A new pope has been elected, marking a significant moment for the global Catholic community. Catholics believe that the pope is the “Vicar of Christ” – a title that signifies his role as Christ’s representative and supreme shepherd of all Christians on earth. This conviction is rooted in the Petrine theory, drawn from a passage in the gospel of Matthew 16:18–19, where Jesus tells Peter, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.”
According to this theory, the apostle Peter traveled to Rome and became its first bishop, establishing a unique role within the early Christian community. Because Peter was specifically chosen by Christ to lead the apostles and given a special authority, symbolized by Jesus naming him the “rock” upon which the Church would be built, Catholics believe that every subsequent bishop of Rome, or pope, inherits this spiritual leadership. Thus, each pope is seen as the successor to Peter, continuing his mission and serving as the Vicar of Christ on earth, with a divinely instituted authority to guide and unify the universal Church.
Many societies rely on foundational myths – narratives that help justify existing power structures and affirm the authority of those who rule. Rome itself was once bound together by the legendary tale of Romulus and Remus, twin brothers raised by a she-wolf, a story that provided a sense of destiny and legitimacy for the city’s rulers. Over time, as the old pagan narrative faded, it was replaced by a new myth centered on Peter and the authority of the papacy. Just as few today accept that a she-wolf literally nourished Rome’s founders, we should approach the newer Roman myth with similar skepticism, recognizing it as another narrative constructed to uphold the status quo and sanctify the power of its leaders.
We can admit that it is likely, though by no means certain, that Peter died in Rome. Early Christian tradition, supported by sources such as the First Letter of Clement – written around 96 CE – refers to Peter’s martyrdom and his departure “unto the place of glory due to him,” which many interpret as a reference to his death in Rome. Later Christian writers, including Tertullian and Origen, also attest to Peter’s crucifixion in Rome under Emperor Nero, though there is no definitive contemporary evidence.
Even acknowledging that Peter died in Rome, the idea that he served as its bishop is highly questionable. To begin with, the passage in Matthew 16:18 is regarded with suspicion by many scholars. It is highly probable that Jesus himself did not intend to found a church at all, since he and his earliest followers expected the imminent end of the world and the arrival of God’s kingdom. The idea that Jesus wanted to establish a lasting church organization only emerged later, as the apocalyptic expectation faded and the Christian movement adapted to new realities – an evolution reflected in the Gospel of Matthew, which was likely written about 50 years after Jesus’ death, at a time when the community was rethinking its mission in light of the delayed end times. The absence of this saying in the other Gospels, and its alignment with later ecclesiastical structures, suggests it may have been shaped to support emerging ideas about church leadership and Peter’s primacy.
Furthermore, while Peter was undoubtedly a leading figure among the apostles, he was not the undisputed head of the early Jesus movement. The New Testament consistently points to James, the brother of Jesus, as the primary leader in Jerusalem. Paul’s letters highlight James’s authority: in Galatians 2:9, he lists James first among the “pillars” of the church. When Peter miraculously escapes from prison, he instructs the believers to “tell James and the other brothers” (Acts 12:17), indicating deference to James’s leadership. During the crucial Jerusalem Council, it is James who presides, summarizes the debate, and issues the final judgment (Acts 15:13–21). Later, when Paul returns to Jerusalem, he reports directly to “James and all the elders” (Acts 21:18), further underscoring James’s central role. These passages, along with references to men “from James” influencing events in Antioch (Galatians 2:12), make clear that James – not Peter – was regarded as the chief authority in the early Jerusalem church and, by extension, the wider Jesus movement.
Moreover, there is no evidence that Peter was the bishop of Rome or that he founded the Roman church. The office of “bishop” as understood today did not exist in the mid-first century; early Christian communities were led by groups of elders or overseers rather than a single hierarchical figure. Paul’s authentic letters, particularly Romans, make no mention of Peter’s presence or leadership in Rome, even though Paul greets many individuals in the Roman church by name (Romans 16) but never mentions Peter. This silence is striking if Peter had held a prominent role there.
