Several years back, my wife and I adopted our daughter from Peru. This involved travelling to the South American country to actually pick her up at a Roman Catholic orphanage.

I was there for three weeks and my wife for six. But while there we met a young Peruvian couple who could speak English. They were committed Catholics, but were part of the Charismatic movement. There is absolutely no doubt in my mind they along with others working at the orphanage were Christians.

While I don’t agree with much of the dogma taught by the Roman Catholic Church, I am convinced that many within the church are believers.

One of the Catholic teachings that I disagree with is the Papacy.

This is the belief that the Pope is the Supreme leader of the worldwide church.

This notion is rejected by protestants and evangelicals today for several reasons:

Peter Could Not Be Pope Today

Roman Catholics believe that Peter, as the Bishop of Rome, was the first pope. As Peter’s successor, the Bishop of Rome (Pope), continues on as the church’s supreme leader.

But if this is true, it is a bit problematic.

This because Peter could not serve as pope today. This is due to the fact that the pope, and all Roman Catholic clergy, are not allowed to marry.

Yet, we know from scripture that Peter was married.

One of Christ’s earliest miracles involved the healing of Peter’s mother in law in Luke 4:38-40. She was sick in bed and was immediately healed when Jesus rebuked the fever.

Then we have the Apostle Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians where he talks about the apostles, including Cephas (Peter’s Aramaic name), having believing wives.

Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas? (1 Corinthians 9:5 NASV)

Not only was Peter married, the verse tells us that all the apostles, and as well Jesus’ brother James, were married.

So what does this say about the papacy, if Peter couldn’t meet the basic qualification today?

Paul warned of a coming time when people would forbid marriage (1 Timothy 4:3).

I have no problem with people voluntarily choosing not to marry in order to have more time for ministry. But to forbid a person to marry whom God has called to ministry is absolutely wrong and unbiblical.

Ironically, most of the apostles directly chosen by Jesus, could not serve as Roman Catholic priests today.

The Church Would Be Built on Peter

Catholic theologians also point to Matthew 16:18 to validate Peter’s position as the church’s supreme leader. In this passage, Jesus said the church would be built on the rock, who is Peter.

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. (Matthew 16:18 NASV)

Yet, when we read the Bible, it clearly reveals that Peter fulfilled that role, but not in the way Catholics envisioned it.

When the Holy Spirit fell on the Day of Pentecost, Peter played an instrumental role as over 3,000 Jews accepted Christ in his first sermon (Acts 2:40-41).

Then Peter played a vital role when Philip took the gospel to the Samaritans who were half Jews and half gentiles. Philip was having a remarkable time, healing the sick, casting out demons, leading people to Christ and then water baptizing them (Acts 8:5-12).

But one thing was missing. Despite moving in the power of the Holy Spirit, Philip could not fill the Samaritans with the Holy Spirit.

When the Apostles in Jerusalem heard about this problem, they (the apostolic team) sent Peter and John to Samaria.

When Peter arrived, the Holy Spirit fell in power upon the Samaritans and they were filled with the Holy Spirit, like the Jews were on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 8:14-18).

But that only happened after Peter arrived.

Then through a series of visions, the Holy Spirit sent Peter to a group of gentiles meeting in the home of Cornelius. After he preached, the Holy Spirit fell upon the gentiles and they were speaking in tongues and prophesying (Acts 10:44-48).

Peter played the critical role of releasing the Holy Spirit among the Jews, the Samaritan and the gentiles.

This was his building role in the early church.

Peter Was An Early Church Leader, But Not The Leader

While, Peter played an instrumental role in bringing the Holy Spirit to the Jews, gentiles and Samaritans, he is not portrayed as supreme leader of the early church.

This shows up at the church’s first council meeting in Acts 15 to discuss what to do with the gentiles. The Judaizers were arguing that the gentiles needed to become Jews (be circumcised) in order to become Christians.

Because of what happened at Cornelius’ home, Peter was a presenter. When the Holy Spirit fell on the gentiles, God obviously accepted them just as they were, uncircumcised.

Though Peter shared this story in Acts 15, he was not portrayed as the person presiding over the meeting.

If anyone had that role, it was James, the brother of Jesus. He brought forward the Biblical text that convinced the council that the gentiles should be accepted as equal partners with the Jews in the church (Acts 15:13-21).

James finished by saying, “Therefore, it is my judgment that we do not cause trouble for those from the Gentiles who are turning to God” (verse 19).

James then adds that the church should send a letter telling the gentiles to avoid things contaminated by idols, acts of sexual immorality, and eating blood.

This is exactly what the church did. James led this meeting, not Peter.

Later, Peter would seemingly back away from the original position that gentiles didn’t need circumcision and hang out with the Judaizers. He was subsequently rebuked by Paul (Galatians 2:11-12).

So any claims that Peter was supreme leader of the early church are shaky at best.

Peter Was Never the Bishop of Rome

The Roman Catholic church also holds that Peter was Rome’s first bishop.

Now if this is true, you would expect that such an important revelation would be recorded somewhere in the Bible. Surely God would want every one to see this vital connection.

Yet, when Paul writes his letter to the church in Rome around 58 AD, he mentions over 20 people who were in the church in chapter 16. Peter is not on this list.

We also know that Paul was under house arrest in Rome for about two years in Acts 28. There is no record of Peter visiting him. Yet when Paul went to Jerusalem for two weeks, the Bible records Paul’s visit with Peter in that city (Galatians 1:18).

So if Peter and his Papal successors were to play such a critical role in the church, why is there no mention in the Bible of Peter ever being in Rome, much less serving as the Bishop of Rome?

Though I don’t agree with most of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, I admire their dedication and commitment. I still remember those nuns serving in the orphanage in the desert of Peru.

A year ago, through a series of unusual events, I ended up being invited to a birthday party being held at the home of a Roman Catholic Archbishop.

Of course, I accepted. Before hand, I wondered how big his house would be and when I arrived I was shocked by how small it was, perhaps 600 square feet. It was nicely kept up, but a humble dwelling.

More in this series:

• Roman Catholic Doctrine: Praying to the Saints
• Roman Catholic Doctrine: What is Purgatory?
• Roman Catholic Doctrine: The veneration of Mary