Randy Carson is totally right on his references…I am studying at our local seminary the roots of the papacy. We just finished the early church hierarchy in context to Peter, after studying the Scriptural references to who holds the key as well as Protestant theologians who affirm the correct understanding by the Catholic Church as the head being the apostle Peter…the name in Greek and Aramaic referring to a person.
The Jewish believers of the first 100 years of Christianity knew very well what it meant for someone to be publicly recognized as having the key to authority as was presented in Isaiah 22:22.
And many protestant theologians…and unfortunately for me in comparison to Randy’s references I do not have the name of the most highly respected dictionary writer…who also affirmed with many Protestant theologians, as well as the meaning of Rock in Greek and Aramaic…it is ‘rock’ referring to the name of a person.
These Protestant theologians affirm with the Church the conviction that Peter is indeed the rock…Someone in class then asked if the Protestants all became Catholic and our instructor said ‘no’. I was rather expecting that response but here goes, do my best…
Peter is the head of the Church, the rock…and Christ is the Cornerstone. Peter is the most prominent of all the apostles. When Peter and John went to visit the tomb of the Resurrection, John stepped back to Peter could enter first.
There were already Nazarene Jews living in small faith communities who worshipped in homes that existed throughout Rome. Yet they were all united in contrast to the Churches of Antioch and Alexander, founded by the apostles, but having their local churches in one area.
After Paul’s conversion on the Road to Damascus, he first went to Peter to discuss with him his conversion, his understanding of Christ and faith…for 15 days. So in this, Paul already was recognizing Peter as head.
Both Peter and Paul went to Rome to establish the Church in Rome, and they did not go there for imperial reasons. When they arrived, they were immediately recognized as founders of the Church because Peter was direct witness to Christ, and Paul had his own particular witness in Christ.
When Paul confronts Peter later on, Paul invokes the Petrine authority…Peter responds saying Paul is correct…but as head.
Prior, Jesus asked Peter three times if he loved Him, and then the Lord responded, ‘Feed my lambs, feed my sheep’ which also implies Peter’s martyrdom. Peter had a special relationship that was not duplicated in the other apostles.
The New Testament does not answer what happens to Peter after Acts 12…but in context of text and architecture…all points to Peter in Rome, where he died in 64 AD under Emperor Nero.
He is also in Rome when writing to the churches in Turkey and his son Mark assisted him in assisting in leadership. The first epistle of Peter was written in 63 AD, and the 2nd epistle, it is known that Peter’s native Greek speaker Sylus was his scribe as the style of writing is different. In his writing, Peter states he dictates to him he is residing ‘in your sister Church in Babylon who gives you greetings’…Babylon meaning Rome.
The greatest sign of founder, was both Peter and Paul’s deaths in Rome.
Was Peter first bishop of Rome? Yes and no.
In the no sense, there were already Christians in Rome. But Peter’s arrival made it a founding Church. Peter is put above bishop as bishops are successors to the apostles.
In the yes sense, the presence of Peter and Paul would not have the leadership the same as their apostolic presence which was incomparable to the other elders in Rome.
Likewise this does not indicate leadership, one of oversight of episcopal ministry over the Church of Rome…but, as Paul related, ‘I must be right because Peter said I was right in confronting him’, so to speak, Paul affirming Peter’s authority over him.
The first bishop of the Church always receives the blessing of the apostles
Regarding archaeological evidence, the burial site of Peter was built over by Constantine in 340 AD, a new church where tons of dirt were removed, and altar was built. In 1939 the pope ordered an excavation and what happened in this was a marble vault was exposed… a red wall complex…there was an area under a main altar, and within it was a small shrine declaring Peter there…still under investigation. So the Church is still processing if this site was the actual burial site of St.Peter, under the altar of St. Peter’s in Rome.
You go on and see references to Rome by future bishops and its prominence. Bishops always later upheld by the martyrdom of Peter there than any other point of his founding authority. During the following years, Rome had house churches headed by presbyters, and in 94 AD St. Clement referred to it formally as ‘the Church of Rome’. At the time of Peter’s death there were many synagogues in Rome, many Christian churches in homes, no central organization as in Antioch. Yet the Christians in Rome saw themselves as one Church.
