman bishop, but by the Emperor Constantine. As emperor, Constantine held the title of Pontifex Maximus in the pagan Roman religion. A title that later Roman bishops would later adopt.

However later, some decided to make up evidence that Rome always had the authority. It is of interest to note that for about 600 years during the Middle Ages, certain Roman bishops pointed to the "Donation of Constantine" as evidence of their right to preside over all the other bishops, but the document according to Roman Catholic sources (i.e. (The Catholic Encyclopedia. Donation of Constantine) was later proven to be a fraud.

The Bible never records that anyone called of God carried keys for public display. Yet, the Roman Pontiff is sometimes seen as wearing two keys. Where does that come from?

There are a couple of theories. The first would seem to be based upon this information found in The Catholic Encyclopedia:

However, since there is no passage in the Bible (NKJV, DRB) that mentions Paul getting any particular key, the idea that a pontiff should wear two keys because of Paul and Peter does not seem to be scripturally based.

Now while I do not claim to know all the motivations of the bishops of Rome in or around 378, it is a fact that the pagan gods Janus "holds a key" (Lindemans M. Janus. Encyclopedia Mythica. created 1997; http://www.pantheon.org/articles/j/janus.html 11/20/05) and Cybele's "symbol is a key" (Cybele (Rhea) Polychrome's Pantheon. http://hunter.apana.org.au/~gallae/pantheon/myth/cybele.htm 11/20/05). I have also found independent citations that Janus was a god of doors and hinges and Cardea (who became Cybele) was called the hinges of the door (http://www.controverscial.com/Gods%20and%20Deities.htm 11/22/05).

Furthermore, The Catholic Encyclopedia confirms that the term Cardinal is derived from the Latin word for hinge (and started in the late fifth century) as does a book sponsored by the Pontifical Administration:

Thus, there certainly seem to be pre-Christian origins for many practices associated with the Roman Church.

There are various similiarities that the Church of Rome has to pre-Christian religions.

Do Catholic Approved Writings Suggest that There Was Succession From An Apostle Other Than Peter?

Although some Roman Catholics have taught, "as a matter of history, there is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken chain of successors" (Apostolic Succession. The Catholic Encyclopedia), this is not quite accurate (the Orthodox Church, as one example, has a listing of bishops they claim from the Apostle Andrew to present, which this author has reviewed). Furthermore, we in the Continuing Church of God have unbroken succession from the original apostles (Laying on of Hands Succession and List)--furthermore, we hold to the beliefs of the original catholic church. The Roman and Orthodox Catholics changed many of those beliefs--for documented details, check out the free online book: Beliefs of the Original Catholic Church.

That Roman Catholic position appears to be saying that since they claim an unbroken chain of successors from Peter, no other church could have any legitimate successor chain linked from another apostle. But is that what the Bible or all Greco-Roman Catholic writings force us to conclude?

It should be noted that Christ told Peter that the gates of Haydes (the grave) would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16:18). Obviously Peter died so that gates of the grave prevailed against him. Also, even a cursory listing of the Roman Bishops of Rome (the first 37 of which they call pope after the fact--none of the first 37 bishops of Rome historically referred to themselves with the terms pope or pontiff) shows that there are many gaps between the death of one and the selection of another (e.g. Lopes A. The Popes: The lives of the pontiffs through 2000 years of history. Futura Edizoni, Roma, 1997). Hence what the true Catholic position appears to be is that the church itself will not die out (which is what Jesus taught) even if there is not always one universally recognized human leader of it on earth. And that is true.

Furthermore, Peter knew that he would be martyred and that he would most likely die before the Apostle John. Notice John 21:18-23:

Perhaps, because of this, Peter when he was a bit older, began to share the leadership with the Apostle John. Even the Apostle Paul noticed that it was James the brother of Jesus, Peter, and John who seemed to be the pillars of the Church (Galatians 2:9) which was then still apparently headquartered in Jerusalem (and not Rome) (see verse 1).

