Please Provide Historical Proof That Peter Was The First Pope.

[Maximus]

In Book 2, Chapters 14-15, of his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius cites St. Clement of Rome (bishop there by about A.D. 80) and St. Papias (born about A.D. 69, died about 140), Bishop of Hierapolis, with regard to some of the activities of St. Peter in Rome.

Sadly, we no longer have Clement's Institutions, which Eusebius cites, and we have only fragments of Papias' writings.

There is no good reason to doubt Eusebius' reference to the testimony of those two men, however.

From what I have read of Church history and the Fathers, which is a fair amount, absolutely no one in the early Church doubted that Sts. Peter and Paul founded the Church at Rome and perished there during the persecutions of the Emperor Nero.

Those who claim that Peter was never even in Rome only lessen their own credibility.

 

[Benedicta00]

Peter's Presence in Rome

"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars[of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. "
Clement of Rome,The First Epistle of Clement,5(c.A.D. 96),in ANF,I:6

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you."
Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans,4(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:75

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth."
Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter,fragment in Eusebius' Church History,II:25(c.A.D. 178),in NPNF2,I:130

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,and laying the foundations of the Church."
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:1:1(c.A.D. 180),in ANF,I:414

"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out."
Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History,VI:14,6(A.D. 190), in NPNF2,I:261

'We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another(an allusion to John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross."
Tertullian, Scorpiace,15:3(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:648

"[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near(to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood."
Tertullian, Against Marcion,4:5(inter A.D. 207-212),in ANF,III:350

"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.' "
Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History,2:25(A.D. 198),in NPNF2,I:129-130

"Peter...at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way."
Origen,Third Commentary on Genesis,(A.D. 232) fragment in Eusebius 3:1:1,in NPNF2,X:132

"Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome."
Peter of Alexandria,The Canonical Epistle,Canon 9(A.D. 306),in ANF,VI:273

"[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome..."
Lactantius,The Divine Institutes,4:21(A.D. 310),in ANF,VII:123

"Peter...coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there..."
Eusebius,Ecclesiastical History,II:14,5 (A.D. 325),in NPNF2,X:115

"This man[Simon Magus],after he had been cast out by the Apostles,came to Rome...Peter and Paul,a noble pair,chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right...For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven..."
Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,6:14-15(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:37-38

"And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, 'Ye must bear witness at Rome,' deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing..."
Athanasius,Defence of his Flight,18(c.A.D. 357),in NPNF2,IV:261

"I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul...My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross."
Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15 (A.D. 377),in NPNF2,VI:18

"Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there. Wherefore the city is more notable upon this ground, than upon all others together. And as a body great and strong, it hath as two glistening eyes the bodies of these Saints. Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, from thence Peter. Just bethink you, ... what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ! what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, not for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church."
Chrysostom,Epistle to the Romans,Homily 32 (c.A.D. 391),in NPNFI,XI:561-562

"Which was mere to the interest of the Church at Rome, that it should at its commencement be presided over by some high-born and pompous senator, or by the fisherman Peter, who had none of this world's advantages to attract men to him?"
Gregory of Nyssa,To the Church at Nicodemia,Epistle 13 (ante A.D. 394),NPNF2,V:535

"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of 'mountain men,' or Cutzupits, by which they were known."
Augustine,To Fortunatus,Epistle 53(A.D. 400),in NPNFI,I:298

"But some people in some countries of the West, and especially in the city,[ie. Rome] not knowing the reason of this indulgence, think that a dispensation from fasting ought certainly not to be allowed On the Sabbath, because they say that on this day the Apostle Peter fasted before his encounter with Simon[Magus]."
John Cassian,Institutes,X(ante A.D. 435),in NPNF2,XI:218

"The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy anniversaries[of Peter & Paul], and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is recorded as done for all men's salvation should be everywhere celebrated with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which to-day's festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honoured with special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men, through whom the light of Christ's gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, wast made the disciple of Truth. These are thy holy Fathers and true shepherds, who gave thee claims to be numbered among the heavenly kingdoms, and built thee under much better and happier auspices than they, by whose zeal the first foundations of thy walls were laid: and of whom the one that gave thee thy name defiled thee with his brother's blood."
Pope Leo the Great(regn. A.D. 440-461),Sermon LXXXII(ante A.D. 461),in NPNF2,XII:194

