What IS MATT 16:18 REALLY TEACHING ?

[BeyondET]

Why did the Catholic Church change what they originally believed that Peter‘s faith in knowing who Christ was, is the rock on which the church is built, to now claiming that Peter was the first Pope?

Could it be that they were feeling the heat to justify the need for a Pope?
If they could twist what they originally believed to something else they could have some testimony from scripture. So rather say it was Peter’s faith in knowing Christ as the verse clearly says, and what they believed, they changed their understanding to say Peter was the rock on which the church would be built. In that way they could say that Christ was leaving his church in the hands of someone else and that would continue in a successio.

Interesting that Peter was never in Rome thus not the first pope. The catholic doctrine is built on quick sand.

 

[ozso]

Why is it that folk who claim this or that isn't in the bible don't look it up for themselves?

I'm on my phone at work. The phone version of biblegateway doesn't segregate word searches like the computer version does. I'd have to scroll though over a thousand instances where the word "father" appears before I finally got to 1 Corinthians. I did actually try, but after numerous next page selections I was still in Genesis, so I gave up. Sorry.

I do not write these things to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For though you have countless guides in Christ, you do not have many fathers. For I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.
[1Co 4:14-15 ESV]

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The following comes from the second edition of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

423 We believe and confess that Jesus of Nazareth, born a Jew of a daughter of Israel at Bethlehem at the time of King Herod the Great and the emperor Caesar Augustus, a carpenter by trade, who died crucified in Jerusalem under the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, is the eternal Son of God made man. He 'came from God',4 'descended from heaven',5 and 'came in the flesh'.6 For 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. . . And from his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace.'7

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9

If you notice 424 says we believe and confess: ‘You are the Christ, Son of the living God’ “On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

Why did the RCC change what they believed?

Instead of Christ building his church on the confession of Peter‘s faith in knowing who Christ is, they now say the Church is built on Peter.

What do you think might cause them to change the truth to a lie?

You might want to read the chapter in the CCC about the Church. The chapter you quoted is not about the Church as its title reveals.

​

CHAPTER TWO​

​

I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD​

​

The Good News: God has sent his Son​

​

422 'But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.'1 This is 'the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God':2 God has visited his people. He has fulfilled the promise he made to Abraham and his descendants. He acted far beyond all expectation - he has sent his own 'beloved Son'.3​

​

423 We believe and confess that Jesus of Nazareth, born a Jew of a daughter of Israel at Bethlehem at the time of King Herod the Great and the emperor Caesar Augustus, a carpenter by trade, who died crucified in Jerusalem under the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, is the eternal Son of God made man. He 'came from God',4 'descended from heaven',5 and 'came in the flesh'.6 For 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. . . and from his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace.'7​

​

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9​

"To preach. . . the unsearchable riches of Christ"10​

​

425 The transmission of the Christian faith consists primarily in proclaiming Jesus Christ in order to lead others to faith in him. From the beginning, the first disciples burned with the desire to proclaim Christ: "We cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard."11 It and they invite people of every era to enter into the joy of their communion with Christ:​

​

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life - the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us - that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. and we are writing this that our joy may be complete.12​

​

At the heart of catechesis: Christ​

​

426 "At the heart of catechesis we find, in essence, a Person, the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, the only Son from the Father. . .who suffered and died for us and who now, after rising, is living with us forever."13 To catechize is "to reveal in the Person of Christ the whole of God's eternal design reaching fulfilment in that Person. It is to seek to understand the meaning of Christ's actions and words and of the signs worked by him."14 Catechesis aims at putting "people . . . in communion . . . with Jesus Christ: only he can lead us to the love of the Father in the Spirit and make us share in the life of the Holy Trinity."15​

​

427 In catechesis "Christ, the Incarnate Word and Son of God,. . . is taught - everything else is taught with reference to him - and it is Christ alone who teaches - anyone else teaches to the extent that he is Christ's spokesman, enabling Christ to teach with his lips. . . Every catechist should be able to apply to himself the mysterious words of Jesus: 'My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.'"16​

​

428 Whoever is called "to teach Christ" must first seek "the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus"; he must suffer "the loss of all things. . ." in order to "gain Christ and be found in him", and "to know him and the power of his resurrection, and (to) share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that if possible (he) may attain the resurrection from the dead".17​

