A compelling non-Catholic argument

[guanophore]

However, Luke’s goal was probably not to show who was in charge.

I didn’t understand that intent, but even so – Luke’s writing is in no way clear that Peter was the first to speak authoritatively. He says that there was much debate, and then Peter spoke, Paul spoke, and James spoke. He doesn’t exclude the possibility of other authoritative speech coming before Peter.

Yes, this is a good model of the college of bishops. They discussed, prayed, and came to a decision together. They they wrote"it seemed good to the HS and to us".

Anywho, in light of the OP’s question, I would ask this – can anyone provide evidence that Linus actually was regarded as the leader of the Christian church by the church in general, and not simply by a few select people? Even a pope or two after Linus would be a good starting point.

I doubt that very much. At the time, there were autocephalous communities, just as they still exist to day among our Eastern Brethren. The model of leadership was one of servitude. Jesus washed the Apostles feet, and told them to wash one anothers. It was not an authority in the sense that we in the western world often think of authority (throwing one’s weight around), but more a leadership based upon rightness of doctrine.

 

[guanophore]

And where does Linus claim to have, or an early historical figure from that time period claim that Linus did? Yes, we see many claims much later that Linus held that position, but do we see that established in Linus’ day?

Did he? Did it? How do you know? Where’s your historical record that says so? This is what the original poster is searching for (as am I), and so far, it hasn’t been found by or presented to him (or me, for that matter).

The original poster is questioning (or rather presenting an argument questioning) that there was to be any succession of Peter’s office at all. You respond by saying that it was intended, but you need to provide evidence that it happened.

We see the model in the NT of how the Apostles appointed Bishops, entrusted them with the Sacred Tradition, and commanded them to teach this to others who could hand it on. This is Apostolic Succession. This is what occurred in all the Episcopal Sees, not just Rome. We have received these Sacred Traditions as they were handed down from the Apostles. The current Teaching of the Church is the evidence that satisfies Catholics. The statement above says “you need” but this is not the case. Those in union with the Bishops that Succeeded the Apostles don’t “need evidence” other than the Teaching that was handed down and preserve. On the contrary, I think it is those who reject these Teachings, and the Authority from whence they sprang, that seem do “need evidence”.

 

[MarcoPolo]

There’s simply no written record that says it was true. Mistakes are common among historians.

I’m afraid this sums up the futility of this debate. That you and Ambrose are still saying there is “no written record”…I’m not sure if you are joking or what. What do you think Irenaeus, Augustine, and the rest we provided are??? They said Linus was pope.

Your 2nd sentence tells us that you DO see the evidence, but choose to doubt it. And we should just take your word for it that their writings are “mistakes”? How is that supposed to convince anyone of your position? Why not just come out and tell us that you won’t accept any evidence based on “mistakes can be made!”?

Like I said, why not show us the parallel writings of Christians who rebutted their heresy…how could they let Augustine and Irenaeus and the others get away with this?!
If you say you don’t believe in something without proof, then please…give us the direct proof of their untrustworthiness.

 

[guanophore]

Bishop in that era is not the same concept as the idea of bishop that we have today. In early church history, bishops were shepherd of only a single church in a single city (or perhaps a collection of house churches which more resemble modern Protestant “Bible Study groups”) – this it more akin to the role the Roman Catholic priest serves today.

Really, on what do you base this assertion? And, even if the church was smaller at the time (clearly it was) what makes you think the duties and role of the bishop have changed any?

Indeed Paul and others did appoint leaders over local congregations. This, I don’t think, is really in contention.

Do you think of this as Apostolic succession, or do you contend that authority was not passed?

Notice that it says to succeed to their ministry, not their office.

Their ministry is identical with the office. Only those called to such ministry are appointed bishops.

Now, given that we’re speaking of numerous bishops/pastors/overseers, this text isn’t specific to the Roman position.

Is it your contention that the ministry of Peter was the same as that of all the other Apostles? No special ministry for Peter?