Some non-Catholic historians

"Some Protestant controversialists have asserted that Peter was never in Rome...I think the historical probability is that he was...Protestant champions had undertaken the impossible task of proving the negative, that Peter was never in Rome. They might as well have undertaken to prove out of the Bible that St. Bartholomew never preached in Pekin...For myself, I am willing, in absence of any opposing tradition, to accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. If Rome, which early laid claim to have witnessed that martrydom, were not the scene of it, where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and none but Rome made the claim...If this evidence for Peter's martydom be not be deemed sufficient, there are few things in the history of the early Church which it will be possible to demonstrate"
G. Salmon "Infallibilty of the Church" (Grand Rapids:Baker,1959) pp. 348-9(a critic of the Catholic faith)

"...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The Martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.'
A. Harnack

'It is sufficient to let us include the martyrdom of Peter in Rome in our final historical picture of the early Church, as a matter of fact which is relatively though not absolutely assured. We accept it, however facts of antiquity that are universally accepted as historical. Were we to demand for all facts of ancient history a greater degree of probability, we should have to strike from our history books a large portion of their contents."
Oscar Cullman "Peter, Disciple, Apostle, Martyr" (London:SCM,1962) p. 114

"That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is certain..."
F.F. Bruce "NT History" (New York: Doubleday,1971) p. 410

"It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome"
JND Kelly "The Oxford Dictionary of Popes" (Oxford:Oxford,1986) p. 6

"The martrydom of both Peter and Paul in Rome...has often been questioned by Protestant critics, some of whom have contended that Peter was never in Rome. But the archeaological researches of the Protestant Historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullman, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter's death in Rome under the emperor Nero. The account of Paul's martydom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism."
Jaroslav Pelikan, "The Riddle of Catholicism", (New York:Abingdon,1959) p. 36

 

[chilehed]

Peter's Presence in Rome...
Some non-Catholic historians

Shelb5, you ROCK!.

 

[ProAmerican]

Thanks to all who provided me with the information that was posted.

I have not had time to go over all of it in depth, but I have just copied off all that was given to me on this thread. You can rest assured that I am going to go over all of it with a fine-toothed comb, so to say, and will see what some non-RCC historians and experts on church history have to say about the veracity and authenticity of these documents.

Once again, thanks.

 

[S Walch]

I like how in all of those, Peter is NEVER once called the "Bishop of the Church in Rome"

 

[Benedicta00]

"Which was mere to the interest of the Church at Rome, that it should at its commencement be presided over by some high-born and pompous senator, or by the fisherman Peter, who had none of this world's advantages to attract men to him?"
Gregory of Nyssa,To the Church at Nicodemia,Epistle 13 (ante A.D. 394),NPNF2,V:535

What's this saying then?

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

Maybe no argument within the RCC, but what proof are you basing the argument on that Peter was the first bishop of Rome? Please provide this proof within the parameters provided in the OP.

Then I am sure that you should have no trouble at all then providing that historical proof(parameters provided) that Peter was the first Bishop/Pope of Rome.

So in other words there is no historical proof that Peter was called the "Pope."

If Peter wasn't called Pope then in which century was the Bishop of Rome called the Pope?

Pro,

Just in case you didn't know, eoe, Maximus, and most of the other posters are not Roman Catholic. The vast preponderance of the historical evidence indicates that Peter was the first Pope of Rome.

 

[S Walch]

What's this saying then?

You're not sticking to the OPs points.

Is that from before 125 A.D?

Still doesn't give him the title "bishop of Rome" nor "Pope" either.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Frankly, I couldn't care less if Peter had a nice holiday in Rome (my sister says it's an awesome place to visit - I've never been there) or if he was a pastor there or a Bishop there. Clearly, there's nothing in the Bible to indicate that (which, of course, doesn't mean he didn't) and it seems nothing earlier than over a century later even from the very denomination that's self-claim depends on it.

I don't know. It seems to ME that if a denomination is going to make all this big self-claims, in part resting on this claim that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome (and a LOT of implications they assume from that), it seems to me there should be better support for the claim - at least from the ones making it, even if there isn't "third party" outside accountablity for it. It all seem amazingly weak to me. But, again, that doesn't make it false, it just means we're left with taking the RC Denomination's word on it with little to nothing - even from the RC Denomination - to back it up.