Thus the clear line of succession and passing of the keys (if only Peter was given them) was from Peter, who turned them over to John, who turned them over (figuratively, through the scriptural practice of the laying on of hands, as there is record of actual keys being provided by Christ to Peter) to Polycarp and/or other leaders were the church was ran from. And at the time of John's death, he was in charge of the churches from Ephesus in Asia Minor.

Around 200 A.D., in his paper Liber de praescriptione haereticorum Tertullian (an acknowledged Catholic "early church father") addressed the idea of continuity of the Church when he wrote

Nearly everything that Tertullian wrote above is absolutely correct. And what he seems to be saying is that the true Christian Church must be able to trace itself from the beliefs held by original Apostles, should have a successor chosen by one of those Apostles, and the only two groups that could possibly meet these criteria are the Smyrnaeans and the Romans. Since Smyrnaeans and the Romans had different doctrines at that time (the Smyrnaeans kept the Passover while the Romans kept Easter Sunday as one major historical example), then if Tertullian is correct here, it follows that only one of them could have been the true Christian Church during his time. (Please also see the article Apostolic Succession.)

The Bible and Certain Greco-Roman Catholic Writings Support John as the Main Leader After Peter

At the time of Paul, Paul noted that it was "James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars" (Galatians 2:9). Cephas is the Aramaic word for Peter. If Peter, and Peter alone, had the keys, then would not Paul have known this instead of saying that James, Peter, AND John seemed to be pillars? Once James and Peter were killed, this only left one pillar, the Apostle John. Does it not make sense that John would be the true successor to Peter?

It should be noted that Greco-Roman Catholics consider that John was a highly important apostle. As Roman Catholic authors have correctly written:

Thus it is no surprise that since John outlived Peter and all the other original apostles, that church succession would have essentially gone through him. After all JOHN WAS THE LAST OF THE ORIGINAL TWELVE APOSTLES! Also, notice above that even the Roman Catholics admit that John guided the churches from Ephesus. It would seem illogical that since the Roman Catholics claim to have had three-four 'bishops of Rome' (other than Peter) before John died (e.g. Lopes A. The Popes) that John, an original apostle, would be subservient to them.

This is especially true since none of those 3-4 'bishops of Rome' claim to have held the position of apostle--a bishop is essentially an elder who is a pastor or overseer (Acts 20:17 mentions elders & verse 28 calls those elders overseers, from the Greek word often translated as bishop). As the Bible shows, an apostle is the first and highest rank listed for the leadership of the church, "And God has appointed these in the church: first apostles" (1 Corinthians 12:28). Note that in Ephesians 4:11-12, apostles are listed ahead of pastors, "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ".

Also note that the Bible is clear about John and Peter having a leadership position, but that it makes no reference, directly nor indirectly, to any 'bishop of Rome'. Hence, it does not in any way suggest that any Roman bishop is the true successor of the leadership of the entire church.

The Bible shows that in the early church, Jerusalem was where its leadership was conferred on topics of importance (see Acts 15; Galatians 1:18; 2:1-9). Actually, three of the four times that the Bible shows that Paul conferred with Peter, it was in Jerusalem (ibid). And the fourth time was not in Rome, it was in Antioch (Galatians 2:11). It should be noted that even the Church of Rome teaches that Peter was the bishop (or overseer) of Antioch. Interestingly, when personally addressing the leadership for the Christians who lived in Rome, Paul never mentioned Peter, even though he listed at least 27 others (Romans 16). This is not proof that Peter was never possibly in Rome, but it does show that he was probably never there long enough to truly be the 'bishop of Rome'.

This shows that the Church of Rome acknowledges that Peter labored in Asia minor and tended to return to Jerusalem. The Bible clearly shows that Peter came to Antioch as Paul wrote, "Peter had come to Antioch" (Galatians 2:11). Hence, the Catholics do not teach that Peter even spent much time in Rome.

It should be mentioned here that there is no early church writing that suggests that the Christians in Asia Minor accepted any authority from the early bishops of Rome. The Catholic Church does officially acknowledge this as well when it said this about the Roman Church:

Furthermore, the leaders in Asia Minor, specifically Polycarp (around 150 A.D.) and those affiliated with Polycrates (around 197 A.D.) specifically refused to accept Roman ecclesiastical authority. This is well documented in Roman Catholic approved sources (and many quotes are found in the articles What Does Rome Actually Teach About Early Church History? and The Location of the Early Church).

