The First Pope

[christian_777]

The doctrine of the church is that Peter was the first pope, but this is not the case. Jesus never chose one person to lead the church, He told Peter to feed His lambs and sheep, but what happened after did not indicate that the other disciples looked to Peter as the leader. Indeed Paul was more prominence in scripture than Peter. Why would Jesus build His church on a sinner and not on Himself the sinless one?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Jesus never chose one person to lead the church

Umm, I believe he did.

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you [singular pronoun] by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you [singular pronoun] that you [singular pronoun] are rock, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. I will give you [singular pronoun] the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you [singular pronoun] bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you [singular pronoun] loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 16:17-18
​

He told Peter to feed His lambs and sheep, but what happened after did not indicate that the other disciples looked to Peter as the leader.

Oh, really? From the CA tract, Peter and the Papacy:

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as “Peter and those who were with him” (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

You claim that “what happened after did not indicate that the other disciples looked to Peter as the leader.” Can you cite a single passage to justify this claim?

Indeed Paul was more prominence in scripture than Peter. Why would Jesus build His church on a sinner and not on Himself the sinless one?

Do you suppose that Paul was the first pope (even though he also admits he was a sinner?) Do you suppose that the Church was built upon the foundation of Jesus Christ alone? Because, if you do, you reject scripture:

So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone. Through him the whole structure is held together and grows into a temple sacred in the Lord; in him you also are being built together into a dwelling place of God in the Spirit.

Eph:2:20
​

ALL of the Apostles and ALL of the prophets were sinners, yet this is the foundation that the Church is built upon. Jesus is the most important part of the foundation, but he is not the entire foundation.

Jesus told the parable of a house built on sand, and a house built on rock. He named Simon, “Rock.”

 

[Dpoc41]

See Matthew 16*18, where Jesus said - You are Peter and on this rock I will base my Church. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and there has been an unbroken chain of Bishops of Rome to this present day, known as Popes.

 

[Able]

Jesus said he had the keys to heaven and hell.

Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Able

 

[chessmane4e5]

The doctrine of the church is that Peter was the first pope, but this is not the case. Jesus never chose one person to lead the church, He told Peter to feed His lambs and sheep, but what happened after did not indicate that the other disciples looked to Peter as the leader. Indeed Paul was more prominence in scripture than Peter. Why would Jesus build His church on a sinner and not on Himself the sinless one?

The other posters have pretty much explained it very well.

Paul is most prominent in scripture how? You mean the letters he wrote and we only have 2 from Peter? All that means is that Paul wrote more than Peter, or Peter’s letters were destroyed but Paul’s were not.

“Every list of the twelve Apostles in the New Testament has Peter prominently placed at the top of the list, and Judas is listed last. Peter was the first of three special disciples whom Jesus included in his inner circle. Peter is repeatedly mentions by name when the others are referred to simply as “disciples” or “the eleven”. He always stands out as the leader, the spokesman, and the chosen “first” among equals. The names of Peter, Simon, or Cephas, are used 191 times in the New Testament. Except for Christ himself, no other person receives nearly as much attention as Simon Peter does through Biblical reference. (John appears about 48 times, James less than that, Peter is name a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to.)” “Upon This Rock” Stephen Ray.

The Church is built upon Jesus, He is the Cornerstone. But Peter is the visible Rock of the Church. The Church needed a visible leader while Christ was away. Simply look at what has happened these last 500 years and you can see why the Church needs a leader that everyone will follow.

Everything in history does indicate that the other Apostles looked at Peter as the leader. Their is not one piece of evidence that suggests otherwise, this is remarkable. Surely James or John would have spoke up and challenged the leadership role that Peter always seemed to take upon himself. But their is no evidence of any of the Apostles (including Paul) or of any of the Early Church Fathers, ever questioning Peter’s Authority. And why would then, given Matt 16:13-19 which is crystal clear.

 

[Church_Militant]

The doctrine of the church is that Peter was the first pope, but this is not the case.

Yeah? Prove it!

The fact is that you can’t and these remarks are actually just your own (or someone else’s.) unscriptural opinion.

Jesus never chose one person to lead the church,

Really, I can’t tell from the Word of God which plainly tells us from the very mouth of Our Lord Himself, in [bibledrb]Matthew 16:13-19[/bibledrb]

He told Peter to feed His lambs and sheep, but what happened after did not indicate that the other disciples looked to Peter as the leader.