Now, we obviously don’t have a 1:1 replacement for each of the individuals mentioned in scripture, so it seems that the focus on ministry, as opposed to specific individual office, is valid.

There is no separation between the two.

The ministry is to shepherd the flock of God. As that flock grows, more individuals are needed to accomplish the task, admittedly. But regardless, this passage doesn’t speak specifically of the Roman bishop/whatever.

Do you imagine that the duties of the Bishop of Italy was less than that of other Bishops?

First, Clement’s letter was written to one church in one location, not to all the churches.

Does that make the contents invalid?

Second, The tone of the letter is no more significant than that which Paul wrote with. Paul, as one enlightened by God, felt if his duty to write to the churches, admonishing them and correcting them of their errors. Do we assume Paul was the leader because he did this?

Yes, but we also have testimony from other sources that he was appointed an Apostle.

Here, we have Clement claiming to speak the words of God (just as Paul did). The danger mentioned, of course, is not due to disobedience of the Roman bishop, but rather due to disobedience of God’s will, which Clement believed he was conveying.

Yes. When the Bishop of Rome speaks from the chair of Peter, it is considered just as Christ speaking.

There is a difference between an enlightened church leader being used by God, and the office he occupies being first among the church.

In the case of the Bishop, this is not so.

This, along with several other claims, only says that there were others who led the Roman church after Peter. This is hardly surprising. What it does not say, however, is that any of these individuals were regarded as having chief authority within the church.

Primacy lies in the rightness of doctrine - the ability to receive the divine revelation about what is truth. This is the Petrine gift.

Using the “chair of Peter” symbolism does not imply leadership of the entire church unless it can be asserted that (1) Peter had such leadership and (2) Peter passed it on to someone else.

Continued…

I think the issue of Peter and the Keys probably belongs on another thread. However, I think it will make no difference, because you cannot possibly open yourself to such a possibility. That would be much to Catholic!

 

[JRKH]

His argument is that there is no evidence that Peter’s office continued after his death (though his “ministry” did) and furthermore that there is no evidence that the apostles transferred Peter’s authority to that of the Roman See.

He is not saying that all the bishops weren’t supportive of union with Peter, simply that they were no supportive of union with Rome.

What about Eastern and African churches who believed in the equal authority of bishops? More specifically, what about those who subscribed to heresies such as Arianism?

I brought up that point, but he argued that it isn’t particularly relevant to the issue of whether or not the Roman church held higher authority than the rest of the churches. Certainly, the Roman church BELIEVED that it did, but did it? And if so, how do we know?

But in the pre-Constantine era, what really IS the church? Because a great deal of bishops didn’t see it as headquartered in Rome. They were legitimate bishops in their regions, but they simply didn’t buy into the notion that the Roman bishop was their superior.

He’s not making any such claim, in fact he claims to be neither Protestant nor Catholic, but rather, simply Christian. I suppose this is because he’s not into the idea of apostolic succession to begin with. He argues that to fulfill the OFFICE of the apostles, one must have personally been a witness to Christ. Therefore, he says, the writings of the apostles are what we should look to for guidance, and nothing more.

He disagrees that it’s up to him to disprove our historical take. And I see where he’s coming from. If something didn’t happen, the only way to disprove it is really to search all the evidence, and if there isn’t any, make the reasonable assumption that it didn’t. He says he’s done that, and asked me to look for evidence based on the writings of the apostles that authority was transferred to Rome. I’m at a loss there.

Thanks for the replies, all, hope to see some more

The simple argument for me would be that one can make the correct assumption by following the church that survived.
The Apostles were given authority by Christ to establish a church.
They were given authority to 'bind and loose".
As part of that, they ordained bishops and gave them the same teaching authority.
As time moved on and various issues arose.
Councils of bishops were held and decisions made regarding doctrine and structure in the Church.
Each of these bishops came to the council with the same “Bind and Loose” authority.
Eventually, through this apostolic succession, Rome became the center and the Bishop of Rome became the Pope.

