Hi
The term Pope being used in the Coptic Eastern Orthodox Church, before 230 CE, and the term pope used in the Roman Catholic Church before the year 607 CE are anachronisms. As there were no popes before these two dates in either church, what we term presbyters or bishops were! In addition, Latin was not the first language of the See of Rome, Greek was! From between the year 126 CE to 752 CE, there were twelve Greek bishops who reigned in Rome. The late patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly, in his Magnum Opus (1986) work: The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Stated that the monarchical Bishop of Rome episcopate, i.e. government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent.[JND Kelly (1986), Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 6, Oxford University Press, Oxford, New York.] Kelly goes on to state: Pius I (c 142-c 155), … He (Pius) was Ninth in the early succession list of bishops of Rome, he was reckoned tenth pope by the later convention which counted Peter as first… . Pius was the brother of Hermas, a former slave, author of the widely popular visionary summons to repentance known as the Shepherd. This latter work contains hints of disputes about rank among church leaders, which suggest that the monarchial episcopate was now a reality at Rome.[Ibid, p. 10] So, even if Peter was in Rome (the only evidence that the RCC has for Peter being in Rome is the code word Babylon in the forged epistles of 1 Peter 5:13, see Acts 4:13 which proves that 1 and 2 Peter are fakes, or otherwise you believe in the Gospel of Mary). There was no single episcopate leader of the church at that time of Peter, until the mid-2nd-century. We should not forget the biblical contradictions about Peter? One being Peter’s real name was Simeon Bar Jonah aka Barjona, we only have the Catholic Church’s word that Jesus named him Peter, see Matthew 16:17? (Even though Peter’s confession is generally taken to be authentic, the same cannot be said of Matt 16:17-19, and many scholars deem the verses to be questionable. Some commentators, such as Luz and Bultmann, view the phrase mou thVn ejkklhsivan (“my church”) to be too anachronistic to be genuine.) https://bible.org/seriespage/6-additional-considerations-exegesis-matt-1618.