​

429 From this loving knowledge of Christ springs the desire to proclaim him, to "evangelize", and to lead others to the "yes" of faith in Jesus Christ. But at the same time the need to know this faith better makes itself felt. To this end, following the order of the Creed, Jesus' principal titles - "Christ", "Son of God", and "Lord" (article 2) - will be presented. the Creed next confesses the chief mysteries of his life - those of his Incarnation (article 3), Paschal mystery (articles 4 and 5) and glorification (articles 6 and 7).​

​

1 Gal 4:4-5.​

2 Mk 1:1.​

3 Mk 1:11; cf. Lk 1:5, 68.​

4 Jn 13:3.​

5 Jn 3:13; 6:33.​

6 1 Jn 4:2.​

7 Jn 1:14,16.​

8 Mt 16:16.​

9 Cf. Mt 16:18; St. Leo the Great, Sermo 4 3: PL 54,150 - 152; 51,1: PL 54, 309B; 62, 2: PL 54, 350-351; 83, 3: PL 54, 431-432.​

10 Eph 3:8.​

11 Acts 4:20.​

12 1 Jn 1:1-4.​

13 CT 5.​

14 CT 5.​

15 CT 5.​

16 CT 6; cf. Jn 7:16.​

17 Phil 3:8-11.​

 

[One God and Father of All]

Interesting that Peter was never in Rome thus not the first pope. The catholic doctrine is built on quick sand.

You won’t find anywhere in scripture that says Peter was bishop of Rome. That was a later invention of the Catholic Church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You won’t find anywhere in scripture that says Peter was bishop of Rome. That was a later invention of the Catholic Church.

What you will find in Rome is the tomb of saint Peter and an abundance of evidence that he was in Rome and executed there in 64 AD. But, facts must never be allowed to get in the way of falsehoods used to support shaky doctrine, such as the claim that saint Peter was never in Rome.

 

[One God and Father of All]

You might want to read the chapter in the CCC about the Church. The chapter you quoted is not about the Church as its title reveals.

​

CHAPTER TWO​

​

I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST, THE ONLY SON OF GOD​

​

The Good News: God has sent his Son​

​

422 'But when the time had fully come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law, to redeem those who were under the law, so that we might receive adoption as sons.'1 This is 'the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God':2 God has visited his people. He has fulfilled the promise he made to Abraham and his descendants. He acted far beyond all expectation - he has sent his own 'beloved Son'.3​

​

423 We believe and confess that Jesus of Nazareth, born a Jew of a daughter of Israel at Bethlehem at the time of King Herod the Great and the emperor Caesar Augustus, a carpenter by trade, who died crucified in Jerusalem under the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, is the eternal Son of God made man. He 'came from God',4 'descended from heaven',5 and 'came in the flesh'.6 For 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. . . and from his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace.'7​

​

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'8 On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.9​

"To preach. . . the unsearchable riches of Christ"10​

​

425 The transmission of the Christian faith consists primarily in proclaiming Jesus Christ in order to lead others to faith in him. From the beginning, the first disciples burned with the desire to proclaim Christ: "We cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard."11 It and they invite people of every era to enter into the joy of their communion with Christ:​

​

That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life - the life was made manifest, and we saw it, and testify to it, and proclaim to you the eternal life which was with the Father and was made manifest to us - that which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us; and our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. and we are writing this that our joy may be complete.12​

​

At the heart of catechesis: Christ​

​

426 "At the heart of catechesis we find, in essence, a Person, the Person of Jesus of Nazareth, the only Son from the Father. . .who suffered and died for us and who now, after rising, is living with us forever."13 To catechize is "to reveal in the Person of Christ the whole of God's eternal design reaching fulfilment in that Person. It is to seek to understand the meaning of Christ's actions and words and of the signs worked by him."14 Catechesis aims at putting "people . . . in communion . . . with Jesus Christ: only he can lead us to the love of the Father in the Spirit and make us share in the life of the Holy Trinity."15​

