When was Saint Peter named the first pope?

Answer 1

Yes, St. Peter is considered the first pope.

Answer

The pope is considered the bishop of Rome, but we do not know for a fact that Peter ever went to Rome. The Catholic Church goes to extraordinary lengths to attempt to prove this, even claiming to have found the actual remains of Saint Peter under the church named Saint Peter's Basilica. Contrary evidence is at least as abundant as evidence that Peter did go to Rome, including the letter known as 1 Clement.

Writing from Rome just a few decades after Peter was supposedly the first pope, the author speaks in general terms about the suffering and death of Peter, but seems unaware that he was ever in Rome: "There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one not one but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to his appointed place of glory." On the most objective evidence we have, Peter probably never led the church of Rome, which is a prerequisite for the papacy.

Francis A. Sullivan SJ (From Apostles to Bishops) says 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. This suggests that the first bishop of Rome lived later in the second century. Pope Anicetus was the first known bishop of Rome.

Roman Catholic Answer

Yes, he was. The pope and the Bishop of Rome have been the same person in the same position since the very beginning.

Answer 2

Jesus appointed Peter as the first leader of the Church.

AnswerHe was chosen because of his faith in Christ; Peter was the first one to publicly recognize, confess and profess faith in Christ as God.

The term "pope" is just a title that developed in order to identify the leader of Christ's Church. Christ chose Peter because of his deep faith, a faith Peter was to display time and time again throughout the New Testament when Christ revealed difficult things. Christ had a predilection for Peter's specific role even when he first met him, for we see Christ give him a new name. Originally Peter was called "Simon". Throughout the Bible, God only renames those that He gives a great mission, such as Abraham (Abram) and Israel (Jacob) who were chosen as leaders and given the promises of the Old Testament covenant. Peter is thus chosen as the leader and given the promise of New Covenant. The specific passage comes from St. Matthew 16:13-19:

(13) "And Jesus came into the quarters of Cesarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? (14) But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. (15) Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? (16) Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. (17) 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. (18) 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. (19) 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 on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Church exegetes explain that St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1. 42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fullness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven. "Upon this rock, etc..". The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, St. Matt. 7. 24, 25. "The gates of hell, etc..." That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ. Loose on earth... The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence; the power of which is here granted. (Douay-Rheims Challoner Commentary).

Notice that Christ in the above passage only promises this power and dignity. This future promise is because Christ has not yet enacted the New Covenant which requires His redemptive sacrifice and the ceremonies of the New Law. Christ must first established his hierarchy, institution and body of doctrine before he activates it through His death. He does so and formally gives to Peter the powers promised in the Gospel of St. John 21:15-17:

(15) "When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. (16) He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. (17) He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love

thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep."

"Feed my sheep... Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter; St. Matt. 16. 19; and here he fulfils that promise, by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own church. (Douay-Rheims Challoner Commentary).
Saint Peter was the first leader of the group of Christians living in Rome, and therefore regarded as the first 'overseer' (episcopus - bishop) of the Church of Rome. Because the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and Saint Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, therefore in Catholic methodology Peter was the first Pope, even though the title would not have existed in his time.

Answer 3

A:The official position of the Catholic Church is that Peter was the first pope and that there was an unbroken line of successors as bishop of Rome, down to the present day. This apostolic succession is the basis for the Catholic Church's claim to primacy over other denominations.

However, Francis Aloysius Sullivan ('From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church') says that the consensus of scholars is that on the available evidence, the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century. There being no evidence that Peter ever went to Rome, he might well have been an early leader of the Christian Church but not the first bishop of Rome, or Catholic pope.

The first bishop of Rome who is firmly attested is Anicetus, whose papacy is dated from 157 CE, although the bishops of Rome only took the definitive title of 'pope' in the fourth century.

Answer 4

There is absolutely no doubt that Christ appointed Peter as the first head of his new Church:

"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." (Matthew 16:18)

That leadership was acknowledged by the early Church and even St. Paul deferred to Peter. In the earliest years Peter ruled the Church from Jerusalem and from Antioch during the years when Emperor Claudius expelled all Jews from Rome. There is no doubt that Peter returned to Rome when this expulsion was lifted by Nero and numerous scripture allude to this. Even all mainline Protestant denominations concede that Peter was in Rome and died there.

While Peter was the first leader of the Church, the term "Pope" did not come into common use until centuries later as the Church evolved. However, the successors of Peter were always acknowledged as the leader. The tradition that the ruling pope was the bishop of Rome was a natural outgrowth of the developing hierarchy of the Church. He was the highest ranking Church authority in Rome so he was automatically the bishop of Rome. However, there is nothing sacrosanct that Rome must be the headquarters of the Church. It is just a tradition. At anytime the ruling pope could move the leadership anywhere of his choosing.

Even in the Church there exists confusion about the first successors of Peter. There are no written records dating back to those times. Some say Linus was the handpicked choice of Peter. Others say Anacletus or Clement succeeded Peter. Based on the meager information available, Linus is considered to be the second leader (Pope)of the Church although there is no absolute confirmation of this. This is why there is no official numbering of the papacies.

We can not be sure that Peter was the first pope, as there is no evidence that he ever visited Rome, nor that he became the leader of the Christian Church in Rome. Francis Aloysius Sullivan ('From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church') says that the consensus of scholars is that on the available evidence, the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century. On this view, we should not look for a bishop of Rome or a pope until later in the second century.