It is of interest to note that John lists the church in Smyrna after the church in Ephesus (the church John led until his death) in Revelation 1:11 and 2. Furthermore, since Polycarp was a disciple of John, it is logical that the true church would be traced from the last apostolic head of the Ephesus church to the first apparent head of the Smyrna church (see also Revelation 2 which lists Smyrna church following Ephesus church).

Here is some of what the article titled Smyrna in the Catholic Encyclopedia states

Interestingly, in the second century, when the Smyrna church was becoming predominant, there were the writings of the so-called "apostolic fathers". These documents, which the Greco-Roman Catholics essentially accept as authentic (though not canonical), never refer to any bishop of Rome, the keys, priestly garb, or similar things normally considered to be uniquely Roman Catholic. They do, however, frequently refer to Polycarp of Smyrna and others that knew (and respected) him in Asia Minor.

This should cause all Roman Catholics to consider: how come neither the Bible nor the writings of the "apostolic fathers", which are all the documents that the Roman Catholic Church accepts as authentic prior to 170 A.D., did NOT discuss exclusively Roman Catholic traditions, but instead Polycarp? (To verify that statement, I read through the entire book by M. Holmes titled The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations from Baker Books, Grand Rapids, 1999.) Then how did those uniquely Greco-Roman Catholic traditions make there way into that Church?

It should be noted that from a biblical perspective it is important to note that Revelation 17:1-9 condemns the church that sits of seven mountains, which most (including Greco-Roman Catholic writers) interpret to be the seven hills of Rome (Roman Catholic writers also acknowledge that the term Babylon in the Book of Revelation means Rome).

By looking into the entire Bible, the answer to this question is no. Even Catholic writers have come to the same conclusion.

Looking at the Greek terms for stone and rock in Matthew 16:18, and comparing what was taught in the rest of the New Testament, and specifically in I Corinthians 10:4, shows that Jesus, not Peter, is the Rock. The Catholic renditions that appeal to the Aramaic are clearly not consistent with the original Greek on this subject.

In Ephesians 2:20 it is Jesus who is shown to be the chief cornerstone. Ephesians 2:19-20 also shows that the foundation of the church is the historical leadership of the (writings of) the apostles and prophets, hence the church is built on Christ with the apostles AND prophets, not just Peter. And after the resurrection, the Holy Spirit (and related gifts) were given to the disciples (John 20:20-23), not just Peter.

Understanding about keys in Isaiah 22 and Revelation 3:7-8 shows that the quoted Roman Catholic understanding of this cannot be exclusively scripturally based.

And since Jesus called Peter 'Satan' in Matthew 16:23, there is no way He called him the Rock in Matthew 16:18.

But even if Peter was somehow the Rock and he alone possessed the keys, there is no scriptural or early historical reason to accept that they were somehow transferred to someone in Rome instead of Asia Minor. (To learn more about Peter and where he may have been buried, please see the article The Apostle Peter).

The fact that the main portion of the true church shifted from Jerusalem and Ephesus in the first century to Smyrna in the second century, and not Rome, is also consistent with the biblical (Revelation 1:11;2) and historical record.

Noting that the 'binding and loosing' of Church authority was given to all those who became apostles in Matthew 18:18-20, shows that any Roman Catholic position that Peter was the rock and given exclusive binding and loosing authority is inaccurate. It also shows that to accept the idea that John had (or later received) that authority is consistent with the biblical record. The simple fact is that the original teachings held by the original and true Christian Church were best pre severed in Ephesus and Smyrna, and not Rome, during the first and second centuries.

Thus, the true church (best represented by the Continuing Church of God) still has the right doctrines and thus proper succession.

Was Peter the Rock Who Alone Received the Keys of the Kingdom?

Other Scriptures: What Did Peter and Paul Teach?

Did Peter Die in Rome?

THE TOMBS OF THE APOSTLES ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL ...