Peter, Rome, and the Myth of Papal Supremacy

The Claim vs. the Evidence

The Roman Catholic Church claims a universal authority based on the primacy of Apostle Peter – asserting that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and that the popes inherit Peter’s supreme authority over all Christians. This is the cornerstone of the papacy’s legitimacy. But what does Scripture and early history actually show? We must ask: Where did Peter really minister? Did he ever establish or lead the original church in Rome? And does the Bible support the idea of Rome having ultimate authority? In this article, we will examine the biblical record and historical evidence which casts serious doubt on the papal supremacy myth. The goal is not to attack any person, but to distinguish claims from facts – showing that Peter’s role in the New Testament does not align with Rome’s later assertions of supremacy.

See also yesterday's post

https://www.rebuildspirit.com/post/wisdom-the-forgotten-breath-of-god

Peter’s Real Ministry Base: Antioch, Not Rome

If Peter held unrivaled authority in Rome, we would expect the New Testament to place him there as the founder or head of the Roman church. Instead, Scripture places Peter’s ministry elsewhere – notably at Antioch. Paul recounts a famous incident not in Rome, but in Antioch, where Peter erred in his conduct: “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned” (Gal 2:11). This shows Peter was active in Antioch, a major early center of Christianity, and even fallible in his behavior there – hardly an image of an infallible “universal” ruler.

Early tradition likewise points to Antioch as Peter’s primary base in the years following Christ’s ascension. It records that Peter first established the church at Antioch passing his succession onto Evodius before any sojourn in Rome. The important point is this: nowhere does Scripture say Peter founded the church in Rome, nor that he ever served as its resident leader. By contrast, Antioch is explicitly tied to Peter’s ministry in both the New Testament and early tradition. If Peter’s primacy was meant to establish Rome’s supremacy, the Bible itself shows no hint of it. Instead, Peter’s known leadership activities – preaching, miracles, the council at Jerusalem – take place in Jerusalem, Samaria, and Antioch, but never in Rome.

Paul’s Divine Mission to Rome

While Peter is not shown founding or leading the Roman church in Scripture, one apostle is directly linked with Rome: Paul. God Himself commissioned Paul to witness in Rome: “Take courage! As you have testified about Me in Jerusalem, so you [Paul] must also testify in Rome” (Acts 23:11). Later, when Paul is on trial and facing shipwreck, an angel of God assures him, “Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar” (Acts 27:24). Paul, not Peter, is the one who receives a divine mission to Rome.

In his Epistle to the Romans, Paul takes the role of apostolic father-figure to the believers there. He tells them: “I have often planned to come to you (but have been prevented until now) in order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles” (Rom 1:13). He describes his eagerness to preach the Gospel in Rome (Rom 1:14–15) and even apologizes for being delayed so long. In that same letter, he greets many members of the Roman church by name – yet never mentions Peter. If Peter were ruling in Rome as bishop, Paul’s silence would be inexplicable.

Paul even emphasizes: “It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation” (Rom 15:20). If Peter had been the founder of the Roman community, Paul would have avoided building there. Instead, Paul treats Rome as open mission territory for himself, showing Peter had no foundational role. Thus, the New Testament identifies Paul – not Peter – as the apostolic authority tied to Rome.

Even If Peter Was the Rock

Even if we allow, for the sake of argument, that Christ’s words “on this rock I will build my church” (Matt 16:18) referred to Peter, it does not follow that Peter was given Rome as his throne. Christ never gave Peter a divine mission to build the church in Rome. The commission Peter received was pastoral, not political: “Feed my lambs… take care of my sheep… feed my sheep” (John 21:15–17). This was a call to shepherd God’s people wherever they were, not to exalt one city above all others.

Notice what Christ did not say. He never told Peter, “Go to Rome.” He never said, “Establish My Church in the capital of the empire.” He never commanded him to build a universal throne or claim succession over all believers. The idea of Peter as bishop of Rome is entirely absent from the Gospels and Acts. Instead, Peter’s ministry in Scripture is consistently tied to the Jews (Gal 2:7–8), to Jerusalem (Acts 2:14), and to Antioch (Gal 2:11).

Meanwhile, another apostle is explicitly called to Rome, as already shown earlier: Paul. The difference is striking. Peter is told to shepherd the flock; Paul is told to carry the Gospel to the Gentiles and ultimately to stand before Caesar. If Rome were to be the “holy see,” the place of universal primacy, would not Christ have directed Peter there? Yet He never did.

Even Peter himself points away from Rome and back to Christ as the true rock: “As you come to Him, a living stone; rejected by men but chosen and precious in God’s sight; you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house” (1 Pet 2:4–5). The apostle does not exalt his own position, nor the city of Rome, but exalts Christ as the cornerstone.

