Apologetics #6: Protestant claims that Peter wasn't appointed to the headship of the Apostolic College

Claim: Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Read Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11). There is no mention in Scripture or history that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that "there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome." ​

---

   We have all heard it. The denial that St. Peter was made the Vicar of Jesus Christ. The denial that Christ gave to him the Headship over the Apostles. This denial, of course, is needed in order to legitimise the falsely named "Reformation". Because, if Peter is truly the head, then to break from that head would prove one to be outside the Church, and thus outside the saving Faith of Jesus Christ. But, it is common sense that there should be an earthly head. 

    Whilst on earth, Our Lord was the visible sign of unity, around Whom the Apostles and other disciples gathered, sitting at the feet of that great Teacher and Master of souls. Around the feet of the Divine Preacher, the whole Church gathered, and still gathers, as if lying under the shade of a tree, listening the gentle Voice of Her Spouse. Whilst on earth, He was visible, and therefore the visible Head on earth. But, what should happen after the Ascension, when Christ would ascend to the Father, and be seen no more? The natural question would be: who did Jesus leave in charge on earth? 

    Think of it like an Empire. The Emperor appoints governors for his Empire, and endows them with his authority. In the same way, Christ bestowed authority on one Apostle in particular, not to supersede Him, but to rule in His Name. This Apostle was St. Peter, who the Holy Church calls "the Prince of the Apostles". The Successor of St. Peter is the Pope, the Supreme Sovereign Pontiff. 

    So, as around Christ, the whole family of the Church is gathered around the Prince of the Apostles, listening to him, because through him, Christ speaks. When anyone in authority departs from his usual place, he always leaves someone in charge. So, too, did Christ likewise. Specially more so with the Church, since She is the only way to Heaven. What great confusion would there be if Christ left no one in charge, and each Apostle and disciple argued amongst themselves about whom was to take charge, finally leaving one another to found their own churches! What scandal would that be to the Unity of Christ? And what manifest contradictions would there be in what doctrines are to be believed?! If that sounds like Protestantism, well, you now know the cause of the illness! For this reason did He leave St. Peter to be Head of the Church on earth, not to replace Christ, but to speak in His place and to bind the faithful to that saving Truth which Christ entrusted to His Catholic Church (called the Deposit of Faith). 

    It would be absurd to think, as the Protestants seem to, that Christ left the Church without a governor, without someone we could turn to for guidance and instruction! Is Christ so without heart so as to abandon His beloved Church to be grappled and torn asunder by men? Is He with love that He would leave His sheep without a visible shepherd to follow? Would He leave us in uncertainty about doctrine, so that we wouldn't know the correct way to believe in Him? This is seemingly the Protestant Christ, so heartless, cold and cruel, as to leave poor children without any help. But the true Christ, the Catholic Christ, as it were, is not so heartless, but ever full of compassion gave to us our Shepherd, the man whom we call our Holy Father - the Pope!

​    I shall use herein the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible in the main for the Scriptural text. Any other version shall be duly noted. Verses from the DR shall be linked to for your reading. Links are in bold red.

---

(1) Jesus & Peter:
​Who is Head of the Church?

Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Read Luke 22:24-26; Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians 1:18; 1st Corinthians 3:11). 

It is rather interesting that the Objection put forward above does not involve any attempt to refute the Catholic interpretation of such verses as Matthew 16:16-19, or John 21:15-17, as is customary amongst Protestants. Instead, we are asked to read some other verses that, we are told, prove the Catholic doctrine false.  

    (1) The first of these is from St. Luke, which reads: And there was also a strife amongst them, which of them should seem to be the greater. And He said to them: The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and they that have power over them, are called beneficent. But you not so: but he who is the greater among you, let him be as the younger: and he who is the leader, as he that serveth. [22:24-26]

    (2) The second is from Ephesians, which reads: And he hath subjected all things under his feet, and hath made him head over all the church, which is his body, and the fullness of him who is filled all in all. [1:22-23]

    (3) The third is from Colossians: And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy. [1:18]

    (4) And the fourth is from 1 Corinthians: For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. [3:11]

    By this, we are told that these verses forbid the idea of Peter being head. Surely, some of these verses seem damning, since Christ is called the "head of the body, the church" and the "foundation...which is laid". Yet, as always, the Protestant extracts these verses out of context, and tries to impose upon them an opposition which is not there, coupled with the fact that the Protestant may not have sufficient understanding of Catholic teaching itself. 

Who is greater?

