Is there evidence in Rome that Saint Peter was the first pope?

Answer 1

Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans to a community of Christians in Rome, stating that he had never been there and that he planned to visit on his way to Spain. Therefore Paul did not start the first church in Rome. We do not know how Christianity arrived in Rome, nor who started the first church there.

Answer 2

A:

There is no historical or archaeological evidence that Peter was ever in Rome. However, the claims made by the Roman church that its bishop was pre-eminent among all leaders of the Christian Church were based on the tradition that Peter went to Rome and was crucified there. Without this tradition, the papal claims become worthless, so of course the Catholic Church is at great pains to provide any support or plausible evidence that Peter was indeed the first bishop of Rome.

Several second-century writers are cited in support of Peter in Rome, but all these prove is that by sometime in the second century there was a tradition that Peter had gone to Rome. 1 Peter 5:13 would certainly seem to say that Peter was in Rome, saying, "The church that is at Babylon [Rome] ..." However, most scholars regard First Peter as a pseudepigraphical book written during the second century, and point out that the reference to Rome as 'Babylon' arose after the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple in 70 CE (as Babylon had destroyed the first Temple), so that this would be an anachronism during the lifetime of Peter.

Against this, Clement of Rome, writing towards the end of the first century (1 Clement), spoke in general terms about the life of Peter but seems unaware that he ever visited Rome.

Pope Paul VI felt able to announce officially something that the actual tomb of Peter had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter's burial site. Catholics around the world will accept this papal announcement as the most certain of proofs, even though the pope was not an eminent scientist and there is no peer-reviewed discussion of the evidence on which he relied. A study that would have been available to him was written by Margherita Guarducci (The Tomb of Peter), but this ends inconclusively: "In this case, it is possible that at least some of these remains are relics of St. Peter." (See also Discussion page)

Answer:

Yes there is ample evidence, both in print and in archeological findings, that Peter, indeed, was in Rome and suffered martyrdom there and was buried there. The pronouncement by Pope Paul VI that the tomb of Peter had been found was based primarily on the findings of noted Italian archeologist Professor Margherita Guarducci which are reported in her book The Tomb of Peter, Hawthorn Books, 1960. The book is available on line and can be read at the link below. The announcement of Pope Paul VI was based on the work of an eminent and respected scientist and not a personal opinion of Pope Paul meant to support the Church's teachings.

There need be no archeological proof Peter was ever in Rome. The only proof needed that Peter was the first leader of the Christian Church comes from scripture itself. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus says"

"And I say also unto 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 unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Where ever Peter was at the time was the headquarters of the Church - be it Jerusalem, Antioch or Damascus. Let us suppose Peter never made it to Rome (unlikely), what would that have to do with negating papal succession? If not Peter, one of the earliest popes took the Church to Rome, being the center of the known world. As he would have been the ranking ecclesiastical figure in the city, he would be the bishop of Rome. The Pope is the bishop of Rome. When a new pope is elected, he is first installed as pope. A day or two after installation he goes to the Basilica of Saint John Lateran, his cathedral church, and takes possession of it. The position of Bishop of Rome goes with the position of pope. Not the other way round.

For about 7 decades the Church was quartered in Avignon. There was no interruption in papal succession.

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." ~ Stuart Chase

Answer 3

No, Saint Peter was the first pope. Saint Paul was never a pope.

Answer 4

No, Paul was not a pope. However, six popes have taken his name.

Answer 5

No, Paul was never a pope. St. Peter was the first pope.

Answer 6

If you mean the Apostle Paul, no. Peter was the first pope.

Answer 7

No, St. Peter was the first pope.