​

427 In catechesis "Christ, the Incarnate Word and Son of God,. . . is taught - everything else is taught with reference to him - and it is Christ alone who teaches - anyone else teaches to the extent that he is Christ's spokesman, enabling Christ to teach with his lips. . . Every catechist should be able to apply to himself the mysterious words of Jesus: 'My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me.'"16​

​

428 Whoever is called "to teach Christ" must first seek "the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus"; he must suffer "the loss of all things. . ." in order to "gain Christ and be found in him", and "to know him and the power of his resurrection, and (to) share his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, that if possible (he) may attain the resurrection from the dead".17​

​

429 From this loving knowledge of Christ springs the desire to proclaim him, to "evangelize", and to lead others to the "yes" of faith in Jesus Christ. But at the same time the need to know this faith better makes itself felt. To this end, following the order of the Creed, Jesus' principal titles - "Christ", "Son of God", and "Lord" (article 2) - will be presented. the Creed next confesses the chief mysteries of his life - those of his Incarnation (article 3), Paschal mystery (articles 4 and 5) and glorification (articles 6 and 7).​

​

1 Gal 4:4-5.​

2 Mk 1:1.​

3 Mk 1:11; cf. Lk 1:5, 68.​

4 Jn 13:3.​

5 Jn 3:13; 6:33.​

6 1 Jn 4:2.​

7 Jn 1:14,16.​

8 Mt 16:16.​

9 Cf. Mt 16:18; St. Leo the Great, Sermo 4 3: PL 54,150 - 152; 51,1: PL 54, 309B; 62, 2: PL 54, 350-351; 83, 3: PL 54, 431-432.​

10 Eph 3:8.​

11 Acts 4:20.​

12 1 Jn 1:1-4.​

13 CT 5.​

14 CT 5.​

15 CT 5.​

16 CT 6; cf. Jn 7:16.​

17 Phil 3:8-11.​

paragraph 424 says that Peter’s faith in knowing Christ is the rock on which the church is built.
It does not say Peter is the rock as you do it says Peter’s confession and faith is the rock.
So, why did that church change what they believe?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

paragraph 424 says that Peter’s faith in knowing Christ is the rock on which the church is built.
It does not say Peter is the rock as you do it says Peter’s confession and faith is the rock.
So, why did that church change what they believe?

Perhaps it has not occurred to you that more than one statement about the meaning of a phrase in scripture can be true. Perhaps you should give that some consideration as well as reading the chapter about the Church in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I hope it is not too much to ask that my interlocutor become familiar with the topic of the thread as it is presented in Catholic Church teaching.

 

[ozso]

You won’t find anywhere in scripture that says Peter was bishop of Rome. That was a later invention of the Catholic Church.

Do you know if it can be traced to a particular individual who started the tradition?

 

[ozso]

What you will find in Rome is the tomb of saint Peter and an abundance of evidence that he was in Rome and executed there in 64 AD. But, facts must never be allowed to get in the way of falsehoods used to support shaky doctrine, such as the claim that saint Peter was never in Rome.

It's PETER WAS NEVER THE BISHOP OF ROME, not Peter was never in Rome.

 

[One God and Father of All]

What you will find in Rome is the tomb of saint Peter and an abundance of evidence that he was in Rome and executed there in 64 AD. But, facts must never be allowed to get in the way of falsehoods used to support shaky doctrine, such as the claim that saint Peter was never in Rome.

I didn’t say he wasn’t in Rome. I said he was never bishop of Rome. You can’t claim he was bishop of Rome without biblical testimony stating such.
The best they can do is to say that there were probably house churches in Rome and when Peter went there they probably would have made him bishop.

So they claim Peter was the first Pope on the idea that there were probably house churches in Rome and if there were they probably made Peter Pope.

So you have a succession of Popes based on the idea that Peter was probably made bishop of Rome when it’s not even clear whether he was there or not.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

paragraph 424 says that Peter’s faith in knowing Christ is the rock on which the church is built.

