Like so many others, I was just about shocked to find out recently that the cardinals of the Roman church had chosen an American to be their next pope, the very first American to hold that office; and not only that, but a man who had grown up right here in Chicago! I don’t think anyone could have predicted that.

That was the selection of what the Roman church says is the 267th pope. In light of such an historic event, I thought it would be good to do a series of Notes on what Peter, whom they claim was the very first pope, has to say that relates to the teaching of the Roman Church today. Of course, I would not at all agree he actually was the first pope, but since they make that claim—and have vehemently defended it for centuries—perhaps they will be willing to consider seriously what he has to say in this regard.

This is especially needful today due to the rise of the Roman Catholic apologetic movement, which seeks to draw believers into the fold of the Roman church, and has had some success in doing so, by defending Romanism from the Bible.

To do such a study, we can mainly look at the messages Peter gave in Acts, and at the two letters he wrote later in his life to his fellow believers. Then we can also consider the Gospel of Mark, which is widely believed to have been written under Peter’s influence.

And when we look at these sources to consider this matter, the first thing we notice is what Peter does not mention at all, namely, what are, in terms of actual practice, the three great pillars of the Roman church: the mass, the sacramental priesthood, and the veneration (others would say worship) of Mary.

Regarding the mass, Peter makes no mention of it at all in any of his messages or writings. Of course, Mark gives us the history of the last supper, but that is all; there is no explanation or teaching regarding it.

Regarding the sacramental priesthood, again, Peter says nothing. And what he does say about the priesthood directly contradicts the teaching of the Roman church on this matter, for rather than a sacramental priesthood that mediates between God and the believers, he declares that all the believers are actually priests unto God:

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people purchased as a possession, that you may tell out the virtues of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light.
— 1 Peter 2:9

Finally, as for the veneration of Mary, Peter does not so much as mention her name in any of his messages in Acts, nor in his letters. The Gospel of Mark does not even record Mary giving birth to Jesus; in fact, it contains only a single explicit mention of Mary as the mother of Jesus (6:3). When she appears at the cross and at the tomb, she is identified, not as the mother of Jesus, but as the mother of James and Joses ( 15:40, 47, 16:1). Thus, so far from venerating her, Peter basically ignores her altogether.

These three matters are, again, the three great pillars of Roman church practice today. Yet Peter, supposedly the first pope of the Roman church, completely ignores two of them, and directly repudiates the third.

We need to ask, then: If partaking of the mass is so central to the Christian life today, should this “first pope” not have encouraged the believers in this regard, and told us explicitly, to end all controversy, that the bread and wine have been physically changed into the body and blood of Jesus? Should he not have said something to confirm the sacramental priesthood as the basis of our church life today? And should he not have said or done something to honor Mary, that by such an example we would venerate her as the Roman church says we should?

To the contrary, Peter’s silence on all of these matters fully shows us that none of them have anything to do with the genuine faith of the New Testament.

Sent to our mailing list on
—  7 June 2025 —