The first text from St. Luke is presented as proof against Rome. Yet, I fail to see how. Jesus is clearly instructing the Apostles in humility in this text. Why? Precisely because of the great Office which He is to give them, that of ruling the Church [Cf. Acts. 20:28]. For this reason He says "but he who is greater among you [Peter], let him be as the younger" and also "and he who is the leader [Peter], as he that serveth". So the very text used to condemn the idea of a leader, supports the idea that the Apostles have a leader! 

    Since Christ explicitly mentions a leader, rather than forbidding the idea, He is, thus, instructing this leader on humility. The leader, and indeed the rest of the Apostles, are not to use their authority to lord it over the people. Peter, the leader, ironically repeats this teaching of Christ, warning the bishops (the Apostles and their successors) not to "lord it over the clergy" [1 Pet. 5:2-3]. Peter is repeating what his Master has taught him - to use your authority responsibly. The fact that St. Peter is instructing the other Apostles and their successors in the teachings of Christ, and presents to them the rule by which they are to govern the Church, is a clear sign of his primacy over the Apostolic College and the Universal Church. 

    It also worthy to note that Christ uses a generic term, "leader". He does not directly name Peter here, but rather says "and he who is leader". Did He not know that Peter was the leader? Of course; but not Peter alone but also his Successors in his Chair, and so He did not direct His teaching just at Peter alone, but rather to Peter's heirs in the Petrine Office, and so says "and he who is leader", that is, "I tell you Peter to not use your supreme authority which I have given you to lord it over the Church, even as I, Almighty God, have not lorded it over you, but rather have served you as a Servant; and this rule of Mine is binding upon you and your Successors for ever. Teach them, Peter, and remind them of My rule: to observe My meekness, and to be fathers of children, and not masters of slaves. But doing this, you shall perfectly reflect My meekness and thus will glorify Me."

    In order to properly understand what is taking place in this text of St. Luke, let us turn to a Catholic commentary. The commentary for the RSV 2nd Catholic Edition New Testament Study Bible states in reference to verse 26: The disciples must not confuse worldly honour and recognition with spiritual greatness. The shepherds of God's people must instead imitate Christ in their humility and selfless concern for those under their care (Jn. 13:12-15; CCC 894: "The bishops, as vicars and legates of Christ, govern the particular Churches assigned to them by their counsels, exhortations, and example, but over and above that also by the authority and sacred power" which indeed they ought to exercise so as to edify, in the spirit of service which is that of their Master.)

   So, from this commentary, we begin to understand what is taking place. Our Lord is instructing His Apostles in right exercise of government in the Church, especially directing His teaching to the "greater" and "leader" of the Apostles. So, Christ verifies that the Apostles have a leader, and we all know his name: Peter. 
   
    In fact, in order to clarify that Peter is head, St. Peter is named the most after Christ, and is always named first and apart from the other Apostles. And to clarify it more for those who doubt, St. Matthew writes the list of the Apostles (Matt. 10:2-4), and says "the first, Simon who is called Peter". In Greek the word used for "first" is πρῶτος (protos), which means: 

1) first in time or place 
1a) in any succession of things or persons 
2) first in rank 
2a) influence, honour 
2b) chief 
2c) principal 
3) first, at the first.

    The word "chief" is sometimes translated in Latin as "princeps", meaning prince. So, St. Matthew describes Peter as the first in succession, rank, influence and honour, chief/prince of the Apostles. Pretty strong language being used considering, according to the Protestants, that Peter isn't the head of the Church! Using that language, St. Matthew might mistaken people into thinking Peter was the head of the Apostles! Of course, we Catholics have no problem with this, since by using such language, St. Matthew proves to us that Peter was made head of the Apostles. And thus Rome's teaching on this matter is proved. 

Simon....confirm thy brethren

    But what is also interesting, is what Christ says after this, which our Protestant doesn't direct us to read: For which is greater, he that sitteth at table, or he that serveth? Is not he that sitteth at table? but I am in the midst of you, as he that serveth. And you are they who have continued with me in my temptations: And I assign to you, as my Father hath assigned to me, a kingdom, That you may eat and drink at my table, in my kingdom: and may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren. (Luke 22: 27-32)

    The text I have emphasised is rather telling. Christ assigned a Kingdom to the Apostles, that is, the Church. And they shall sit upon thrones to judge Israel, that is, the Church. Then Our Lord says to Simon, directly and personally, that Satan wished to have the Apostles, but that He has prayed for Simon's faith alone, that he may confirm the Apostles. Now, why would Christ only pray for Simon's faith? and why would He direct Simon to "confirm thy brethren"?