III. The Only Son of God

441 In the Old Testament, "son of God" is a title given to the angels, the Chosen People, the children of Israel, and their kings.44 It signifies an adoptive sonship that establishes a relationship of particular intimacy between God and his creature. When the promised Messiah-King is called "son of God", it does not necessarily imply that he was more than human, according to the literal meaning of these texts. Those who called Jesus "son of God", as the Messiah of Israel, perhaps meant nothing more than this.45

442 Such is not the case for Simon Peter when he confesses Jesus as "the Christ, the Son of the living God", for Jesus responds solemnly: "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven."46 Similarly Paul will write, regarding his conversion on the road to Damascus, "When he who had set me apart before I was born, and had called me through his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles..."47 "and in the synagogues immediately [Paul] proclaimed Jesus, saying, 'He is the Son of God.'"48 From the beginning this acknowledgment of Christ's divine sonship will be the centre of the apostolic faith, first professed by Peter as the Church's foundation.49

The apostolate

863 The whole Church is apostolic, in that she remains, through the successors of St. Peter and the other apostles, in communion of faith and life with her origin: and in that she is "sent out" into the whole world. All members of the Church share in this mission, though in various ways. "The Christian vocation is, of its nature, a vocation to the apostolate as well." Indeed, we call an apostolate "every activity of the Mystical Body" that aims "to spread the Kingdom of Christ over all the earth."377

864 "Christ, sent by the Father, is the source of the Church's whole apostolate"; thus the fruitfulness of apostolate for ordained ministers as well as for lay people clearly depends on their vital union with Christ.378 In keeping with their vocations, the demands of the times and the various gifts of the Holy Spirit, the apostolate assumes the most varied forms. But charity, drawn from the Eucharist above all, is always "as it were, the soul of the whole apostolate."379

865 The Church is ultimately one, holy, catholic, and apostolic in her deepest and ultimate identity, because it is in her that "the Kingdom of heaven," the "Reign of God,"380 already exists and will be fulfilled at the end of time. the kingdom has come in the person of Christ and grows mysteriously in the hearts of those incorporated into him, until its full eschatological manifestation. Then all those he has redeemed and made "holy and blameless before him in love,"381 will be gathered together as the one People of God, the "Bride of the Lamb,"382 "the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God."383 For "the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb."384

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It's PETER WAS NEVER THE BISHOP OF ROME, not Peter was never in Rome.

Since the church in Rome says that saint Peter was her first bishop I think your opinion is not sufficiently weighty to go against the testimony of the church.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

I said he was never bishop of Rome.

And what you 'said' is in error.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Please just answer the question if you're able - which I honestly don't think you are.

I am not concerned by what you've written above.

[Encyclopaedia Britannica]

It may be said that by the end of the 1st century there existed a tradition that Peter had lived in Rome. Further early evidence for the tradition is found in the Letter to the Romans by St. Ignatius, the early 2nd-century bishop of Antioch. It is probable that the tradition of a 25-year episcopate of Peter in Rome is not earlier than the beginning or the middle of the 3rd century. The claims that the church of Rome was founded by Peter or that he served as its first bishop are in dispute and rest on evidence that is not earlier than the middle or late 2nd century.​

​

​

Words of John 21:18, 19 clearly refer to the death of Peter and are cast into the literary form of prophecy. The author of this chapter is aware of a tradition concerning the martyrdom of Peter when the apostle was an old man. And there is a possible reference here to crucifixion as the manner of his death. But as to when or where the death took place, there is not so much as a hint.​

​

​

The strongest evidence to support the thesis that Peter was martyred in Rome is to be found in the Letter to the Corinthians (c. 96 ce; 5:1–6:4) of St. Clement of Rome:​

​

​

Peter, who by reason of wicked jealousy, not only once or twice but frequently endured suffering and thus, bearing his witness, went to the glorious place which he merited (5:4).…To these men [Peter and Paul] who lived such holy lives there was joined a great multitude of the elect who by reason of rivalry were victims of many outrages and tortures and who became outstanding examples among us (6:1).​

​

These sources, plus the suggestions and implications of later works, combine to lead many scholars to accept Rome as the location of the martyrdom and the reign of Nero as the time.​

 

[ozso]

Since the church in Rome says that saint Peter was her first bishop I think your opinion is not sufficiently weighty to go against the testimony of the church.

That wasn't an opinion. It was a clarification of what was said.

WHEN did the church in Rome say that? That's essential in establishing Peter as the bishop of Rome.