But since I find no reason to accept all the self-claims about this, it matters not to me.


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[Benedicta00]

You're not sticking to the OPs points.

Is that from before 125 A.D?

Still doesn't give him the title "bishop of Rome" nor "Pope" either.

I think we can safely conclude with all of the overwhelming evidence together that
Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

 

[jckstraw72]

Why the funk would a source have to call him Pope from that early? Pope means "Papa". Oh darn, Peter wasnt necessarily referred to as Papa. Whoopy do. The Bishop of Alexandria is also called Pope. That has nothing to do with anything but I thought Id throw it out there. James was Bishop of Jerusalem as evidenced by him leading the Council there. It doesnt flat out call him Bishop but oh well. Jesus doesnt flat out call Himself God either.

These threads are silly. Why would the RCC, EO, and OO all witness to Peter's Bishopric? Why make it up. The EO, and OO dont hinge their authority upon it (and neither do the RCC), so why would they make it up?

Peter was in Rome. He was in charge there. Thus, he was a Pope aka Bishop of Rome.

I dont see spaghetti in writings before 125 and that saddens me bc I love spaghetti and I really want to believe it exists.

 

[revduane]

Why the funk would a source have to call him Pope from that early? Pope means "Papa". Oh darn, Peter wasnt necessarily referred to as Papa. Whoopy do. The Bishop of Alexandria is also called Pope. That has nothing to do with anything but I thought Id throw it out there. James was Bishop of Jerusalem as evidenced by him leading the Council there. It doesnt flat out call him Bishop but oh well. Jesus doesnt flat out call Himself God either.

These threads are silly. Why would the RCC, EO, and OO all witness to Peter's Bishopric? Why make it up. The EO, and OO dont hinge their authority upon it (and neither do the RCC), so why would they make it up?

Peter was in Rome. He was in charge there. Thus, he was a Pope aka Bishop of Rome.

I dont see spaghetti in writings before 125 and that saddens me bc I love spaghetti and I really want to believe it exists.

Hey J.S.

One thing that is not discuused here on these threads is Satan. He is the author of confusion, and the accuser of the brethren. And if any denomination thinks that he isn't active, and apparent in all of church history, and trying to get christians to screw up facts, then we are all mistaken. Look how the theory of evolution got into the classroom, and how prayer was taken out of the schools. And it is always well meaning christians, or the world that is responsible for starting these shananigans, it takes hold, and others run with it. Remember the American Nazi Party. There was always someone to take up leadership over that mess.

Blessings. Rev.

 

[stray bullet]

I would appreciate it if someone would provide proof, that has been determined, by what could be called a third party, to be proof that the Apostle Peter was, indeed, the first Pope of Rome.

1.) This historical proof must have been determined by a "third party" to have been written before, say, A.D. 125.

IOW, verification as to the authenticity of this document must not come from within the RCC.


2.) Peter in this document must be referred to as the "Pope," and it must be said that his place of authority was in Rome.


BTW, there are multiple historical proofs that show that Jesus Christ actually lived, which were written by Romans(and others) before A.D. 125.

Pope is a later affectionate title given to the Bishop of Rome.
Peter was the first Bishop of Rome. The only two apostles that went to Rome were Peter and Paul and there is no historical account of Paul or anyone else being Bishop of Rome.

Anyways, here's a third party source from around that time:

"V. And as they prayed and fasted, God was already teaching Peter at Jerusalem of that which should come to pass. For whereas the twelve years which the Lord Christ had enjoined upon him were fulfilled, he showed him a vision after this manner, saying unto him: Peter, that Simon the sorcerer whom thou didst cast out of Judaea, convicting him, hath again come before thee (prevented thee) at Rome. And that shalt thou know shortly (or, and that thou mayest know in few words): for all that did believe in me hath Satan made to fall by his craft and working: whose Power Simon approveth himself to be. But delay thee not: set forth on the morrow, and there shalt thou find a ship ready, setting sail for Italy, and within few days I will show thee my grace which hath in it no grudging. Peter then, admonished by the vision, related it unto the brethren without delay, saying: It is necessary for me to go up unto Rome to fight with the enemy and adversary of the Lord and of our brethren." -from the Acts of Peter

