Was Peter ever bishop in Rome?

Question

I am trying to stay respectful tonight. I got a bit annoyed last night and was a bit short in my questions. So please be respectful in turn.

I know it is said Peter was Bishop in Rome. If he was why didn't Paul mention him in his letter to Rome or in any of his letters written from Rome. Consider the following.



"In A.D. 58 Paul wrote to the Romans, but does not mention Peter. In Romans 1:11, he wants to impart special gifts, and in Romans 1:15 he is ready to preach there. He sends greetings to twenty-seven persons, but none to Peter.

"In 61 Paul is conveyed a prisoner to Rome, and certain brethren go to meet him, but not Peter.

"At Rome Paul writes to the Galatians, and mentions Peter, but not as being there or as having been pontiff there for twenty years [as the Roman Catholic Church claims].

"The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon were all written from Rome; but while others are mentioned as sending messages, or as being associated with Paul, Peter is never once mentioned.

"From Rome also Paul's last letter is written (the Second Epistle to Timothy). He says, 'At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me' (2 Timothy 4:16). So that if Peter were Bishop of Rome he enjoyed an immunity which was not accorded to Paul, and is guilty of having forsaken the great apostle.

"And, finally, in this very Epistle, written from Rome immediately before his martyrdom, Paul says, 'Only Luke is with me' (2 Timothy 4:11). This is conclusive.

"So Paul had written to Rome, he had been in Rome, and at the end he writes from Rome, and not only never once mentions Peter, but declares, 'Only Luke is with me.'"

Please if you list any quotes saying Peter was bishop provide a date. Also please no quotes dated later than the first half of the second century.

I just wanted to clarify why I put a time limit on quotes. It is not because quotes after that are necessarily inaccurate but the possibility does exist. The farther removed in time a quote is the more likely it is to contain inaccuracies. For instance how many of you were told George Washington had false teeth made of wood.

Answer 1

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).

Answer 2

One thing that can be said about Peter and the Disciples is that they were always on the move.

It's common that they would appoint someone to be head of a church, considering the fact they couldn't be there all the time. (Paul's letters are a great example) And usually it would be somebody that the congregation trusted.

You figure the "first church" was established in Antioch, because that's where the term "Christian" came from, but the bible never states that Peter was bishop over it. And what they were doing was helping the poor in Jerusalem with whatever profits they were taking in while they were preaching. They weren't keeping the money. That's what Paul was doing during his missions. Same with Peter.

Answer 3

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."

Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

There is also a quote from Cyprian, which though technically outside of your specified time frame does preceed the Council of Nicea by about a hundred years:

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

Answer 4

Jesus himself prophesies Peter's death in Rome in John 21:18.
Paul was execured by sword, and Peter by being crucified upside down during the Neronian persecution.

Answer 5

Only three bishops mentioned by name in scripture. And the last menyion is of Jesus as Bishop and this statement WAS MADE BY PETER HIMSELF!

2Ti 4:22 The Lord Jesus Christ [be] with thy spirit. Grace [be] with you. Amen. [[[The second [epistle] unto Timotheus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Ephesians, was written from Rome, when Paul was brought before Nero the second time.]]]

Tts 3:15 All that are with me salute thee. Greet them that love us in the faith. Grace [be] with you all. Amen. [[[It was written to Titus, ordained the first bishop of the church of the Cretians, from Nicopolis of Macedonia.]]]

1Pe 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Answer 6

The only Peter in Rome is the statue of him at the Vatican.Recently his toes had need of repair.They were worn from being kissed so much.How sad.








KAIT you can add this as well to your scriptures:
Gal 2:11 "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed."
So much for a pope to be infallible.

Answer 7

Absolutely Not! Neither Peter or the other apostles ever claimed to be anything but servants and not over the spiritual and phisical Rock Jesus!

Answer 8

It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

St. Peter's residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.

That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ's prophecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not — "And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God" (John 21:18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter.
St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; "Oracula Sibyl.", V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).
From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xv; III, xl; VI, xiv); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, i). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle.
Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (v): "Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles — St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory". He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom "among us" (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chap. iv). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.
In his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117), while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of Antioch endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from striving for his pardon, remarking: "I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive" (Ad. Romans 4). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there.

Answer 9

There is no record in the Bible of Simon Peter ever being in Rome. Paul would not have gone to Rome if Peter were already there because it was not his custom to build on another person's foundation.

At any rate, an internet search and some study of history will show that it was actually Simon Magus, the sorcerer of Acts that went to Rome and founded what became the RCC.

Answer 10

No. Peter was one of the pillars of the Jerusalem church (and not even it's leader - that was James). He was long dead by the time Christianity spread to Rome. The Peter of the gospels is a fictionalized character who shared very little in common with the historical Peter.