When was Peter a Pope?

Answer 1

He never was. The Bible says "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision [i.e. the Gentiles] was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision [i.e. the Jews] 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" (Galatians 2:7-8 KJV) That verse was written by Paul. So Paul is saying that Peter was the apostle to the JEWS, not to the Gentiles. So he could not have been a Pope of a Catholic, Gentile church. Peter's ministry did not take place in Rome, so he was never the Pope. Furthermore, Peter was married: "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever." -Matthew 8:14. There is nothing at all in the Bible that says Peter was a Pope. The Catholic church quotes Matthew 16:16 and says that this proves Peter was the one who was the foundation of the church. The verse uses a Greek word, Petros, which means "a little rock, or a pebble," when it says "Thou art Peter," and then it says "upon this rock I will build my church" and it is then using the word Petra, which means a solid rock foundation. So Jesus literally said "You are a pebble, and upon this solid rock foundation I will build my church." What solid rock foundation? Peter had just said to Jesus "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." That is when Jesus said He would build the church on the solid rock foundation. The foundation was the faith that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God.


Jesus called Simon bar Jonah (Peter) Cephas (rock), meaning solid foundation.

Answer 2

Peter was appointed as leader of the Church when Our Lord said:

And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Matthew Chapt. 16)

Peter assumed the position upon the Ascension of Our Lord into heaven. The term 'pope' did not come into usage until many years later but Peter was still considered a pope even though the establishment of the office of pope and hierarchy was yet to come. All the apostles, even Paul, deferred to Peter for important decisions.

One thing needs to be pointed out here. Our Lord and Peter were speaking in Aramaic and not Greek. In Aramaic there was but one word for 'rock' and that is cephas. There is no confusion in usage as in Greek depending upon the size of the 'rock' which is an argument that many non-Catholics seem to ignore. The confusion in vocabulary arose years later when the gospel was translated to Greek.

And, yes, Peter did reside, at least for a time, in Rome and died there under orders from Roman Emperor Nero. Francis A. Sullivan SJ in his book From Apostles to Bishops states unequivocally that Peter was in Rome and died there. His statement is based on both scripture as well as the writings of early Church fathers.

Peter would have assumed leadership about the year AD33 and he died sometime between AD64 and AD67.

Answer 3

Although Matthew's Gospel appears to tell us that Jesus appointed Peter to lead the Christian church that he would found, there is no evidence that was a pope, if by the term 'pope' we mean the bishop of Rome. The tradition that Peter went to Rome to lead the church of Rome is a factoid that has been almost universally accepted since the second century, yet this does not appear to be based on fact.

Francis A. Sullivan says, in From Apostles to Bishops,that there is a general agreement among scholars, including Catholic scholars, that the church of Rome was led by a council of presbyters until well into the second century, with no evidence of a ruling bishop. Although Fr Sullivan is required to teach that Peter was in Rome, it is inconceivable that he could have initiated the position of bishop in Rome, even appointing Linus as his successor, yet no other bishop was appointed for the next hundred years. The conclusion from this is that Peter did not take on the responsibility of leading the church in Rome, although Paul does tell us that Peter was one of the principal leaders of the church in Jerusalem.