Again, really? Then why is he named first in virtually every list of the apostles in the New Testament? Why did he effect (by the power of the Holy Spirit) the first excommunication? And why is he consulted by both Paul and James in the New Testament?

Your opinion just doesn’t hold any water…

Indeed Paul was more prominence in scripture than Peter.

Does he? I think not, though your opinion sounds a great deal like what St. Paul himself spoke of in 1st Corinthians 1:11-13, where he says, "11 For it hath been signified unto me, my brethren, of you, by them that are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. 12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I am of Cephas; and I of Christ.13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul? " and again, in 1st Corinthians 3:3-4
"3 For, whereas there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal, and walk according to man? 4 For while one saith, I indeed am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollo; are you not men? What then is Apollo, and what is Paul? "

Why would Jesus build His church on a sinner and not on Himself the sinless one?

There is never any such teaching within the Catholic faith that His one true church is built upon anyone except the Lord Jesus Christ, so this is a fallacious and specious remark.

However, St. Paul acknowledges himself as, what was it? “A faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into this world to save **sinners, of whom I am the chief.” **(1st Timothy 1:15)

And then what does St. Peter say of himself? “Which when Simon Peter saw, he fell down at Jesus’ knees, saying: Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord.**” **(Luke 5:8 ) So you have no scriptural case, just some kind of a-C polemic without merit. Who are any of us to question who Our Lord chooses to do whatever He wants? I wouldn’t want to stand in those shoes…

 

[crazzeto]

The doctrine of the church is that Peter was the first pope, but this is not the case. Jesus never chose one person to lead the church, He told Peter to feed His lambs and sheep, but what happened after did not indicate that the other disciples looked to Peter as the leader. Indeed Paul was more prominence in scripture than Peter. Why would Jesus build His church on a sinner and not on Himself the sinless one?

Can you bilbically justify your claims? I already see some solid biblical justifications which powerfully suggest you might need to reevaluate your views

 

[michaeldaniels]

As a proponent of scripture, it surely seems as if you have failed to read it…might want to go back and do that…I think you missed a few verses

The doctrine of the church is that Peter was the first pope, but this is not the case. Jesus never chose one person to lead the church, He told Peter to feed His lambs and sheep, but what happened after did not indicate that the other disciples looked to Peter as the leader. Indeed Paul was more prominence in scripture than Peter. Why would Jesus build His church on a sinner and not on Himself the sinless one?

 

[panevino]

The doctrine of the church is that Peter was the first pope, but this is not the case. Jesus never chose one person to lead the church,

mat16:19 kjv *And I will give unto thee **(Singular in greek) *the keys of the kingdom of heaven…

luke 22:31-32KJV And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you **(Plural) **, that he may sift you (plural) as wheat: 32 But I have prayed for thee (sngular) that thy **(singular) **faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

*Mark 16:5 kjv And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. 6 And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. 7 But go your way, **tell his disciples and Peter *that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you. 8 And they went out quickly, and fled from the sepulchre; for they trembled and were amazed: neither said they any thing to any man; for they were afraid.

He told Peter to feed His lambs and sheep, but what happened after did not indicate that the other disciples looked to Peter as the leader.

acts 11:1-18
Peter explains to the apostles/bretheren (acts 11:1) that he had revelation about gentiles… then in v18
When they heard these things, they held their peace, and glorified God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life.

acts 15:7-12
*And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles **by my mouth **should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the LORD Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
12 Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: 14 **Simeon hath declared *how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name

gal 1:18kjv
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother

Indeed Paul was more prominence in scripture than Peter. Why would Jesus build His church on a sinner and not on Himself the sinless one?

Rev 21:14 KJV
And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
eph 2:19 kjv
*Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; *

 

[po18guy]

The doctrine of the church is that Peter was the first pope, but this is not the case. Jesus never chose one person to lead the church, He told Peter to feed His lambs and sheep, but what happened after did not indicate that the other disciples looked to Peter as the leader. Indeed Paul was more prominence in scripture than Peter. Why would Jesus build His church on a sinner and not on Himself the sinless one?

First, you will obtain much more charity here if you ask questions rather than stating your opinion as fact.