"XXVII. In the meanwhile the widow's son also was brought upon a bed by the young men, and the people made way for them and brought them unto Peter. And Peter lifted up his eyes unto heaven and stretched forth his hands and said: O holy Father of thy Son Jesus Christ. who hast granted us thy power, that we may through thee ask and obtain, and despise all that is in the world, and follow thee only, who art seen of few and wouldest be known of many: shine thou about us, Lord, enlighten us, appear thou, raise up the son of this aged widow, which cannot help herself without her son. And I, repeating the word of Christ my Lord, say unto thee: Young man, arise and walk with thy mother so long as thou canst do her good; and thereafter shalt thou serve me after a higher sort, ministering in the lot of a deacon of the bishop (or, and of a bishop). And immediately the dead man rose up, and the multitudes saw it and marvelled, and the people cried out: Thou art God the Saviour, thou, the God of Peter, the invisible God, the Saviour. And they spake among themselves, marvelling indeed at the power of a man that called upon his Lord with a word; and they received it unto sanctification." -from the Acts of Peter

We see clearly in reading the Acts of Peter that he was in Rome. I could quote a whole lot to show when he said that he was in Rome. When he says you will serve me after, ministering in the lot of a deacon of a Bishop... well, that's pretty durn clear too.

That pretty much answers your challenge.

 

[twosid]

If I ever get weary of studying what Catholics believe which I do for several hours every day I just waltz over here and see what Revduane and all the other GT condescending crowd are getting all carnal over...check out whatever argument that they can't win but have started just to stir the pot.

Ok...I'm fueled up for another few days. Thanks guys/gals!

 

[stray bullet]

You're not sticking to the OPs points.

Is that from before 125 A.D?

Mines from about that time, Peter is in Rome and while there, appoints the man to serve him as deacon of a Bishop.

 

[revduane]

If I ever get weary of studying what Catholics believe which I do for several hours every day I just waltz over here and see what Revduane and all the other GT condescending crowd are getting all carnal over...check out whatever argument that they can't win but have started just to stir the pot.

Ok...I'm fueled up for another few days. Thanks guys/gals!

You are very welcome. And you are too kind, and a total inspiration of what an example should be. By the way. I am not condescending, I just challenge what I know to be inacurate. And then I am counter challenged. It is I guess what you could say to be an equal challenge from 2 or more viewpoints.

Blessings to ya. Rev.Duane.

 

[Archbishop 10-K]

Shelb5 has provided ample evidence for the Catholic side of the argument. I believe that the OP's challenge is problematic, though, since belief in Peter's papacy is theological and if anyone were to believe it, he would convert to Catholicism (or Eastern Orthodoxy, perhaps) and thus cease to be a third party.

In other words, it's like a non-Christian asking for proof from a third party in the 1st century that Jesus was the human incarnation of God. You won't find it, because if the writer believed it, he would probably convert to Christianity. We have plenty of evidence from non-Christians for Christ's existence, but none for His divinity.

edit- Also, why would a non-Christian write about St. Peter or any of the Apostles anyway, no matter where they were? Even though I believe St. Peter to be the first Pope, he was small potatoes compared to Our Lord.

 

[jckstraw72]

Yes, Satan is making us think Peter was the Pope. Why Satan cares about that, Im not sure. He really fooled us Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox, and probably the conservative Anglicans and some Lutherans too. Satan is making us think Peter was a Pope, he's not fueling the repeated questioning of 2000 yrs of truth and wisdom.

I wonder, if the Holy Spirit lead the disciples into all the truth, and Christ promised the gates of Hades would not prevail, then where are these people that have retained the fulness of truth, since its not the Catholic or the Orthodox. Surely there must be an unbroken line of that fulness of truth preserved. Christ delivered the faith once and for all to the saints, so whos got it now?

 

[revduane]

Yes, Satan is making us think Peter was the Pope. Why Satan cares about that, Im not sure. He really fooled us Orthodox, and the Oriental Orthodox, and probably the conservative Anglicans and some Lutherans too. Satan is making us think Peter was a Pope, he's not fueling the repeated questioning of 2000 yrs of truth and wisdom.

I am glad you finally see the truth.

 

[jckstraw72]

I am glad you finally see the truth.

isnt this a bit arrogant? how can you assure me that is not YOU being mislead?

So for 1000 yrs there was only ONE Church and you insist it was wrong. So then where was this Church that Christ and the Holy Spirit protected?