The official Roman Catholic doctrine is that the Apostle Peter founded "the Church at Rome" and served as its first Pope from 41-66 A.D.

Biblically, though, there's no indication of this being true.

"Scripture is silent when it comes to the so-called establishment of a Roman church by Peter," says Alex Kurz, associate pastor of my church (Shorewood Bible Church, Rolling Meadows, Ill.), in a study I have on tape.

First of all, as Kurz points out, there is no such thing in Scripture as "the Church at Rome." This is Roman Catholic dogma initiated in the latter half of the 2^nd Century by early Church father Dionysius, who, interestingly enough, was the first Bishop at Corinth.

Dionysius says Peter started the Church around 41 A.D., a date that coincides with the events of Acts 10—a chapter in which Peter is nowhere near Rome.

By the way, Bishop Clement, referred to most often through history as "Clement of Rome," and considered the first Apostolic father (he was pope from 88-97 A.D.), refuted the idea that Peter started a church at Rome.

From Acts 10-28 (following the 41-66 A.D. timeline), Peter is a pillar of the Jewish church. Jesus Christ even assures him, "You've got the keys to the kingdom." Peter was the lead representative of God on behalf of the nation Israel.

In Gal. 2:7-8, Paul says, ". . .The gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles."

Paul and Peter cross paths a number of times before Acts 28, but nowhere does it ever say they had a meeting in Rome. In Romans 1:7, Paul writes, "To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints." Notice Paul never writes to "the Church at Rome." He writes an epistle to the Romans, or the saints—the brethren.

Romans 16:5 reads, in part, "Likewise greet the church that is in their house," showing the saints weren't gathering in any one geographic locale. There's no one single church Paul's concentrating on.

"The saints are spread out in Rome, which is, by the way, consistent with God's design for the establishment of the church," says Kurz. "There isn't one church that exercises ecclesiastical authority over all the other churches. That isn't God's design if you were to study the way He establishes churches in the dispensation of grace. No one church is given ultimate authority. Rather, we see that the churches spawning from Paul's ministry are autonomous, meaning they're self-sustaining, self-functioning and self-governing."

Roman Catholicism, of course, teaches there is one overriding authority, "the Church at Rome," which governs and leads.

If you look at Romans 16:3 and then I Cor. 16:19, Paul actually acknowledges a married couple, Priscilla and Aquila, as starting a church. Romans 16 was written no earlier than Acts 19.

"The Roman Catholic faith says Peter established a church by Acts 10, but by Acts 20, Priscilla and Aquila are the ones who have a church," says Kurz. "In all of Romans 16, Paul never mentions Peter. So, again, if Peter is already there, and according to Roman Catholic tradition he is, it seems extremely odd for Paul not to at least recognize Peter and request that the saints salute him: 'Let him know I'm thinking about him.' "

In II Timothy, said to have been written around 66 A.D., Paul reveals in verse 4:11, "Only Luke is with me. Take Mark, and bring him with thee: for he is profitable to me for the ministry."

Notice he doesn't mention Peter, even though he's in Rome.

"Paul's at Rome when he scans the pool of available ministers and laments that he's only got Timothy as someone like-minded in spiritual attitude, seeking the things of Jesus Christ," explains Kurz.

As Paul writes in Phil. 2:19-20, "But I trust in the Lord Jesus to send Timotheus shortly unto you, that I also may be of good comfort, when I know your state. For I have no man likeminded, who will naturally care for your state. For all seek their own, not the things which are Jesus Christ's."

"If Peter was at Rome, would it be fair for Paul to suggest Timothy is the only one and everybody else doesn't have the things of Christ's which are in their own best interest?" asks Kurz. "Paul never gives any indication that Peter's available as a minister for the saints at Philippi."

We learn from Paul in Romans 1:11 that the saints in Rome aren't "established" yet, for he writes, ". . .to the end that ye might be stablished."

The natural question is why aren't these saints "established" if Peter supposedly started the Church in Acts 10? Obviously, the language itself poses a real dilemma. As far as Paul's concerned, he's trying to get the saints established.

Along in Acts 8, as a result of the "fall of Israel," there's now great persecution against the Jewish believers of the nation, or what's called the "little flock," and they begin to scatter. However, all 12 of the apostles, Peter included, choose to remain in Jerusalem. This alone tells us what Peter was doing through his Acts ministry.