Second, biblical evidence of Peter’s primacy among the twelve is simply overwhelming. Peter is named 195 times in the New Testament. The closest is John, the “beloved” at just 29 times. Many of those times, Jesus addresses Peter directly.

Scripture always lists Peter first, and Judas Iscariot last (Mt 10:2-5, Mk 3:16-19, Lk 6:14-17 and Acts 1:13). Scripture also calls the twelve “Peter and the rest” or “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32, Mk 16:7, Acts 2:37).

Peter was the only one prophesied by Jesus to both deny Him three times (Lk 22:34), but also to “turn” and re-affirm Jesus three times (Lk 22:32, Jn 21:15-17).

Peter was the only one charged by Jesus to “strengthen your brothers” (Lk 22:32)

Peter was the only one beside Jesus to ever have walked on water (Mt 14:29).

Christ told only Peter what his future and death would be (Jn 21:18-19).

Peter acted as spokesman for the Apostles (Mt 18:21, Mk 8:29, Lk 8:45, Lk 12:41, Jn 6:69).

Peter’s primacy is shown in Mt 16:13-20, Mt 14:24-33, Mk 16:7, Luke 5 (Peter’s boat used), Lk 22:31-32, Lk 24:33-35, Jn 20:6, Jn 21:15-19, Acts 1:15-26, Acts 3:1-9, Acts 10-11, Acts 15:6-11 and Gal 1:18.

Even Paul tells us that the resurrected Lord appeared first to Peter, and later to the twelve (1 Corinthians 15:5).

Paul went to Peter, and not the other way round (Galatians 1:18).

The very reason that you have a bible is that Popes called Church councils and argued the scriptures to determine their inspiration. No biblical “table of contents” fell from heaven. The Church councils, lead by the Pope, canonized scripture into the bible that you hold. The fact that a Pope was in charge of the universal Church is the only reason that councils existed to argue scripture. A Church without an earthly head would have disintegrated almost as soon as it began - that is why Jesus Himself left Peter in charge. You undoubtedly know that James held sway in Jerusalem. James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem (his bishoprick is known as the “See of James” to this day), while Peter was destined for Rome (Jn 21:18-19).

You come from a faith tradition which believes differently, based upon relatively recent thinking. From the beginning, Christ left one in charge. Though many have tried, no one on earth can improve on God’s own design for His Church.

 

[po18guy]

Jesus said he had the keys to heaven and hell.

Revelation 1:18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

Able

Did Jesus tell Simon Peter that He would give him the keys to the Kingdom? (Mt 16:19). Did Jesus then give Peter the power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven?

 

[adstrinity]

Thank you for opening our eyes to this christian 777. We have never heard it before. You expressed it so clearly and throroughly, too, that we cannot refute your proclamations in any way. Why didn’t anybody tell us any of this sooner?! Yes, yes, Peter couldn’t have been the first pope because Jesus didn’t say. Next we’re going to be told is Peter was married (he wasn’t, was he? Because that would TOTALLY invalidate him being the first Pope.) But, at least Peter was in Rome, and we can see that in the Bible because he says, “Hey all! It’s me, Peter, the first Pope, and I’m totally in Rome,” right? Right? Oh, please tell me this is in the Bible!! Being Catholic, I’ve never seen a Bible, but, thanks to you for bringing this to my eyes! Again, I thank you for bringing this to our attention, but, what you should do now is write a letter to the Pope. Let him know that he is not the Pope because there was not a first pope.

I mean, if ONLY there was some way we can infer that Jesus and the first Christians thought highly of Peter, like, oh, I don’t know, using something of Peter’s to teach. OH! I know! Like, since Peter was a fisherman, if Jesus went in Peter’s boat to teach or something, but, I doubt something like that can be found in the Bible.

But, again, thank you for letting all of us here, know. I have lost faith and I don’t know what to believe anymore. I think you inform others of this.