 

[ozso]

I am not concerned by what you've written above.

It was an error post. That's why I deleted it.

[Encyclopaedia Britannica]

It may be said that by the end of the 1st century there existed a tradition that Peter had lived in Rome. Further early evidence for the tradition is found in the Letter to the Romans by St. Ignatius, the early 2nd-century bishop of Antioch. It is probable that the tradition of a 25-year episcopate of Peter in Rome is not earlier than the beginning or the middle of the 3rd century. The claims that the church of Rome was founded by Peter or that he served as its first bishop are in dispute and rest on evidence that is not earlier than the middle or late 2nd century.​

​

​

Words of John 21:18, 19 clearly refer to the death of Peter and are cast into the literary form of prophecy. The author of this chapter is aware of a tradition concerning the martyrdom of Peter when the apostle was an old man. And there is a possible reference here to crucifixion as the manner of his death. But as to when or where the death took place, there is not so much as a hint.​

​

​

The strongest evidence to support the thesis that Peter was martyred in Rome is to be found in the Letter to the Corinthians (c. 96 ce; 5:1–6:4) of St. Clement of Rome:​

​

​

​

These sources, plus the suggestions and implications of later works, combine to lead many scholars to accept Rome as the location of the martyrdom and the reign of Nero as the time.​

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That wasn't an opinion. It was a clarification of what was said.

WHEN did the church in Rome say that? That's essential in establishing Peter as the bishop of Rome.

[Was Saint Peter the Bishop of Rome?]

Q. In his book The Future of the Catholic Church with Pope Francis, Garry Wills states that there is no evidence before AD 100 that there was any bishop in Rome. He also writes, “The idea of the primacy of Peter was first tried by Pope Stephen (254- 57)” but was denied in the East. Wills later asserts, “Where records were lacking, they were simply made up.” Is that true?


A. No. First of all, there were probably several house churches in Rome before Peter arrived there, each with its own leader. In time, Peter was recognized as the leader of the entire Church in that city. Although Acts of the Apostles records the martyrdom of neither Peter nor Paul, there is a very long tradition that each was martyred in AD 64 when Emperor Nero began persecuting Christians. From antiquity, Peter and Paul have been venerated together, but Paul has never been described as a bishop in Rome.


Peter disappears completely from Acts of the Apostles after 15:7. Paul refers to him in Galatians 2:7, 8, 11, and 14. Peter is identified as the author of 1 Peter (1:1) and 2 Peter (1:1), with a suggestion that the letter’s author was living in Rome when those letters were written.


In any case, Peter had been leading the whole Church for at least 20 years before he arrived in Rome. The late Father Raymond E. Brown, SS, explains Peter’s leadership in Rome in Q&A 97 in Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible. For more information on literary and archeological evidence of St. Peter in Rome, see Daniel O’Connor’s book Peter in Rome.


No other city has ever claimed that Peter died there. See also Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity, by Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier. We are used to one bishop heading the Church in a given region.


In New Testament times, however, there could be two or more bishops (episcopoi, “overseers”) in the same city. St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians indicates that in 1:1. In fact, the Letter to the Romans does not acknowledge Peter as leading that Church when this letter was written in the winter of AD 57-58. Before his death as a martyr in Rome in AD 107, St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote a letter to the Church there. He said, “I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul. They were apostles; I am a condemned criminal.”


I very much doubt that Ignatius would have written those words if Peter had never led the Church in Rome. In the mid-second century, the spot where Peter was buried in a pagan cemetery already had a marker that Christians could interpret.


Having read this book by Wills, I think you should be cautious about some of his other historical assertions. He states, for example, that a general persecution of Christians existed in the Roman Empire for only about 12 years between AD 64 and AD 313. In fact, there are many well-known saints who were martyred outside the 12 years that Wills accepts.


It is certainly true that persecution of Christians was not equally fierce throughout the Roman Empire for 250 years, but Wills fails to give an accurate picture of its extent and duration. The emperor Constantine certainly thought that he was building the original St. Peter’s Basilica over the grave of that apostle.


Constantine cut away a huge part of the Vatican hill and completely covered over a pagan cemetery (very risky business to favor a newly tolerated religion!) in order to build that basilica where he did. It was torn down in the early 16th century and gradually replaced by the present one.