Some early Christian authors, notably Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus, contributed to the impression that Rome held a special status among Christian communities and often associated this prestige with Peter. Ignatius, writing in the early second century, addressed the Roman church with particular respect in his Epistle to the Romans, and Irenaeus, in the late second century, emphasized the apostolic succession of Rome as a way to defend orthodox teaching. However, this recognition of Rome’s prominence was by no means universal. Other important centers, such as Antioch and Alexandria, also claimed significant authority, and many Christian communities operated independently of Roman influence. The primacy attributed to Rome in these early writings reflected local circumstances and theological debates of the time, rather than an established, universally accepted doctrine of papal supremacy.
The Petrine idea supporting the primacy of the papacy actually took centuries to fully develop. It was not until the late fourth century, under Pope Damasus I (366–384 CE), that the famous verse in Matthew 16:18 was explicitly used to assert Rome’s supremacy over other churches. Damasus faced significant internal conflict, including a violent schism over his own election as pope, as well as growing rivalry among the major Christian centers of the empire, such as Constantinople and Alexandria. In this contentious environment, Damasus strategically invoked the authority of Peter, citing Matthew 16:18 to bolster his claim that the bishop of Rome was the legitimate successor to Peter and therefore held unique primacy in the Christian world. This marked a turning point, as earlier Christian leaders had not universally interpreted the Matthew passage as a mandate for Roman supremacy, and the doctrine only became a central pillar of papal authority in response to the political and ecclesiastical challenges of Damasus’ era.
It was Pope Leo I, known as Leo the Great, who truly enshrined the Petrine idea and the primacy of Rome in Christian doctrine. Leo’s pontificate (440–461 CE) marked a decisive turning point: he systematically developed the theological argument that the authority given to Peter by Christ in Matthew 16:18 was uniquely inherited by the bishops of Rome. This was powerfully demonstrated in his famous Tome, a letter sent to the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which articulated what became the orthodox position on Christ’s nature. The council not only accepted Leo’s theological position but also acclaimed, “Peter has spoken through Leo,” a phrase that vividly expressed the belief that the Roman bishop spoke with the authority of Peter himself.
Yet, it is important to note that although Leo was honored at Chalcedon, not all Christians accepted his claim to unique authority as Peter’s successor. As Eamon Duffy explains in his highly informative Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes:
The bishops at Chalcedon… acknowledged the special dignity and honour of the apostolic see, but they did not therefore assume that whatever its bishop said must be true, and seemed to have believed that on this particular occasion Peter had spoken through Leo.
In fact, the same council rebuffed Leo’s expansive claims and granted Rome and Constantinople equal status, underscoring that the idea of Roman primacy was far from universally accepted in the Christian world at that time.
To this day, the Petrine theory remains a major source of division among Christians, as only Catholics accept the doctrine that the pope, as Peter’s successor, holds supreme authority over the universal Church. Most Protestant communities reject the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18, arguing instead that the “rock” refers to Peter’s confession of faith or to Christ himself, not to Peter as an individual. The Eastern Orthodox Church also does not accept the Roman claim to universal primacy, recognizing instead only a primacy of honor for the bishop of Rome, not jurisdictional supremacy. As a result, the Catholic doctrine of papal primacy has never been universally recognized, and the rift it created continues to shape Christian divisions today.
We skeptics are unmoved by intricate theological disputes – debates over whether Christ has one or two natures, or whether God is one or three persons, strike us as fundamentally nonsensical. How could anyone possibly verify such metaphysical claims? Our concern is not with doctrines about supernatural entities, but with historical reality and the exposure of myths. But it is precisely for this reason that, in the case of the Petrine theory, we can indeed take a stance – one that aligns more closely with the Protestant and Orthodox rejection of papal supremacy.
When it comes to the Petrine theory, the facts simply do not support the Catholic narrative. There is no solid historical evidence that Peter was ever the bishop of Rome, nor that the papal office was established by him from the very beginning. While we may not care about theology, we do care about debunking unfounded legends, and the idea of an unbroken Petrine succession in Rome is one myth that demands to be challenged.
Cover image credit: INFOWeather1, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons
