Why Peter not Paul the first pope?

Answer 1

A:

Other religions and even other Christian denominations are unconcerned whether Saint Peter was the first pope, leaving that as an internal matter for the Catholic Church itself. However, scholars are concerned to establish what really happened. 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 alone is circumstantial evidence that Peter was not the first bishop of Rome, as any precedent he set as sole, monarchical bishop of the city, could be expected to be followed by the church of Rome after his death. Moreover, the author of 1 Clement, writing from Rome a few decades later, seems unaware that Peter had ever been to Rome although he wrote in general terms about Peter's suffering and death: "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.

Answer 2

Christ appointed St. Peter as the first pope, not St. Paul.