 

[One God and Father of All]

And what you 'said' is in error.

I didn’t say he wasn’t in Rome. I said he was never bishop of Rome. You can’t claim he was bishop of Rome without biblical testimony stating such.
The best they can do is to say that there were probably house churches in Rome and when Peter went there they probably would have made him bishop.

So they claim Peter was the first Pope on the idea that there were probably house churches in Rome and if there were they probably made Peter Pope.

So you have a succession of Popes based on the idea that Peter was probably made bishop of Rome when it’s not even clear whether he was there or not.

You have ZERO proof for your claim.

No one referred to Peter as father.
No one claimed he was head of the church.
No one claimed he was bishop of Rome.

The best you can do is say “I’m right and you’re wrong “

 

[ozso]

[Was Saint Peter the Bishop of Rome?]

Q. In his book The Future of the Catholic Church with Pope Francis, Garry Wills states that there is no evidence before AD 100 that there was any bishop in Rome. He also writes, “The idea of the primacy of Peter was first tried by Pope Stephen (254- 57)” but was denied in the East. Wills later asserts, “Where records were lacking, they were simply made up.” Is that true?


A. No. First of all, there were probably several house churches in Rome before Peter arrived there, each with its own leader. In time, Peter was recognized as the leader of the entire Church in that city. Although Acts of the Apostles records the martyrdom of neither Peter nor Paul, there is a very long tradition that each was martyred in AD 64 when Emperor Nero began persecuting Christians. From antiquity, Peter and Paul have been venerated together, but Paul has never been described as a bishop in Rome.


Peter disappears completely from Acts of the Apostles after 15:7. Paul refers to him in Galatians 2:7, 8, 11, and 14. Peter is identified as the author of 1 Peter (1:1) and 2 Peter (1:1), with a suggestion that the letter’s author was living in Rome when those letters were written.


In any case, Peter had been leading the whole Church for at least 20 years before he arrived in Rome. The late Father Raymond E. Brown, SS, explains Peter’s leadership in Rome in Q&A 97 in Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible. For more information on literary and archeological evidence of St. Peter in Rome, see Daniel O’Connor’s book Peter in Rome.


No other city has ever claimed that Peter died there. See also Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity, by Raymond E. Brown and John P. Meier. We are used to one bishop heading the Church in a given region.


In New Testament times, however, there could be two or more bishops (episcopoi, “overseers”) in the same city. St. Paul’s Letter to the Philippians indicates that in 1:1. In fact, the Letter to the Romans does not acknowledge Peter as leading that Church when this letter was written in the winter of AD 57-58. Before his death as a martyr in Rome in AD 107, St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote a letter to the Church there. He said, “I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul. They were apostles; I am a condemned criminal.”


I very much doubt that Ignatius would have written those words if Peter had never led the Church in Rome. In the mid-second century, the spot where Peter was buried in a pagan cemetery already had a marker that Christians could interpret.


Having read this book by Wills, I think you should be cautious about some of his other historical assertions. He states, for example, that a general persecution of Christians existed in the Roman Empire for only about 12 years between AD 64 and AD 313. In fact, there are many well-known saints who were martyred outside the 12 years that Wills accepts.


It is certainly true that persecution of Christians was not equally fierce throughout the Roman Empire for 250 years, but Wills fails to give an accurate picture of its extent and duration. The emperor Constantine certainly thought that he was building the original St. Peter’s Basilica over the grave of that apostle.


Constantine cut away a huge part of the Vatican hill and completely covered over a pagan cemetery (very risky business to favor a newly tolerated religion!) in order to build that basilica where he did. It was torn down in the early 16th century and gradually replaced by the present one.

Based on that and the Britannica article, it seems there's no solid evidence of Peter being called the bishop of Rome during his lifetime. Even paragraph 424 of the CCC goes against the primacy of Peter. The whole idea is obviously a tradition that started way after Peter’s lifetime.

Unless you have some rock hard empirical evidence you've been withholding.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

You can’t claim he was bishop of Rome without biblical testimony stating such.

Why not?

It's true, so why can't I state it?