Yeah - that's why it is documented in the Early Church. Read Irenaeus' SECOND CENTURY document, "Against Heresies" where it lists Peter as the first Pope.
Do some REAL research and get back to me . . .
Irenaeus does not say Peter was the first pope. But , regardless, the history he asserted is false. He had no way to know one way or the other as he came 150 years later. He was repeating myths and fabricated bishops lists known by modern historians to be false. Here is Gary Wills to explain the historical facts.
Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U.,
Pulitzer Prize Winner
author of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC, wrote the following in his
Best Seller WHAT JESUS MEANT page 81.
"The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be
handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no
successor. The idea that there is an "apostolic succession"
to Peter's fictional episcopacy did not arise for several
centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively
called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession.Even
so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes."
I realize you pin all your religion on Peter being a pope but it is false. I dont know what you will do when you realize the facts of history. Maybe shout some more? Peace, JohnR