Thus, even if someone insists that Peter was personally the “rock” in Matthew 16, the plain fact remains: Jesus never commissioned him to build in Rome, never gave him authority to establish a throne there, and never tied the life of His Church to one city of the empire. Rome’s later claim is therefore a human tradition, not a divine command.

Augustine’s Retraction – Christ, Not Peter

Centuries later, Augustine admitted that while he had once said the Church was built on Peter, he later explained that the rock was Christ Himself, the One whom Peter confessed (Matt 16:18). At first, Augustine had repeated the common interpretation of his day, identifying Peter as the foundation stone. But in his later writings, collected in his Retractationes, he openly corrected himself. He acknowledged that his earlier statement was not the best interpretation, and that the “rock” in Matthew 16 is Christ, or more precisely, the confession of Christ as the Son of the living God.

This shift is significant. Augustine is the most revered theologian of the Latin West, and Roman Catholic theology frequently appeals to him as an authority. Yet Augustine himself refused to lock the meaning of Matthew 16:18 to Peter’s person or office. Instead, he insisted the Church is built on Christ alone. Augustine even left it to his readers to judge which interpretation was better, but made it clear that his own mature conviction was that the true Rock is Christ.

Augustine’s retraction is devastating for the papal claim. If the bishop of Rome’s supremacy rests on Matthew 16:18, then the greatest theologian of the Roman Church himself pulled that foundation out from under their feet. He recognized that Christ alone is the cornerstone, and that Peter’s role was to confess Him, not to replace Him.

In fact, Augustine’s final position harmonizes perfectly with the rest of Scripture: “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3:11); “built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone” (Eph 2:20). Augustine bowed to this biblical truth, choosing Christ over tradition, and thereby undercutting Rome’s later claim to absolute primacy.

Thus, even the greatest teacher of the Latin Church ultimately admitted that the “rock of the Church” is not Peter, not Rome, and not the papacy, but Christ Himself, the only foundation and cornerstone.

Martyrdom ≠ Jurisdiction

It is true that tradition holds Peter was martyred in Rome under Nero, and that Paul was also killed there. This gives Rome an honored place in memory. But let us be absolutely clear: martyrdom does not crown the city of the murderer with holiness. Dying in a city does not hand over jurisdiction to that city. James, the Lord’s brother, was martyred in Jerusalem (the true Holy city) (Acts 12:2), Stephen in Jerusalem (Acts 7:59–60), Thomas in India, Andrew in Greece, Mark in Alexandria. None of these deaths turned those cities into the “mother and head of all churches.” None became supreme thrones simply because blood was spilled within their gates.

Rome’s guilt in shedding apostolic blood does not sanctify Rome – it condemns her. To argue that the very empire which crucified Christ and butchered His apostles was thereby made holy is to exalt the executioner over the martyr. To call Rome the “holy see” because she murdered Peter and Paul is to blaspheme the memory of the apostles themselves. Rome’s hands are red, not with anointing oil, but with the blood of the saints.

Martyrdom gives honor to the martyr, never supremacy to the murderer. By the same reasoning, the cross did not exalt the Sanhedrin or Pilate; it exalted Christ, who triumphed over them through His death. Why then should Peter’s death glorify the Caesars who spilled his blood, or enthrone their city as the seat of Christ’s kingdom? Rome shed blood to preserve her empire of beasts and idols. The fact that she slaughtered apostles shows not holiness but savagery.

And yet Rome dares to twist this act of violence into a badge of authority. For two thousand years, noble lineage tales, forged documents and doctrinal inventions have been wielded to give divine weight to a throne that was never commanded by Christ, never recognized by the apostles, and never established by Scripture. The bishops of Rome did not even begin to claim universal supremacy until centuries after Peter’s death, and only then by human ambition, not divine mandate.

The earliest Christians shared authority among many apostolic centers – Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Alexandria – with councils, not monarchs, guarding the faith. But Rome, drunk on the blood of prophets and apostles, proclaimed herself queen of the churches. This was not the fruit of martyrdom, but the arrogance of empire dressed in churchly robes.

To this day, the claim that Rome’s authority comes from Peter’s martyrdom is a grotesque inversion of the truth. The death of God’s servants condemns their killers.

Nor did Rome’s bloodlust end with the deaths of Peter and Paul. The very same spirit that crucified Christ and murdered the apostles lived on in the system that later clothed itself in religious garb. As the centuries rolled on, the bishops of Rome, having seized a throne forged by ambition and propped up by forged documents, turned their swords not against pagan emperors, but against faithful Christians who clung to the Word of God rather than the false authority of the pope. Countless saints – men and women whose only “crime” was holding fast to Scripture above Rome’s decrees – were tortured, burned, and silenced by those who claimed to sit in Peter’s seat, even though the record of Scripture places Peter’s ministry in Antioch, not on a throne in Rome.

