First Bishop of Rome

In this study, we wish to investigate the question: "Who was the First Bishop of Rome?"

This has become an important question, because the Roman Catholic Church has claimed that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, and also, that Peter and all of his successors are somehow the foremost representatives of Christ on earth, based on Christ's words to Peter: in Matthew 16:15-19: "He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

We have given a further analysis of this claim of the Papacy in our analysis of the Papacy at www.holywordofgod.org/papacy. Here, I will simplify the fallacy of this claim by the Papacy. First of all, this statement by Christ to Peter, actually referred to Peter on account of his faith, or to Peter's faith itself. In other words, Christ was not commending Peter himself, but Peter's faith. Peter was the first human being in the history of the world to recognize and confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the Messiah. And it was this Faith above all, that Christ wished to commend. The Saints in Scripture are compared to "stones." So, here, Peter was the First Stone to be put in place, and therefore, Peter has a very important and prestigious place in the Church, THE ROCK.

This doesn't mean, however, that Peter was superior or better, or anything else than the other Apostles or Christians. It is simply that Christ wished to acknowledge this FIRST CONFESSION in the world and wished to state that the FAITH, first found in PETER, would be the ROCK on which the Church would be based.

So, Peter was the First Stone to be put in place and he has a very great honor for this. I don't deny it.

However, when the Papacy claims, on the basis of this passage that Peter and his successors are somehow the SUPREME PASTORS and that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, the Papacy is totally wrong.

FIRST OF ALL, Peter himself was sent, NOT to the GENTILES, but to the JEWS:  

"...when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for HE who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles) (Galatians 2:6-8)

So here, from this passage of HOLY SCRIPTURE, it is clear that Jesus Christ Himself sent Peter to the circumcised (The Jews) and HE sent Paul to the uncircumcised (The Gentiles) SO, HOW ON EARTH COULD IT END UP THAT PETER turned out to be the FIRST BISHOP OF ROME? Christ would not possibly have sent Peter on this mission.

But Christ DID send Paul: to Rome: "The following night the Lord stood by him (Paul) and said: "Take courage for as you have testified about me at Jerusalem, so you must bear witness also at Rome." (Acts 23:11)

Also, in Acts 27:23: "For this very night there stood by me an angel of the God to whom I belong and whom I worship, and he said, 'Do not be afraid, Paul; you must stand before Caesar; and lo, God has granted you all those who sail with you.'"

Now, there is much speculation about who really introduced Christianity to Italy and to Rome. We know that when St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, there was a church in place in Rome.

Now, who started this church? Actually, it is anyone's guess. Perhaps it was a Christian family from Corinth, perhaps from Antioch, perhaps a Christian from Jerusalem or Thessalonica or perhaps some Christian in Crete. It is any body's guess.

A person I suspect who might have started the church in Rome would have been Titus. Because, the last that Scripture records of Titus is that Titus went to Dalmatia: "For Demas, in love with this present world, has deserted me and has gone to Thessalonica, Crescens has gone to Galatia, Titus to Dalmatia." (2 Timothy 4:10).

Dalmatia is on the Adriatic Sea in southern modern day Croatia. It is very close to Italy and Rome. I don't believe that Titus, a close disciple of St. Paul's, would have deserted St. Paul without a reason. I believe that perhaps Titus was called by a church in Dalmatia. And, I believe that Titus would have had a big influence, not only in Dalmatia, but also in Italy. This is simply supposition. I do not know. The founder of the church in Rome could also have been someone like Apollos.

What we do know is that CHRIST HIMSELF sent St. Paul to Rome.

Here is what I suspect: As was often the case in the very earliest Christian Churches, the Christians had very loose and informal relations or associations. They weren't really churches as we know them today. If you look at the book of Titus, St. Paul admonished Titus to find Christians who were worthy of becoming ministers and bishops. In other words, Christians were there, but were not really organized and did not really have anyone in authority.

They usually met in the homes of believers. And probably not  on a regular basis and without anyone in authority, or any clear understanding of Christian Doctrine.

This is why I believe CHRIST HIMSELF sent St. Paul to ROME. TO BE THE FIRST BISHOP (or OVERSEER OF THE CHURCH).

This is why, I believe that St. Paul was the FIRST BISHOP OF ROME

And when you think about it, it would stand to Reason. The FOREMOST APOSTLE to the GENTILES, ST. PAUL, would end up in ROME, the CAPITAL OF THE GENTILES, In the same way that Jesus would end up and die in Jerusalem, the CAPITAL OF THE JEWS.

IT MAKES PERFECTS SENSE!!

And this is why I BELIEVE THAT IT IS TRUE..