Last week when we were discussing the fallibility of the Pope, we mentioned that this week we would see if, as it is claimed, Peter was the first Pope.  Papal authority, and the claim to infallibility, relies upon Peter having been the first Pope, and if it can be shown that he was not, then even aside from what was mentioned last week it is doubly sure that no such claim to Peter’s authority can be made.
    First, the Pope is supposed to be the sole authority (actually this was a long time in the coming, showing that it was not in God’s eternal purpose to have a man over His church), and yet Peter refers to himself as an elder (I Peter 5:1), and no where in the Bible did any church have one elder, much less one over an entire region or indeed the universal church.
    Second, the Pope is considered infallible, and draws this infallibility from Peter.  This is quite remarkable when Peter himself was extremely fallible!  Not only could Peter do wrong, he did and when he did it was poor timing.  Who denied Christ three times in Matthew 26:31-35; 69-75 as He was being tried in an unjust court?  Who refused to sit with the Gentiles (who he had been sent in Acts 10 to convert) and thereby had to be withstood by Paul in Galatians 2:11-14?  The answer to both of the above is the fallible Peter.
    Third, the Pope accepts worship.  When did Peter ever accept such?  When men tried to worship him in Acts 10:25,26 he refused such saying “Stand up; I myself also am a man.”  I don’t remember seeing the current Pope when he was in St. Louis telling Mark McGwire that he didn’t need to bow and kiss his ring for he is also just a man.
    Fourth, the Pope is required to be single, and yet where do we see Christ performing one of His many miracles?  At Peter’s house (Matthew 8:14,15).  And who was the recipient of such healing?  Peter’s wife’s mother.  Whose mother?  His (Peter, it certainly wasn’t Jesus’ wife) wife’s!  Then in I Corinthians 9:5 Paul writes, “Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?”  Who is Cephas?  Peter.
    Fifth, the Pope is considered the head of the church.  Ephesians 1:22,23; Colossians 1:18 mentioned exactly who the head of the church is (and I believe that Paul is a good judge on the matter), and it says that the head is not Peter, but rather Christ.
    Sixth, the Pope is to be in Rome, and while tradition states that Peter went to Rome, the Bible says nothing about it.  Tradition often is a poor guide (if we believe traditions, then we might accept that Zeus really ruled on Olympus)!  What is important to notice is that when Paul wrote to the Romans he did not mention in salutation or benediction one named Peter, or for that matter Cephas.  Had Peter been in Rome it is probable that his fellow-laborer would have so named him.
    Seventh, the ascendance of the papacy from Peter is dependant upon the church being built on Peter, and the authority of Matthew 16 being bestowed upon him alone.  Let is be known that Peter was but a pebble, the Greek petros (Matthew 16:16) indicates a piece of a rock.  The rock of verse 18 upon which Christ would build His church is petra, indicating a mass of rock.  The context shows that authority was given to all of the apostles (keys to one kingdom), if there was one authority and one kingdom there would have been one key.  The keys were to the kingdom that had as its foundation the statement that Peter made:  “Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16).  Peter was but one of the twelve, and his key was wielded when their keys were:  In Acts 2 when the church/kingdom was established.