Why is the bishop of Rome as successor of Saint Peter a fundamental claim of Catholicism?

Answer 1

A:

The second-century Pope Anicetus, wishing to demonstrate that he spoke with the authority of Peter, reported that Peter had travelled to Rome to lead the congregation there, and had been beheaded in Rome. A century later, Origen changed this to say that Peter was sentenced to crucifixion but, feeling unworthy of being crucified like Jesus, asked to be crucified upside down.

Taken literally, this made Peter the first real leader of the Christians in Rome and thus the predecessor of the Catholic pope. Although the evidence is that the role of bishop was only created in the second century, a tradition also arose that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, and a line of bishops was defined, leading from Peter through the remainder of the first century to Clement at the end of the century and onwards to Anicetus later in the second century. Interestingly, Clement of Rome did mention Peter in his epistle, 1 Clement, but seems to have been unaware that Peter ever visited Rome.

Answer 2

The venerable Polycarp of Smyrna had tried to win an argument with the mid-second century pope Anicetus (156-166) on a matter of theology, by saying that he spoke with the authority of the apostle John. In response, Anicetus said that Peter was beheaded by Nero in Rome and that he spoke with the authority of Peter. Future bishops of Rome would emphasise the relationship that Anicetus discovered, gradually claiming more and more authority in the Church.

One of the most contentious issues of the later Middle Ages was the question whether the Church was ultimately under the authority of a single bishop, the bishop of Rome, or under the control of all the bishops working together in councils. Certainly the Pope never really had primacy in the Greek-speaking half of the Roman Empire. The Western Schism also moved the papacy, or at least one incumbant of the post, to France temporarily.

Answer 3

A:

The pope is called the successor of St Peter because Christian tradition says that Peter went to Rome and became the first bishop of Rome, appointing Linus as his successor, with subsequent bishops appointed continuously down to the present day. This continuous succession from an appointment made by Peter himself was important to the church of Rome in claiming primacy over all other Christian bishops. However, Francis A. Sullivan SJ (From Apostles to Bishops) says that there is a general agreement among 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. It is therefore no longer possible to say that the pope is literally the successor of Saint Peter, whether or not he actually visited Rome.

Answer 4

Actually, the Pope is the successor to Saint Peter. As he is in Rome and the highest member of the hierarchy in that city, he is automatically the Bishop of Rome. Although it is unlikely he would do so, he could move the headquarters of the Church elsewhere and still be the pope but not the Bishop of Rome. This happened during the Avignon Papacy when the pope was headquartered in Avignon, France, for 7 decades. During this period he was the bishop of Avignon.

Answer 5

Matthew's Gospel says that Jesus would build his church on Peter, so whichever city could lay claim to Peter would have moral authority over the church as a whole.


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 the first bishop of Rome. 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 scientific discussion of the evidence on which he relied.

What we know about Saint Peter can be read here.