According to the
Protestants, the Catholic Church has gone astray, and moreover, it leads others
astray, with Satan himself guiding it. Well, according to our faith, the
Catholic Church has never changed concerning the teachings of Christ, and it
can be clearly proven (with countless documents) that the current Catholic
doctrine is completely identical to that of the Church before the Constantinian
shift. Even the Protestants acknowledge this. It can also be proven that no
congregation similar to 15th-century Protestantism existed earlier. They often
refer to various heretical sects as the carriers of the "true gospel,"
but they merely select teachings similar to their own from these sects, while
no Protestant church adheres to the full teachings of any of these sects (some
of which are quite grotesque). Thus, essentially, a Protestant claims that the
true gospel of Christ was corrupted shortly after the apostles (within a few
years or decades), Satan—whom the Lord had just recently defeated—took over the
main role and seduced all Christian believers.
A man finally came along
one and a half millennia (!) later, by the name of Martin Luther, a
hot-tempered, rebellious, psychologically proven disturbed and uncertain monk,
who, based on “a divine revelation” (which, according to his own admission, he
received while on the toilet), finally restored the teachings of Christ and
thus reopened the gates of heaven. For one and a half millennia, for 1500
years, no one could be saved because they did not know Protestant teachings,
they were “idolaters” and “pagans.” For 1500 years, Christ helplessly watched
His church serve Satan, even though He promised that "the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it" (Mt 16:18), and He said, "And
surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." (Mt 28:20), “And
I will ask the Father, and He will give you another advocate to help you and be
with you forever—the Spirit of truth.” (Jn 14:16), “My sheep listen to
my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they
shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has
given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my
Father’s hand." (Jn 10:27-29). So just consider how likely all of this
is.
Not only Catholics, but
also Protestants and so-called "independent" historians are clear on
the fact that Peter certainly went to Rome, established a Christian community
(= founded a church), and also died a martyr's death there. This is not only
confirmed by early Christian literary and historical records — since without
exception all early Christian writers associate Peter with Rome — but also completely supported by archaeological research. In
1968, the tunnels beneath the main altar of St. Peter's Basilica were
excavated, and indeed, there they found a tomb from the first century, sealed
by a rock bearing the inscription "Peter is here." Even the
bones inside have been examined, and it turned out that they belong to a man in
his sixties, who died by crucifixion in the first century. Moreover, in cities
Peter passed through on his way to Rome, many things preserve the memory of his
presence. Despite all this, some Protestant fundamentalists do not believe (or
do not want to believe) that Peter went to Rome, simply because, according to
them, the Bible is silent on the matter. For them, only the text of the Bible can
provide a sure point of reference, and only as they interpret it. In their
view, if the Bible does not mention it, then it could not have happened; and it
makes no difference that the Bible does not deny that Peter went to Rome.
Indeed, the Scriptures do
not explicitly mention that "Peter went to Rome, founded a church, and
thus became the first bishop of Rome, or the pope." The travels of no
apostle are recounted in detail, and even of the most discussed, the journeys
of Saint Paul, we do not have a complete picture, and we only learn of his
death from tradition. The claim that "Paul wrote six letters from Rome
between AD 60 and 65" is also not found in the Bible, though it is
considered accepted by this "Bible Christian." This, for example,
comes from Protestant tradition, which furthermore—according to at least 95% of
biblical scholars—is not even true. Paul most likely wrote only one letter from
Rome, the Second Letter to Timothy, while the others—thought by some to
originate from his Roman imprisonment—were written during his imprisonment in
Ephesus between 53 and 58 (Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, Ephesians), or
before his arrest in Rome, on his third missionary journey in 63-64 (1 Timothy,
Titus). In 1 Timothy, Peter is not mentioned because by then he had already
died. Nor does he mention him in the Letter to the Romans because at the time
of writing, Peter was not in Rome (more on this later). As an apostle, Saint
Peter was continuously traveling—just like Paul—not only to evangelize or to care
for the churches he had founded, but also because he was in danger. From the
beginning, the leader of the new "sect" was persecuted, not only by
the Jews but also by Roman authorities. Rome became the number one enemy of
Christians, and this latter fact (confirmed by numerous Roman records) implies
that the Bible speaks of Peter’s stay in Rome.
In the First Letter of
Peter, the apostle writes, “She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you,
sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark." (1 Peter 5:13). At
this time, two places were named Babylon: the ancient, famous Mesopotamian
city, frequently mentioned in the Old Testament, and a small Roman garrison in
Egypt (Babylon Fossatum). However, by then, the ancient Babylon no longer
existed, except as ruins, and was as insignificant a settlement as the Egyptian
Babylon. What would Peter, the foremost apostle, have been doing in either of
these small villages? Nothing, because these are not the places being referred
to. The Book of Revelation frequently speaks of Babylon but consistently as a “great
and mighty city,” which can be clearly identified with Rome (cf. 14:8; chs.
16-18) (and in one case, with Jerusalem). Independent ancient sources also
confirm that “Babylon” was a code name among Christians, referring to Rome.
Therefore, Peter wrote his first letter from “Babylon”, that is, from Rome.
This is also confirmed by the Acts of the Apostles. It says that after Peter
miraculously escaped from prison, he “went to another place” (Greek: "eis
héteron topon") (Acts 12:17). Here, Peter did not wish to hide his
destination from his brothers, but he did from the Roman authorities.
Therefore, he used this Greek phrase, which refers to the Book of Ezekiel,
specifically Ezekiel 12:13, where this exact phrase is used. From this, we know
that the "other place" is Babylon, or Rome. This event
occurred around AD 42, meaning Peter founded the Christian community there at
that time, but he did not remain permanently, as by AD 48, he was in Jerusalem
for the Apostolic Council.
Saint Paul wrote the Letter
to the Romans between AD 55-57, and he does not greet Peter because Peter was
not in the city at that time; he only returned there a few years after the
letter was written, around AD 60. Although Peter was not in Rome, Paul indirectly
alludes to him, writing: "It has always been my ambition to preach the
gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone
else’s foundation... This is why I have often been hindered from coming to
you." (Romans 15:20.22).
If we combine the
scriptural references with archaeological findings and early Christian records,
we get a consistent picture where all elements support each other. However, if
we reject Peter's founding of the church in Rome, we are merely following an unreasonable
prejudice instead of reason. One can choose.
If you are seriously
interested in the topic, here is a recommended read: Carsten Peter Thiede [a
Protestant scholar]: Simon Peter: From Galilee to Rome (1988).