    The Haydock commentary says on this:

That thy faith fail not. The faith of Peter, established by the coming of the Holy Ghost, hath never failed, nor can fail, being built upon a rock, which is Christ Himself, and being guided by the Spirit of truth, as Christ promised. (John xv. 26. and xvi. 13.) --- And thou being once converted, confirm thy brethren, even all the other apostles and bishops, over whom I have made and constituted thee and thy successors the chief head, that such a head being appointed by divine authority, all occasions of schisms and divisions might cease, says St. Jerome. (Witham) --- Admire the superabundance of the divine patience. That the disciple might not lose courage, He promised him pardon before he has committed the crime, and restores him again to his apostolic dignity, saying, confirm thy brethren. (St. Cyril) [Emphasis mine]

    The RSV 2nd Catholic Edition New Testament Study Bible says regarding this:

    In reference to the "kingdom", the same commentary says thus: Jesus confers royal authority on the apostles and entrusts them with the Church on earth (12:32). Jesus alludes to the prophetic vision of Daniel 7, in which God gives a worldwide kingdom to the Son of man,  who in turn gives it to the saints (Dan. 7:18, 22, 27). In context, these events coincide with the Son of man's heavenly enthronement (Dan 7:13-14). The historical unfolding of this prophecy begins with the Ascension of Jesus and the birth of the Church (Mk 14:62; 16:19; Acts. 7:56) 

    In reference to the "thrones", the same commentary says: Seats of royal honor. As the new Davidic king, Jesus gives his apostles a share in his kingdom, enabling them to exercise his royal authority over God's people (1:32-33; Mt. 19:28). See note on Mt. 16:19. The role of the apostles is described in terms that recall how long King David's cabinet of ministers ruled Israel from thrones in Jerusalem (Ps. 122 (121): 3-5; Is 22:20-23).  

    So, altogether, we see here that "the leader" is Peter, Who Christ is teaching to be like Him "as he that serveth" (in fact, the Pope is called "the Servant of the Servants of God"), because Christ has given him, along with his brother Apostles, not only authority on earth, but "a kingdom" in which they "may sit upon thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel", which is both the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Kingdom of the Church. Their authority, according to Christ Himself, ends not at death, but continues in Heaven. And, pray tell, what shall they judge? Whether the faithful have kept the teachings of the Apostles [Acts 2:42], have also kept the Apostolic Traditions [2 Thess. 2:14], and have imitated the Apostles [1 Corinth. 4:16; 1 Corinth. 11:1], have kept the Gospel they preached [Gal. 1:8; 2 Thess. 1:8], have obeyed the lawful rulers of the Church [Hebrews 13:17] and such like. This is what they, with God's leave, will judge. 

The co-operation of men with God in our salvation

    The underlying premise behind the denial of Peter's peculiar authority stems from the Protestant belief that since man is so depraved by sin, he has no free will, and therefore unable to do anything: even co-operate with God in his own salvation. Luther, Calvin and others denied the free will of man, and thus a man with no free will can not be Vicar of Christ. Now, whilst a Protestant may personally accept free will, his theology denies it. Denial of free will is inherent in Protestantism. It is the reason why they deny the efficacy of good works (man can do no good), the Priesthood, the Mass, etc.

    It is a most merciful thing for a Catholic to know, that God, although the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, by no means excludes the redeemed from participating in their own salvation. Indeed, the very fact that Christ commissioned His Apostles, mere men, to preach to other men and guide them into the True Faith, is a clear sign that God uses men to advance the salvation of the world, chooses men to administer to other men; not that He has any need of them, but that He shows His love and Paternity by such co-operation. For just as Moses co-operated with God in the administering of the Old Covenant, so does the Church co-operate with God in the administering of the New.

    And Catholics understand that no one co-operated more perfectly or fully than the Blessed Virgin Mary, who gave her free consent to being the Mother of God, Jesus Christ, when she said "fiat mihi secundum verbum tuum" (Luke 1:38: be it done unto me according to thy word). The Latin word "fiat" means: 

1. An arbitrary or authoritative command or order to do something; an effectual decree.
2. Authorization, permission or (official) sanction.

    Thus, Our Lady gave her permission and sanction for the Word of God to be made flesh in her womb, because the Most High would not that she should be coerced, but commanded the very Prince of Messengers, St. Gabriel, to personally rehearse His message to her, and when doing so, to show her all honour and deference (he addressed her with the Greek chairo, or Latin ave, which both mean "hail", a formal salutation to one's superior, thus showing her to be Gabriel's superior. This could only be if she is, as Catholics believe, Queen of Angels), and by obtaining her consent, the Salvation of the world was born of her. In this, she becomes to us a model of perfect humility and obedience toward God. And seeing that these same virtues most pleased the Lord, how could later Christians not take her for their rightful model, knowing that by imitating her, they are imitating Christ, and thus pleasing their Heavenly Father?

    We see in Scripture the co-operation between God and men; God is the true Judge of men and their works [Ps. 49:6; Matt. 16:27, etc], yet God permits the Saints to judge with Him [1 Corinth. 6:2-3]; that even though Christ be the one Mediator [1 Tim. 2:5], yet does St. Paul also call Moses a mediator [Gal. 3:19]; that although Christ makes intercession for us [Rom. 8:34], yet we are called to intercede for each other [1 Tim. 2:1] (to mediate and to intercede are synonymous with each other); that although God be Redeemer, yet Moses is also called a redeemer [Acts. 7:35]. None of these are done in opposition to Christ, but rather are done because of Christ, precisely because Christ does them first. We imitate Him, and glorify Him in our imitation. So, with this in view, why can't Peter be head of the Church, even as Christ is Head of the Church?

Jesus, Head of the Church

Thus, we can here refer to the texts of (2), (3) and (4).

     Now, to the Protestant, these words of St. Paul seem to be damning for the Catholic teaching that Peter, and his Successors, are the heads of the Church. Yet there is no problem for Catholics (as I have mentioned in the last section). We know that Christ is the true Head of the Church, and that He alone rules the Church as King. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches us: 792 Christ "is the head of the body, the Church." He is the principle of creation and redemption. Raised to the Father's glory, "in everything he [is] preeminent," especially in the Church, through whom he extends his reign over all things. So, the Church knows who is Her Head; it is Christ, of Whose Body She is. 

    But, how can Catholics, who accept that Christ is the Head, admit another head? Well, St. Paul says, "wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly vocation, consider the apostle and high priest of our confession, Jesus." [Hebrews 3:1] Now, since Christ is called "apostle" does that mean the Twelve aren't Apostles? Does that mean that we have been "stealing" from Christ by referring to these mere men as Apostles? When St. Peter mentions Jesus as being the "shepherd and bishop of your souls" [1 Pet. 2:25], does this forbid any other shepherd or bishop? If so, then why do multiple Protestant "churches" have men who call themselves bishops? Surely this is stealing from Christ! 

    When Christ taught us to call no man father but God [Matt. 23:9], was He contradicting Himself when He commanded for us to honour our fathers? [Luke 18:20] Such a thought is repugnant!

    Yet, the reason why the Twelve are called Apostles, Shepherds and Bishops is because Christ was the first. They share in the same titles and the same authority as Christ, because He gave them the power. As Apostles, Shepherds and Bishops they reflect and show forth the glory of Christ in those functions, just as Bishops, called "high priests", reflect the true High Priest, Jesus Christ. 

    So, if giving to men that which belongs to God does no injury to God, but rather glorifies Him because by joining these titles to men we recognise the great dignity they carry, how then can one deny that Peter be called by that which is proper to Christ, namely, being head of the Church? 

​    And so in reference to (4), although Christ be the corner-stone or foundation, the Apostles are also called the foundation upon which the Church is built [Eph. 2:20], and thus they, in turn, are built upon Christ, Who is the Chief of them. And when St. John, in his Apocalypse, described the Heavenly Jerusalem, the Church, as having twelve foundations in which are inscribed the names of the Twelve Apostles, [21:14] was he denying the Chief Foundation, Jesus Christ our Lord? God forbid that the very Apostle who so loved Our Lord should also deny Him! Thus, if no injury is done to Christ as foundation even with the Apostles being named the same, then how can one deny Peter being head even as Christ is Head? 

    In all these things we see that such people are named by so many titles because God is named first. And if the very Scriptures, inspired by the Holy Spirit, does no damage to the Person of God by giving His titles to mere men, then how can a Protestant denounce the Church who, observing Christ as Head, names Peter as head and Vicar of that Head also? To denounce such a practise would be to denounce the very Scriptures, and that is something the Church refuses to contemplate! Rather, Holy Mother Church takes the Scriptures as Her basis, and does only what the Holy Spirit has sanctioned, as expressed clearly in Holy Writ.

