Peter: Bishop of Rome?

Question

What is the Catholics' argument that Peter was the Bishop of Rome, when we have no records of such and Scripture indicates that he largely remained in the regions in and around Judea (as part of the "gospel to the circumcised" as Paul says).

The idea of "Pope" has always been synonymous with "bishop of Rome." There was no pope who was NOT a bishop of Rome in Catholicism.

I also like the copy-paste list of sites that were thrown out instead of providing a real argument. In fact, a cursory glance reveals no evidence in support of Peter spending any appreciable amount of time in Rome. For instance, they cite Origen: "Peter...AT LAST [emphasis mine] having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way." Peter was never in Rome until he was executed! And they claim this as evidence!

Answer 1

Answer: The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the Book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.”



The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes, were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Christ built His church upon Peter.



But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the Church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the Church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter even being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this, and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome, comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).



Also, nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops, or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).



What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace...” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12).



Was Peter the first pope? The answer, according to Scripture, is a clear and emphatic no. Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere is his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the Gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).

Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy.

Answer 2

Peter was not the bishop of Rome or a pope. He had nothing to do with the catholic church. I'm sure he rolls over in his grave every time someone says that. Revelations 17 explains why. Guess who "the woman" is...

Answer 3

I do not believe that the Catholic Church calls Peter the "Bishop of Rome" They call him the First Pope, and the Pope is now the Bishop of Rome; however, the Papacy HQ'd in Rome hundreds of years after Peter's death.

Answer 4

There is NO evidence because the whole claim is false. The Bible NOWHERE allows an earthly hierarchy of church leadership. The apostles appointed ELDERS (PLURAL) in the churches. Paul instructed the evangelists, Titus and Timothy to do the same. The ONLY leadership AUTHORIZED by scripture in the Lord's church is a plurality of shepherds = pastors, elders, or overseers = bishops (all 3 word families are used describing the same leaders in scripture, Acts 20:13-38) over a LOCAL church.

Answer 5

try Matthew 16:18 - "18And 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."

Catholics believe that with this, Jesus exaulted Peter as the leader of his Church.

We believe that Peter was the first Pope, not the Bishop of Rome. The Pope didn't become the Bishop of Rome until much, MUCH later.

Answer 6

Never was Bishop of Rome.
It is Catholic tradition that says this.
The Bible doesn't ever refer to him as a bishop period.
He was the Apostle to the Jews or the circumcised.

Answer 7

Christians need to stay close to Catholics, now. It's always the power brokers who divide, on both sides.

Answer 8

o.o

When I first saw the question, I thought you were talking about Peter the Great.

Answer 9

No argument, who cares what you think?

Answer 10

try

scripturecatholic.com and catholiceducation.org
salvationhistory.com(study course)
fisheaters.com

see what we really believe and then ask your questions.take care,enjoy and god bless.