Acts 8:14 even states, "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John."

"We know Peter is in Jerusalem," says Kurz. "Peter would make short little weekend hops to Gentile territory, but would return to Jerusalem. What I'm getting at is Peter had the tendency all through the Acts period to identify himself with Jerusalem. That's his behavior. That's a far cry from Peter leaving the apostles at Jerusalem and, all of a sudden, ending up in Rome of all places, in a couple of years' time."

From Gal. 1:18, we know Peter's still in Jerusalem three years after Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. The verse says, "Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days." That's exactly why Paul went to Jerusalem—to see Peter.

In the Book of Romans, Paul's very careful to say he's been made the official representative to the Gentiles by God's appointment and that's why he tells those in Rome, " For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office." (Rom. 11:13)

Peter, on the other hand, actually made a point of avoiding contact with Gentiles. He met with one Gentile directly only because God Himself miraculously intervened, and by supernatural intervention (a vision) commanded Peter to meet with the Gentile.

It is in Acts 10:1 (the time period of 41 A.D., said to be when Peter establishes "the Church in Rome") that the Lord tells Peter for first time to go to a Gentile. Just because this Gentile, Cornelius, is of the "Italian band," though, doesn't mean Peter went to Rome. It says he was in Caesaria.

"When the Lord says, 'Go this guy,' Peter says three times, 'Not so, not so, not so,' " says Kurz. "Boy, that's some pope who's supposedly trying to get a church started!"

It's clear Peter doesn't understand what's going on. He keeps telling God, "That guy's unclean. I shouldn't be going to these Gentiles." Peter says to Cornelius, "Why am I here? The Lord told me to do this," and then, poof, all of a sudden Cornelius gets the Holy Spirit and Peter's in shock.

"Peter's just flabbergasted—he has no explanation as to why that Gentile, outside of the proper formula for evangelism, receives the Holy Spirit before he's even water-baptized," explains Kurz. "That word 'astonished' in the passage means he's just dumb-founded. So that's certainly a different portrait from Peter out there establishing Gentiles at Rome. By the way, in Acts 11:2, Peter's returned to Jerusalem."

Acts 9:30-32 reveals that the specific regions Peter passes through cannot include Rome because these province sections, identified in Luke 3:1, are restricted to Palestine in the Middle East. Acts 9:38 identifies Peter, for example, as being in Joppa, which is due east of Jerusalem. The very last time Peter in seen in the Book of Acts, in chapter 15, he's left in Jerusalem.

Kurz says Galatians 2 lends the strongest Scriptural evidence that Peter could not have established a church in Rome, because Peter, in effect, agrees with Paul to confine his ministry exclusively among the circumcision, or the Jews.

"Rome, predominantly Gentile, would be a real peculiar place to go to conduct a circumcision ministry," reasons Kurz. "Where would the majority of the Jews be? Peter, when he writes to the Jews, never includes Rome. He never includes anything west of Asia-Minor. The only way you can put Peter in Rome is if you can prove there are circumcision believers in Rome. When you try to identify where the 'little flock,' or the believing remnant is, the Scriptures will never tell you it's in Rome. Never, ever, ever."

In I Peter 1:1, you find all the regions Peter mentions (Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia) are located no further west than what we would now call Asia-Minor. According to Peter, the "12 tribes that are scattered" are scattered in Asia-Minor.

I Peter 5:13 reveals Peter is in Babylon when he writes I Peter. "How much further east can you get than Babylon?" says Kurz. "I'm looking for passages that can put Peter closer to Rome, but what I find puts him further away. By the way, the scattered 'little flock' is in Babylon, as we know from Revelation."

In the future, the scattered tribes will be in Babylon and the Book of Revelation instructs those scattered to get out of Babylon because the wrath is ready to fall as part of the effects of the "70^th week of Daniel."

When Peter writes in II Peter 1:14, "Knowing that shortly that I must put off this my tabernacle. . .," he's saying he knows he's about to die. Of this revelation, Kurz reasons, "If he writes the first letter from Babylon and says, 'I don't have much time,' that does not allow for him to be in Rome. The bottom line is the Bible never places Peter in Rome; it never even places him west of Asia-Minor."