The papacy became an empire within an empire, declaring itself the vicar of Christ while trampling the very body of Christ. Instead of feeding the sheep, Rome devoured them. Instead of guarding the truth, Rome suppressed it with blood. History bears witness: martyrdom continued, not under Nero’s sword, but under the tiara of the popes.

And even today the legacy remains. The Jesuits, the sworn soldiers of the papacy, were raised up to enforce Rome’s dominion with cunning and steel. Their allegiance is not to the Word of God, but to the man on the Roman throne – a throne Christ never established, a throne never once mentioned in Scripture, a throne born of pride and ambition, not divine calling.

This throne claims infallibility, yet it stands on no word from the mouth of God. It demands universal obedience, yet it is absent from every page of the New Testament. It boasts apostolic authority, yet the apostles themselves knew nothing of it. In truth, it is a human kingdom masquerading as divine – a counterfeit built on blood, forged documents, and ceaseless ambition.

The true Church has always been those who follow the Lamb wherever He goes (Rev 14:4), not those who bow to a man who dares to sit where only Christ belongs.

The Real Foundation: Christ the Cornerstone, Spirit the Guide

The apostles never once drew men to themselves. Every word, every sermon, every miracle was a signpost pointing upward to Christ. When Paul preached, he declared plainly, “We preach not ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves your servants for Jesus’ sake” (2 Cor 4:5). When John the Baptist saw his own disciples slipping away to follow Jesus, he rejoiced, saying, “He must increase, I must decrease” (John 3:30). When Cornelius bowed down before Peter, Peter refused the act of worship and lifted him up, saying, “Stand up; I too am a man” (Acts 10:25–26). This was the true apostolic spirit; men who knew they were not saviors, not heads, not foundations, but servants who existed to direct all eyes to Christ.

How utterly different this is from the spirit of the papacy. The pope does not say “I am a man like you”; he accepts the titles of “Holy Father,” “Vicar of Christ,” and even “Head of the Church.” He does not decrease so that Christ may increase; he enthrones himself as Christ’s earthly replacement. The apostles shed their own honor to magnify Christ, but the papacy absorbs Christ’s honor to magnify itself. The apostles made their weakness the backdrop for Christ’s strength; the papacy clothes itself in crowns, scepters, and infallibility.

This is not only a betrayal of the apostolic pattern but a direct assault on the glory of Christ. Scripture says without ambiguity: “Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior” (Eph 5:23). To claim that one man in Rome is the “head of the church” is to usurp Christ’s throne. Scripture says, “No one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3:11). To claim that the foundation of the Church is Peter and his supposed successors is to erect a rival foundation. Scripture says the Spirit of truth (Wisdom-the divine Holy Spirit) will guide the Church (the body of all believers indwelt by the Holy Spirit) into all truth (John 16:13). To claim that infallibility rests in a single bishop is to dethrone the Spirit and enthrone a man.

The apostles always lowered themselves so that Christ would be seen as supreme. The apostles pointed the sheep to the Shepherd; the papacy points the sheep to the pope. The apostles lived and died to declare that Jesus Christ is Lord; the papacy declares that no one can know Christ’s will except through the Roman see. This is why the papacy is not only illogical but blasphemous. It exalts man in the place of Christ, decrees in the place of Scripture, institution in the place of the Spirit, and pride in the place of humility. It inverts the pattern of the apostles, turning the servant into a monarch and the foot-washer into a crowned king. Do not be deceived by staged displays of humility. History shows popes parading in golden chariots, carried aloft on thrones, shaded by plumes of ostrich feathers. The costumes may change, the pageantry may be trimmed, but the arrogance remains. The supposed piety is a mask. Beneath it, the Roman Catholic Church is still the Roman Empire, cloaking imperial ambition in religious garb

The entire witness of the New Testament shouts against such arrogance. From Pentecost onward, the Spirit fills the body of believers, not the throne of one man. From the first preaching of the Gospel, the cry has been, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31), not “Submit to the pope and you will be saved.” To enthrone the papacy is to replace Christ with clay, to turn the living Rock into an idol.

Return to the True Bridegroom and His Bride

The myth of papal supremacy distracts from the true biblical vision of Christ and His Bride. Scripture describes the marriage of the Lamb and divine Wisdom (the breath of God), not the triumph of an institution (Rev 19:7). The true rock is Christ, and the true throne is the throne of God and the Lamb.

Christ purchased the Church with His blood. He alone is worthy of our loyalty. Rome’s claims are built on later myths and forgeries, but the apostles’ teaching points us back to the true foundation. As Paul said, “I betrothed you to one Husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ” (2 Cor 11:2).

The restoration of all things is not the exaltation of Rome, but the reunion of Christ and His people, filled with the Spirit. That is the hope and the crown of righteousness laid up for all who long for His appearing (2 Tim 4:8).