Peter as the first Pope or bishop of Rome

[RileyG]

Was Peter the Bishop of Rome? I understand Catholic history has a clear answer to this, but if we approach this critically, these titles and offices make more sense when given posthumously.

The word bishop itself is a common Greek work that means administrator. Peter was called an apostle (messenger) of Christ. He wasn't called a bishop (administrator) of Rome but h ewas indeed an early church Father/patriarch. Bishop/Pope are appointed titles, they are highly developed and specialized positions well past what can be supported in Peter's lifetime (again the position of bishop was far more common) Father/Patriarch is implicit of any person involved in early leadership. It's also not an appointed title and it is regarded after an established movement and often after death.

Yes. Indeed he was the bishop/administrator of Rome. Titles change over time, but it doesn’t mean it charges their function.

 

[soldier of light]

Yes.

I'm the leader of my church and it's the true church because I have the true spirit of God. His precious gift to me. He is my credentials and history

 

[RileyG]

I'm the leader of my church and it's the true church because I have the true spirit of God. His precious gift to me.

God bless you.

 

[soldier of light]

God bless you.

Thank you

 

[DamianWarS]

Yes. Indeed he was the bishop/administrator of Rome. Titles change over time, but it doesn’t mean it charges their function.

this is not a biblical support position Peter held nor is it a title, it is a role. The function would change based on the development of the church, a 1st-century role of leadership would look a lot different than a far more developed church in the 3rd century as it looks different today. Certainly, Peter probably carried an honorific salutation of some sort as would be culturally appropriate but shown with the Cornelius household he would present himself as common and "just a man" so it's unclear how well he received these titles. His own epistles have the standard "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ" so that would be the most reasonable title he would go by but there is no title of bishop for Peter that is biblical.

Bishop is from the greek "episkope". It is a common word used in administrative/overseeing roles, particularly in organizational structures like government. it is more of an elected or appointed office than a title. this differs from apostle which is also a common Greek word for a messenger but biblical-speaking apostles (or messengers) of Christ had a divine appointment, the only exception would maybe with Matthias who was selected to replace Judas, but this was unique circumstances.

Both can be viewed as common matter-of-fact words but positionally in the bible apostle operates at a higher level, still higher than them was a council. Biblical speaking no overseer would be above an apostle and there was no bishop of bishops, that would be a role for a council. Also, no region was exalted over another, the church was simply too young for these nuances to take form. if Peter had any specialty it was to the Jews as he is called an apostle to the circumcised. (Gal 2:8). That doesn't mean Peter didn't have a role in Rome but this sort of highly develope role/office of the Pope is something that needs more development than what Peter's lifetime can support.

Posthumous titles are not to discredit them but rather to recognize the leadership roles they played in developing these offices. Peter can be rightly called the first Pope or the first bishop of Rome even if he himself never carried these titles or these titles were too undeveloped.

 

[RileyG]

this is not a biblical support position Peter held nor is it a title, it is a role. The function would change based on the development of the church, a 1st-century role of leadership would look a lot different than a far more developed church in the 3rd century as it looks different today. Certainly, Peter probably carried an honorific salutation of some sort as would be culturally appropriate but shown with the Cornelius household he would present himself as common and "just a man" so it's unclear how well he received these titles. His own epistles have the standard "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ" so that would be the most reasonable title he would go by but there is no title of bishop for Peter that is biblical.

Bishop is from the greek "episkope". It is a common word used in administrative/overseeing roles, particularly in organizational structures like government. it is more of an elected or appointed office than a title. this differs from apostle which is also a common Greek word for a messenger but biblical-speaking apostles (or messengers) of Christ had a divine appointment, the only exception would maybe with Matthias who was selected to replace Judas, but this was unique circumstances.

Both can be viewed as common matter-of-fact words but positionally in the bible apostle operates at a higher level, still higher than them was a council. Biblical speaking no overseer would be above an apostle and there was no bishop of bishops, that would be a role for a council. Also, no region was exalted over another, the church was simply too young for these nuances to take form. if Peter had any specialty it was to the Jews as he is called an apostle to the circumcised. (Gal 2:8). That doesn't mean Peter didn't have a role in Rome but this sort of highly develope role/office of the Pope is something that needs more development than what Peter's lifetime can support.

Posthumous titles are not to discredit them but rather to recognize the leadership roles they played in developing these offices. Peter can be rightly called the first Pope or the first bishop of Rome even if he himself never carried these titles or these titles were too undeveloped.

I do not accept Sola Scriptura.

Thank you for your insight

God bless

 

[stevevw]

Evidence for Peter in Rome. I don't know why people question that Peter went to Rome and was with Paul when they were martyred. Here is some non biblical evidence,

Peter tells his readers that he is writing from “Babylon” (1 Pet. 5:13), which was a first-century code word for the city of pagan Rome. Further, the Fathers are unanimous in declaring that he went to Rome and was martyred there under the pagan emperor Nero.

Ignatius of Antioch
“Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict” (Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).

Dionysius of Corinth
“You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time” (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).

Irenaeus
“Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church” (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).

Gaius
“It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero].

Tertullian
“But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).

Eusebius of Caesarea
“[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years” (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).

Peter of Alexandria
“Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome” (Penance, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).

Optatus
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Epiphanius of Salamis
“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375])

Jerome
“Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero.

Augustine
“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?” (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).