Bishop of Rome
Apostolic Palace
Via del Pellegrino
Citta del Vaticano
Vatican City State, 00120
Europe

 

[chessmane4e5]

Thank you for opening our eyes to this christian 777. We have never heard it before. You expressed it so clearly and throroughly, too, that we cannot refute your proclamations in any way. Why didn’t anybody tell us any of this sooner?! Yes, yes, Peter couldn’t have been the first pope because Jesus didn’t say. Next we’re going to be told is Peter was married (he wasn’t, was he? Because that would TOTALLY invalidate him being the first Pope.) But, at least Peter was in Rome, and we can see that in the Bible because he says, “Hey all! It’s me, Peter, the first Pope, and I’m totally in Rome,” right? Right? Oh, please tell me this is in the Bible!! Being Catholic, I’ve never seen a Bible, but, thanks to you for bringing this to my eyes! Again, I thank you for bringing this to our attention, but, what you should do now is write a letter to the Pope. Let him know that he is not the Pope because there was not a first pope.

I mean, if ONLY there was some way we can infer that Jesus and the first Christians thought highly of Peter, like, oh, I don’t know, using something of Peter’s to teach. OH! I know! Like, since Peter was a fisherman, if Jesus went in Peter’s boat to teach or something, but, I doubt something like that can be found in the Bible.

But, again, thank you for letting all of us here, know. I have lost faith and I don’t know what to believe anymore. I think you inform others of this.

Bishop of Rome
Apostolic Palace
Via del Pellegrino
Citta del Vaticano
Vatican City State, 00120
Europe

I know. I have read the New Testament at least once and I don’t remember seeing any evidence. Maybe there is something in the Old Testament about Peter being Pope Although knowing our luck it was from one of those OT books that were not supposed to be in there in the first place, because they were written by man, where as everything else was written by God. I will just continue to cling to my beliefs, even though their is absolutely nothing in the Bible to justify it.

 

[Deconi]

As the others have pointed out, Scriptures is not only FULL of Peter being lead Apostle, but was clearly given The Keys of Heaven by Our Lord. Just read the passages and it’s crystal clear.

But even if it was not in Scriptures, why would Jesus give Himself The Keys of Heaven? Since He is Son of the Living God, does He need a key to go and come from His own Kingdom?

The power to loose and bind in Heaven was already His! Why would He say He was giving it to The Apostles AND Himself?

Many share your view, but it isn’t thought out very well. Like the rest of Holy Writ, when God ‘speaks,’ it is normally word perfect.

 

[DCNBILL]

The doctrine of the church is that Peter was the first pope, but this is not the case. Jesus never chose one person to lead the church, He told Peter to feed His lambs and sheep, but what happened after did not indicate that the other disciples looked to Peter as the leader. Indeed Paul was more prominence in scripture than Peter. Why would Jesus build His church on a sinner and not on Himself the sinless one?

Christian, also note that Jesus is in fact the Head of the Church with we the members the body, This is how The Christ set up His community of believers, and ad we are people He left us a “structure” for us to follow just as He had when he walked. Jesus as the Head (always) The Twelve with Peter as the favored leader as mentioned above and then the rest of His followers. That is how Jesus set it up when He was on earth, so we figured, hey if it is good enough for God, maybe we should keep it that way.

Let us offer one another a sign of peace,

bill

 

[christian_777]

Thank you for opening our eyes to this christian 777. We have never heard it before. You expressed it so clearly and throroughly, too, that we cannot refute your proclamations in any way. Why didn’t anybody tell us any of this sooner?! Yes, yes, Peter couldn’t have been the first pope because Jesus didn’t say. Next we’re going to be told is Peter was married (he wasn’t, was he? Because that would TOTALLY invalidate him being the first Pope.) But, at least Peter was in Rome, and we can see that in the Bible because he says, “Hey all! It’s me, Peter, the first Pope, and I’m totally in Rome,” right? Right? Oh, please tell me this is in the Bible!! Being Catholic, I’ve never seen a Bible, but, thanks to you for bringing this to my eyes! Again, I thank you for bringing this to our attention, but, what you should do now is write a letter to the Pope. Let him know that he is not the Pope because there was not a first pope.

I mean, if ONLY there was some way we can infer that Jesus and the first Christians thought highly of Peter, like, oh, I don’t know, using something of Peter’s to teach. OH! I know! Like, since Peter was a fisherman, if Jesus went in Peter’s boat to teach or something, but, I doubt something like that can be found in the Bible.

But, again, thank you for letting all of us here, know. I have lost faith and I don’t know what to believe anymore. I think you inform others of this.

