Why was Saint Peter the Apostle chosen as the first pope of the Catholic Church?

Answer 1

In the Gospel of Matthew chapter 16, Jesus has been with His apostles for some time, and wants to know if they realize who He really is. So He begins by asking them who others are saying He is. After hearing their replies, Jesus asks His apostles who they think He is. Simon speaks up and declares Jesus as the Son of God. Jesus accepts his answer and in verses 17-19 of this 16th chapter, changes Simon's name to Peter (a name meaning rock) - something showing a change of role - and gives him the authority that popes have today to allow or forbid certain things. From this time on, Peter's name is mentioned first in all listings of the apostles. So it is Jesus who chooses Peter to be the first leader of the Church. The full context of this passage can be found in Matthew's Gospel chapter 16 verses 13-19.

Anglican Catholic Answer!

No one chose S.Peter as first pope. He was an apostle and in earthly terms I should imagine that an apostle has supreme status. S.Irenaeus [Adv, op cit.1. XXV11.] definitely states that the two apostles, Paul and Peter as joint founders of the Church in Rome and were co-consecrators of the first bishop. It is thought that the first bishop was Linus. It was this act that brought the Roman Church in to being.

Linus was first, Anencletus was second and Clement third according to this source. Another source starts with S. Clement!

As far as either Scripture or Holy Tradition goes Peter wasn't pope.

Answer 2

A:

Matthew's Gospel appears to tell us that Jesus chose Peter to lead the Christian Church, but we have to be careful before deciding that meant that Jesus wanted Peter to be the first Catholic pope. The early Church was concentrated in the Greek-speaking east, and we find that Peter was one of the three leaders of the church in Jerusalem during the time of Saint Paul (Galatians 2:9). This could make Peter the first bishop of Jerusalem or, perhaps more likely, the first bishop of Antioch. There is nothing in scripture that connects Saint Peter with Rome or suggests that he ever led the church in Rome. Without such a connection, we could equally believe that Jesus intended to appoint Peter as the first Patriarch of the Orthodox Church.

There is nothing in scripture or any contemporary account that tells us why Jesus would choose to appoint Peter as the first bishop of Rome, and therefore first Catholic pope.

Answer 3

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.

Answer 4

Saint Peter became the first pope because when Jesus ascended to heaven he left Saint Peter to be in charge of the Church and that is how Saint Peter became the first pope in Rome.

Catholic Answer

Read Matthew 16: 13-20, Our Blessed Lord gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom and guaranteed to uphold his judgments in heaven and that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.

Answer 5

Catholic Answer:
No one can know the reasons that Our Lord chose Peter to take charge of his Church as we find little in scripture that would lead us to believe Peter was a great leader among his peers. However, Our Lord saw something that we can not see.

There is ample written and archeological evidence of Peter in Rome. For a summary of the evidence click here.

There can be little doubt that Our Lord chose Simon Peter to take on the leadership of the Church when he departed this earth.

In Matthew 16:18 Jesus states:
"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."
And he continues:
"Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven".

In other words, Peter was to guide the Church and establish the foundation for how it was to proceed. Common sense tells us that Our Lord would expect that the leadership position be passed along in perpetuity. Otherwise the Church would have quickly foundered after the martyrdom of Peter. While this succession is not strictly mentioned in The Bible it is a part of sacred Tradition.
"stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written."(John 21:25)

The Catholic Church cites that Sacred Tradition has as much weight as does Scripture. Both are a part of the teaching authority of the Church.

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.

Answer 6

If indeed Peter went to Rome to lead the Christian community there, he would undoubtedly have been accepted as leader and as first pope, even if that term was not yet used. And, if Peter set a precedent as the first pope, there would have been second, third and succeeding popes in a line down to the present day, just as the Catholic Church tells us.

However, there is no evidence that Peter ever went to Rome. In fact, Francis Aloysius Sullivan SJ ('From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church') accepts the official position that Peter went to Rome, but then says that the consensus of scholars, including Catholic 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 was no pope, bishop or acknowledged single leader of the Roman church during the first century. Peter was 'chosen' to be the first pope during the second century, to enhance the authority and prestige of the bishops of Rome.