Church Fathers on Peter's Primacy 

I shall here quote from some Church Fathers to prove that the early Christians understood that Peter was given a primacy over the Church. 

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this [Roman] Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

“A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

“And he says to him [Peter] again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him [Peter] that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided.” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church [Rome] whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252). 
”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle.” Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342). 

“And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him [Julius] appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.” Council of Sardica, Canon III (A.D. 343-344).

“Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defense, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.” Council of Sardica, Canon IV (A.D. 343-344).

“You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one.” Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367). 

“…I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375).

“Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all (churches) the bonds of sacred communion.” Ambrose, To Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4 (A.D. 381).

“The Holy Synod said: ‘Since most impious Nestorius will not obey our citation, and has not received the most holy and God-fearing bishops whom we sent to him, we have necessarily betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties; and having apprehended from his letters, and from his writings, and from his recent sayings in this metropolis, which have been reported, that his opinions and teachings are impious, we being necessarily compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and colleague, Celestine, bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears, have arrived at the following sentence against him:–‘Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, defines by this present most holy synod that the same Nestorius is deprived of episcopal dignity and of all sacredotal intercourse.” Council of Ephesus, Session I (A.D. 431).

“Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place…Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present…Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church.” Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

To read more, go here.

---

(2) Was St. Peter in Rome?

There is no mention in Scripture or history that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that "there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome." ​

I shall start here by answering that last sentence regarding St. Clement. That claim is completely false, since St. Clement, who was actually the fourth Bishop of Rome, was Pope from 88-99 AD. That is, he was Pope during the 1st Century! How, then, could he deny the evidence of his own Century? Secondly, he was personally ordained by St. Peter, along with Linus and Cletus (both of them being Popes after Peter). St. Clement is named in the New Testament [Philip. 4:3]. You can read St. Clement's epistle, and will come to realise that he said no such thing that our adversary claims he said. Naturally, we are not informed as to a source for this supposed quote. What gives its falsity away is the use of "1st century": a phrase that wasn't used at the time. This is the give away that this quote is fakery. 

Does Scripture say Peter was in Rome?

    Now let us turn to the first part of the claim. According to our Protestant, there is no mention in Scripture or history that Peter was in Rome. Of course, Protestants need this supposed absence of Peter from Rome in order to justify his not being Bishop of Rome. Sadly, however, there is proof of his being in Rome, maybe not so much from Scripture, but plentiful it is in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers and Church Fathers. It must be first noted that Peter didn't go straight to Rome. Most forget, or simply don't know, that he was first Bishop of Antioch, before leaving that See to go to Rome to found the Apostolic See.

    In his first Epistle, St. Peter writes that "the church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark. " [1 Pet. 5:13] The "Mark" he mentions here is St. Mark the Evangelist, the author of the Gospel of St. Mark. However, what we need to take a note of here is his use of the name "Babylon". Now, most of us are familiar with Babylon. It was the capital of the Babylonian Empire, and was the figure of a sinful, decadent city. The name is now used to described a wicked, Godless society. Let us work out who this Babylon is. 

    In St. Peter's day, the wicked, Godless, heathenistic, hedonistic Babylon was which city? Let me give you a few clues:  It was the seat of the divine Caesars; home of the Roman pantheon; home of the corrupt Senate; home of trade and commerce; mistress over a vast Empire. Yes that's right: Rome! Thus, when he talks about the church in Babylon, he is speaking of the Church of Rome. Thus, he is writing from Rome. Thus, he has to be in Rome to be writing from Rome! Sorry if I have had to spell that out, but there it is. 

    In fact, our Protestant here who sent me this claim, said at the end of their message: BRETHREN! The Word of God commands us to get out of Babylon, saying: "Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." (Revelation 18:4). [See Objection #21] So, if Protestants understand that Babylon is a code for (heathen) Rome, then why not that the Babylon St. Peter is writing about is the very same heathen Rome?! How is it Rome for St. John , but not for St. Peter?

Church Fathers on Peter being in Rome

Here are some quotes from Church Fathers:

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you.” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

‘You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth.” Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

“As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out.” Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

“It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: ‘But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican [Peter's tomb] or to the Ostian way [Paul's tomb], you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church [in Rome].'” Gaius, fragment in Eusebius’ Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198). 
​
“[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood.” Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (inter A.D. 207-212).

‘We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another (an allusion to John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross.” Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15:3 (A.D. 212).

“Peter…at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way.” Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, (A.D. 232).

“Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome.” Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306).

“[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome…” Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 4:21 (A.D. 310).

To read the rest of the Church Fathers please read them here. ​