Bishop of Rome
Apostolic Palace
Via del Pellegrino
Citta del Vaticano
Vatican City State, 00120
Europe

I have news for you. Peter was married.Matt. 8:

14 Now when Jesus had come into Peter’s house, He saw his wife’s mother lying sick with a fever.

 

[panevino]

I have news for you. Peter was married.Matt. 8:

14 Now when Jesus had come into Peter’s house, He saw his wife’s mother lying sick with a fever.

yep

not paul or Jesus.

not sure about all of the apostles.

1cor 7:7 kjv
For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner,and another after that.8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

luke 18 :28
Peter said to him, “We have left all we had to follow you!”
29“I tell you the truth,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life.”

matt 19:11
The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriagec because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

catholic church apparently does have some married priests in the latin church - those that
converted from some other denomination that were married before becomming a catholic priest.

 

[michaeldaniels]

Your point is? This is a commonly known fact…and the person your directed your comment to is aware of this and stated such…so is that the only proof (which is not proof of anything) you have against Peter’s Primacy?

I have news for you. Peter was married.Matt. 8:

14 Now when Jesus had come into Peter’s house, He saw his wife’s mother lying sick with a fever.

 

[adstrinity]

yep

not paul or Jesus.

not sure about all of the apostles.

1cor 7:7 kjv
For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner,and another after that.8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

luke 18 :28
Peter said to him, “We have left all we had to follow you!”
29“I tell you the truth,” Jesus said to them, “no one who has left home or wife or brothers or parents or children for the sake of the kingdom of God 30will fail to receive many times as much in this age and, in the age to come, eternal life.”

matt 19:11
The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriagec because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

catholic church apparently does have some married priests in the latin church - those that
converted from some other denomination that were married before becomming a catholic priest.

There’s also 1 Corinthians 9:5. MOST translations have this as “wife”, BUT, the Douay-Rheims translation insists in a footnote that that is incorrect and should be, “woman,”

Your point is? This is a commonly known fact…and the person your directed your comment to is aware of this and stated such…so is that the only proof (which is not proof of anything) you have against Peter’s Primacy?

Nooooo!!! Didn’t you read his first post? He has other proof, like Jesus did not pick one person to lead His church and no other apostle looked at St. Peter like he was the leader…and, St. Paul is better. We should all be like St. Paul, and not St. Peter, who St. Paul TOTALLY hated. It’s really obvious now that I look at it that there has not been any evidence of the Primacy of St. Peter. I mean, if St. Peter WAS the first Pope, and I’m not saying he was, but, IF he was, why wouldn’t he have mentioned it? One would think that he would introduce himself as the Pope and have all his letters sealed with the Papal Seal and would explicitly write it down that he was Pope…in every document…on in that would not fade…on paper that would not crumble. OH! If ONLY we could see in the Bible that he was chosen by Jesus, but, alas, we clearly cannot.

 

[Brian_Culliton]

There’s also 1 Corinthians 9:5. MOST translations have this as “wife”, BUT, the Douay-Rheims translation insists in a footnote that that is incorrect and should be, “woman,”

Nooooo!!! Didn’t you read his first post? He has other proof, like Jesus did not pick one person to lead His church and no other apostle looked at St. Peter like he was the leader…and, St. Paul is better. We should all be like St. Paul, and not St. Peter, who St. Paul TOTALLY hated. It’s really obvious now that I look at it that there has not been any evidence of the Primacy of St. Peter. I mean, if St. Peter WAS the first Pope, and I’m not saying he was, but, IF he was, why wouldn’t he have mentioned it? One would think that he would introduce himself as the Pope and have all his letters sealed with the Papal Seal and would explicitly write it down that he was Pope…in every document…on in that would not fade…on paper that would not crumble. OH! If ONLY we could see in the Bible that he was chosen by Jesus, but, alas, we clearly cannot.

His first clause stated that Peter was not the first pope. I assume he means that Peter was not the first bishop of Rome; and in that he is right. If you claim that the chair of Peter resided in Rome, you will have to say the same for the church in Antioch. Peter and Paul, together, founded both churches. There is no evidence that either of them sat as bishop in either church.

If you believe Cyprian then you believe that Peter was the first among equals. By definition that means Peter held no more authority than any other apostle; they were equal. I think that equality was demonstrated when Polycarp traveled to Rome and the two bishops agreed to disagree. Why didn’t the junior bishop of Rome exert the authority he supposedly inherited from Peter over Polycarp?