How could Peter have been the Pope in Rome if?

Question

1. In Romans & Acts we discover that Peter was never in Rome before 60 A.D. for sure!
2. The churches of Rome pre-dated Paul's visit to them in 60 A.D.

Other men were pastoring the house churches in Rome that Paul wrote to.

Answer 1

Peter did not have to be the first Christian in Rome.

Here are a few non-biblical proofs of Peter as Bishop of Rome, all of them from before the council of Nicea in 325 A.D.

Irenaeus in 189 C.E.:
"The very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; ... The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate." (Against Heresies 3:3:2-3) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html

Tertullian in 200 C.E.:
"For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter." (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32) http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm

Anonymous in 211 C.E.:
"For they say that all the early teachers and the apostles received and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth, in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxix.html

Cyprian of Carthage in 251 C.E.:
"And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father hath sent me, ..., they shall be retained;” (John 20:21-22) yet, He founded a single Chair. That He might set forth unity, He established by His authority the origin of that unity, as having its origin in one man alone. 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 Church and one Chair. So too, even if they are all shepherds, we are shown 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 confidence that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4) http://www.romancatholicism.org/jansenism/cyprian-church.htm

And in 252 C.E.:
"Moreover, Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of His Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men, when no one had been made so before him, when the place of Fabian, that is, when the place of Peter24612461 [On the death of Fabian, see Ep. iii. p. 281; sufferings of Cornelius (inference), p. 303; Decius, p. 299.] and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant; which being occupied by the will of God, and established by the consent of all of us, whosoever now wishes to become a bishop, must needs be made from without; and he cannot have the ordination of the Church who does not hold the unity of the Church." (Letters 51:8) http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf05.iv.iv.li.html

Eusebius of Caesarea in 312 C.E.:
"As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul; but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothyas his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier." (Church History 3:4:9–10). http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.iv.html

More other early Christian writings that refer to Peter as Bishop of Rome, see: http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm

With love in Christ.

Answer 2

Mat 16:18 is a Greek text and as such has no punctuation marks, so the comma after the word Peter could as easily been a period. This idea of the catholics, that the Bishop of Rome is descended from Peter, is to be found in forged manuscripts and false councils that have never existed. It is all made up to give the pope a legitimate title and lineage so that he could put forth and sustain the claim the he and only he is the visible head of the church of God, however the only god that he bows to is Satan. They removed the second commandment, changed the fourth, and split the tenth to preserve the number, now if that is not blaspheme in the highest degree, then no one knows what is.

Answer 3

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).

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).

Answer 4

St. Peter (the Apostle) was the FIRST Pope, I don't remember anywhere that it says that he served from Rome! The Pope is Chosen from the Cardinals which represent many different cultures and nations. The current Pope is a German. And the seat of the Roman Catholic Church has not always been in Rome!

Answer 5

Did the history of the church stop with the apostles as mentioned in Scripture?

Surely you've read the ante-Nicene church fathers in your research; Peter and Paul in Rome, and specifically Peter's role there, is documented more than once.

Answer 6

While it is not critical to the doctrine of the papacy that Peter be established to be in Rome, it is a rather conspicuous ommission that he is never seen in Scripture there, or even mentioned among the large list of Paul's friends in Rm. 16.

But what is more conspicuous is that a thorough search of the rest of the New Testament yields not even one single command for all the churches to submit to Peter as supreme pope, nor one example of him reigning as such over all (James gives the final decision in Acts 15), nor does Peter, "an apostle" and "a servant", refer to himself as such.

And most critically, nowhere is there any provision set down for a successor to Peter. Instead, God is still building His church using men who like Peter, effectually confess faith in the Rock, even Christ, and upon such truth is the church grounded.

The perpetuated Petrine papacy is without true Biblical warrant, and is the result of Rome taking on the form of the empire in which it was found, and thus it became a vast an autocratic (answerable to no one) institution, with it's own Caesario-papacy, which adds to the Bible and effectively it makes it a second class authority (after the "Teaching Magisterium"). Thus were unScriptural doctrines like indulgences and novenas and prayers to saints adopted, and the Bible was effectively bound from the common people for hundreds of years, while later Bingo was loosed!

In any case, the authenticity of a true church or believer is not based upon ecclesiastical or physical lineage, but like that of a true Jews, it is based upon effectual faith in the gospel of grace, which Rome effectively, officially and effectually, denies.

For the ultimate error of Rome is that of fostering dependence upon her supposed powers, as well as one's own merits, for salvation, rather than coming before God as sinners, destitute of any merit whereby they may escape Hell and gain Heaven, and thus casting all their faith upon Christ and His blood for justification and regeneration (Rm. 3:9 - 5:8; Eph. 1:13; Titus 3:5).

And having turned from sin to Him, be baptized under water (Acts 8:37) and walk in newness of life (Rm. 6). And so to God be the glory alone!!

Answer 7

That pervert Paul is the one who went to Rome.

Answer 8

Peter would take up the sword again if anyone
ever called him a pope.

Answer 9

Not all Popes served or came from Rome.

Answer 10

Jesus reported "Get at the back of me devil" meaning that devil replaced into influencing Peter at that factor. in case you examine this entire financial disaster right here Jesus is making waiting his disciples for his up coming loss of life. Jesus did no longer mean Peter replaced into devil. in case you examine further in the two financial disaster of Galatians the clarification Paul rebuked Peter is" using fact earlier the advent of specific men from James, he used to eat with human beings of the international locations, yet while they arrived , he went chickening out and putting apart himself, in concern of those of the circumcised type." Gal. 2:12 In Gal 2:13 it provides further reason "something of the Jews additionally joined him in putting in this pretense, so as that even Barnabas replaced into led alongside with them of their pretense" It replaced into greater stable for Peter to provide up the previous Jewish techniques and that's what he replaced into being condemned for. No, Peter would not have a unfavorable checklist. He replaced into the only one that regarded Jesus using fact the Messiah. So he had his faults. He additionally had the duty of being a significant elder at a time while the Jewish usa replaced into dissolved and Christianity took over. have you ever completed something this significant? remember the Jews often needed those Christian upstarts ineffective. This had an excellent effect on Peter. He replaced into relied on sufficient to place in writing books into the Bible so i think of he did a great pastime. greater helpful than i ought to. All of Jesus' disciples had their different faults. this could coach you the way affected person and loving Jesus and God are. needless to say Peter replaced into virtually repentant or Jesus could are starting to be to be rid of him.