The Papal system stand and falls with their claim to be the successor of the apostle Peter. They claim that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.
The problems with this Vatican claim, is that it can not be confirmed by the Bible. That Peter ever was in Rome can neither be confirmed, nor does it make sense.
The Apostle Peter was first of all married, and by this set a biblical example to be followed by all deacons, Bishops and overseers after him. The Roman Bishops have to the radical opposite been forbidden to merry up to this day.
When Jesus came into Peter’s house, he saw Peter’s mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.
Lets put human reasoning aside, and take a look at The Word of God.
That Paul was in Rome, is confirmed by the scriptures:
That is why I am so eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome.
Paul, who de facto was in Rome, use the word Rome, when He writes a letter to the first believers in Rome.
Since Paul was in Rome, and could have been the first Bishop of Rome. But that view does not fit the papal doctrine of succession through Peter. If Peter was chosen among the apostles to be the Bishop of Rome, why does Paul not even mention Peter when he greets almost 20 people at the end of the letter to the Romans?
The book of Acts say that Paul was an apostle to the gentiles, and that includes the pagans in Rome. Peter was an apostle to the Jews. The book of Acts does not mentioned any plan by Peter to go to Rome. Nor does the letters of Paul, John, the Apostle Jude or the letters to the Hebrews.
Strange, is it not. If Peter was going to become such an VIP in Rome?
Lets take a look at what Peter writes:
1 Peter 5:13
She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.
There was de facto a couple of cities in Assyria with the name Babylon. There was also one in Egypt. But the main Babylon is the city where the Jewish people were exiled. During Peters time, the city was still full of Jews that had nor returned to Jerusalem. One of the Apostles had to go there and preach about the Messiah. Because Jesus said: «To Jew first».
The Assyrian Church of the East are backed up the the Bible when they claim that Peter visited the Jews in their region. Peter planted Churches in Assyria, and had a good reason for greeting others from their «sister» in the city of Babylon.
Rome defends its teaching by claiming that Peter was afraid of persecution, and used the word «Babylon» as a code word for Rome. Thats again a Papal claim that does not make sense. Because Paul who De Facto was in Rome, used the word Rome for Rome. There was no need for a «code», just a plain Biblical truth.
The Roman Catholic Church needs to twist the Word of God or deny the Word of God, to defend their non-biblical papal doctrines of Peter as the first Bishop of Rome.