The first bishop of Rome who is firmly attested is Anicetus (157-158), making his successor, Soter, the second bishop of the Roman church. However, the bishops of Rome only took the definitive title of 'pope' in the fourth century.

It seems to be a second-century tradition that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and most of our supposed sources for his successors are even later. Some sources, the earliest of which was Irenaeus in 180, give Linus as the second pope, while others say Clement was the second bishop of Rome. 'The Apostolic Constitutions' says that Linus was really the first bishop of Rome, but that he was ordained by Paul, with his successor, Clement, ordained by Peter - in which case Peter would still be alive during during the time of two popes. These conflicting positions are based on legends of dubious value, but if Peter was the first pope, either Linus or Clement was second.

Answer 5

A:Probably not. Certainly there is no evidence that Peter ever went to Rome, so he might have been an early Christian leader, but probably not the first bishop of Rome, and therefore not the first pope.

Had Peter set a precedent as the first pope, there would undoubtedly have been second, third and succeeding popes in a line down to the present day, just as the Catholic Church tells us. However, Francis Aloysius Sullivan ('From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church') says that the consensus of scholars is that on the available evidence, the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century. If the tradition was for leadership by a college of presbyters, rather than a single overseer, this confirms that Peter was not the first bishop of Rome.

Answer 6

Peter is considered the first pope even though the term 'pope' did not come into common usage until much later. Whether Peter was in Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome or elsewhere, he is still considered the first pope. Later, as the Church grew and a hierarchy developed. the Church established its headquarters in Rome as Rome was considered the center of the world at the time. It had good roads reaching out to the vast empire as well as ships that plied the Mediterranean. Missionaries could reach anywhere in the known world from Rome. As the pope was the highest ranking Church authority in Rome, he was automatically consider the Bishop of Rome.

From 1309 until 1377 popes reigned from Avignon in France. No matter, the pope was still the pope. Once the situation was resolved, the papacy returned to Rome and the pope again resumed his position as the Bishop of Rome along with his title of Pope. Even today, should Pope Francis make the unlikely decision to move the Church headquarters to, say, Buenos Aires, Argentina, he would still be Pope and the assigned Bishop of Rome would simply be the Bishop of Rome. The Pope would be the Bishop of Buenos Aires as well as pope of the Universal Church.

The Church has ample evidence that Peter did rule from Rome at some time. But even if he had never stepped foot in the city, he was still the Pope. Being Bishop of Rome is not a prerequisite for the papacy. By default, if the pope is headquartered in Rome, he is also the bishop of that diocese.

Answer 7

We can not be sure that Peter was the first pope, as there is no evidence that he ever visited Rome, nor that he became the leader of the Christian Church in Rome. Francis Aloysius Sullivan ('From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church') says that the consensus of scholars is that on the available evidence, the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century. On this view, we should not look for a bishop of Rome or a pope until later in the second century.

The first bishop of Rome who is firmly attested is Anicetus (157-158), making his successor, Soter, the second bishop of the Roman church. However, the bishops of Rome only took the definitive title of 'pope' in the fourth century.

It seems to be a second-century tradition that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and most of our supposed sources for his successors are even later. Some sources, the earliest of which was Irenaeus in 180, give Linus as the second pope, while others say Clement was the second bishop of Rome. 'The Apostolic Constitutions' says that Linus was really the first bishop of Rome, but that he was ordained by Paul, with his successor, Clement, ordained by Peter - in which case Peter would still be alive during during the time of two popes. These conflicting positions are based on legends of dubious value, but if Peter was the first pope, either Linus or Clement was second.

Answer 8

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 9

The official position of the Catholic Church is that Peter was the first pope and that there was an unbroken line of successors as bishop of Rome, down to the present day. This apostolic succession is the basis for the Catholic Church's claim to primacy over other denominations.

However, Francis Aloysius Sullivan ('From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church') says that the consensus of scholars is that on the available evidence, the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century. Father Sullivan says "It is generally recognised as certain that" Peter died in Rome, but leaves it at that. There being no evidence that Peter ever went to Rome, he might well have been an early leader of the Christian Church but not the first bishop of Rome, or Catholic pope. The most compelling evidence that Peter was not the first bishop of Rome is the evidence that he did not appoint a successor.

The first bishop of Rome who is firmly attested is Anicetus, whose papacy is dated from 157 CE, although the bishops of Rome only took the definitive title of 'pope' in the fourth century.

Answer 10

Catholic Answer:
Theologian Dr. Taylor Marshall in his recently released book The Eternal City: Rome and the Origins of Catholicismgives a concise history of Saint Peter and his travels to Rome. Peter went to Rome in about AD 43 or 44 and remained there, establishing the Roman Church, until AD 49 when Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews from Rome. In that year Peter again pops up in Jerusalem and is present for the Apostolic Council in Acts 15 regarding circumcision and baptism. Scripture and other written communications of the early Christians are silent about Peter's location during this time as Peter had been imprisoned in Jerusalem until his miraculous release (Acts 12:5-17) . They did not want to divulge Peter's location to the Romans.

From AD 49 till AD 54 (during the Jewish expulsion from Rome), we find Saint Peter reigning temporarily in Antioch. This is why Peter is known also as the first bishop of Antioch.

Tradition holds that in AD 54, when Nero revoked the Jewish expulsion from Rome, Saint Peter moved back to Rome and continued to reign as the first Pope of the Apostolic See.

So, yes, Peter was the first bishop of Rome and the first pope.