More information on Saint Peter can be found at:

http://christianity.answers.com/church-leadership/what-do-we-really-know-about-the-apostle-peter

For information on the early popes, please visit:

http://christianity.answers.com/catholicism/a-brief-history-of-the-early-popes

Answer 7

Catholic Answer:
Peter was chosen to be the foundation and leader of the new Church, not as pope. The term pope derives from the Greek word for 'father' and does not make an appearance in the Church until the 3rd century. However, it was a generic term assumed by all bishops, east and west, and other high ranking ecclesiastical authorities. It was not until the 7th century that it became the commonly used reference to the successor of Saint Peter, the Bishop of Rome, but it continued to be used as a title by many other bishops, particularly in the east. In the late 11th century Pope Gregory VII issued a declaration that the term 'Pope' was, henceforth, to be used only as the title of the successor of Saint Peter. So, while the word pope was not previously associated with the papacy, all successors to Peter became known by that title.

The presence of Peter in Rome, not explicitly affirmed in but consistent with the New Testament, is explicitly affirmed by Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyon and other early Christian writers, and no other city has ever claimed to be the place of his death. The same witnesses imply that Peter was the virtual founder of the Church of Rome, though not its founder in the sense of initiating a Christian community there. They also speak of Peter as the one who initiated its episcopal succession, but speak of Linus as the first "bishop", while it is commonly held today that the Christians in Rome did not act as a single united community under a single leader until some time in the 2nd century.

Peter was under no heavenly command to make Rome the headquarters of the Church. He could just as easily chosen Antioch or Jerusalem as the capitol of Christianity. Rome, at the time, was the center of the civilized world. All roads led to Rome. Peter did, in fact, rule the Church from Antioch during the years when Emperor Claudius exiled all Jews, both Orthodox and Christianized, from Rome.

During nearly 7 decades of the Avignon papacy the pope ruled from France and not Rome. While not the 'bishop of Rome' he was still the pope and successor of Peter.

Even today, Pope Francis could decide to move the papacy to Buenos Aires or some other location. He would still be pope but not bishop of Rome. He would then choose the new bishop of Rome who would rule only the diocese of Rome, not the entire Church.

Why was Peter chosen? That question can not be answered but Our Lord saw something in Peter that led him to make that choice. Something that many others did not see. Even today, when we look back on the early life of Peter, we wonder why Our Lord did not pick a more educated and dependable person to lead the Church. But as a saying goes, Our Lord does not choose the qualified, he instead qualifies the chosen.

Answer 8

The office of pope is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, but Matthew 16:8 does report Jesus as saying that Peter was the rock on which he would build his church. This is not found in the original passage in Mark's Gospel, but this statement im Matthew is grounds for considering Peter to be the first leader of the Christian Church. The question is whether he ever became the bishop of Rome, and therefore pope.

If the pope is the Catholic bishop of Rome, then the Catholic Church needed to link Peter in some way to Rome, so that it could claim Peter as the first pope. There is no mention in the Bible that Peter ever went to Rome and the consensus of scholars is that there was no bishop appointed or elected in Rome during the first century, but a second-century Catholic tradition has Peter go to Rome and even has him executed there. In other words, he was retrospectively chosen as pope in order to create a tradition of succession from Peter to the Catholic popes. In the absence of this tradition, the Orthodox patriarchs could have a better claim to being the true successors to Peter.

Answer 9

Matthew's Gospel does suggest that Jesus spoke of Peter leading his Church, so we could say that Peter was to be the leader of the early Christian Church. In spite of this, Paul seems to have seen him as merely one of three leaders of the church in Jerusalem, along with James and John.

Traditionally the pope is the bishop of Rome but there is no evidence that Peter was the bishop of Rome, or even went to Rome. Francis A. Sullivan SJ (From Apostles to Bishops) says that most scholars, including most Catholic scholars, are of the opinion that the early church of Rome was led by a group of presbyters, and that bishops were not appointed to the church in Rome until later in the second century. Nevertheless, Peter became the first pope in a tradition that also began in the second century.

Answer 10

Because his nickname was Peter "The Rock" and it fit Jesus' declaration: "and on this Rock shall my church be built".