That is a very rough outline - I am no theologen - but I hope it helps some.

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

You’ve started with the assumption that he’s intentionally trying to destroy God’s church, and thus your analysis of his views is quite tainted…

Without prejudicing my own condition one way or the other I say you are mistaken. What makes your analysis less trained than any other except by your own self opinion? This is the same pattern of disordered principal I complained about by the nondenominational pastor. You act as if it is a negative sort of bias to hold any conviction for truth at sacrosanct. In fact I can assert with equal weight that you show your own tainted analysis and bias by consistently choosing to automatically champion the antagonistic side of any argument that goes against the RCC truth and teaching. If you must know my private mechanism hold it in faith that I started with the assumption that he is seeking to serve his own interests not God’s. The differences between your subjective charge and reality are as dichotic as are the different natures found between a parasite and a symbiotic creature. Note that while both kinds of entities are forced by God’s omniscience to serve Divine Providence (e.g. God can make evil work to his purpose) there are clearly more higher ordered ways to constructively and directly serve God. Clearly no matter how much negative connotation you want to impart to the word “bias” there is only one unassailable truth - not legions of it.
PC Master:

You say things that make no sense, like “he’s trying to destroy the very thing he’s trying to hijack”. You overwhelming bias that the RCC is correct completely undermines your analysis…

Again you try to impart a negative “taint” to the absoluteness of truth present in the RCC. And just who says that anyone must use a Socratic method or any other methodology of logic to teach a truth? Jesus used parables more so than logic to touch at an emotional and spiritual level. Personally I am well capable of the orthodox forms of argument. But I am opting here to let other’s work those angles while I concurrently work another with a different mechanism. My intention is to touch at an emotional level to get past the pretty and stoic walls of objectivism that in reality are recurrently proving in these forums to be thin veneers of obstinacy. Where some seek to get those cowering inside the “courtyard of self” to lower the gates through a clamoring siege of reason I chose at times to simply blow the horn of truth, knock down the walls and assail the thing eye to eye. Which is more honorable and which is more effective? We each have our methods and the barbarians as uncouth as they were the ones who destroyed the walls of the glorious Roman Empire - the very same place where the One Church now stands.

But I see by evidence by all your “!” notations that I may have already breached something soft. Though I can’t discern directly if you are really just more of an emotional sort of “fella” or one who thinks that the mechanisms of rhetoric and force of argument are more important than the truth of God? What prevails is what is important. Truth always does but not always without some pain.

That all said, I know you are probably trying to teach me to be a more effective apologist to win people over. But that is a peculiar sort of position to take here. Are you really a Catholic who all along has been playing “devils advocate” and are here to deepen fellow Catholics understanding or do you just want to train a more formidable enemy to intensify the glory of war? Oh, what times are these when we have to contend with the notion of sheep wearing wolfe’s clothing? Or are you really starting to be won over and are just not fully re-suited yet? Crucify the man!
PC Master:

Actually, I see no rhetoric in his argument. The argument effectively is “If Linus was pope and held authority over the whole church, why don’t we see any reference to him believing or doing this in his own day?”

What is the motive for wasting time considering it if he thinks he can show no similar claim to the authority to start a church in his garage? Scripture clearly shows the validity of apostolic succession and this man clearly has nothing to stand on. And who is to say that God wanted lawyers to run His church with a set of duplicate files of manuscripts with all the I’s an T’s dotted and crossed for every official matter in the Church? I suspect the other “bad” criminal on the cross next to Jesus was a “bad” Jewish lawyer.

Frankly, the conspicuous lack of evidence showing dissatisfaction with Linus’s claim to the seat is just as compelling as a formal writ declaring it. If anyone thinks there is fraud taking place downstream of Linus don’ t you think that Linus and his supporters would not have fabricated their own documents?

(Will continue if I have more time on other parts unanswered)

James

 

[jmcrae]

Bishop in that era is not the same concept as the idea of bishop that we have today. In early church history, bishops were shepherd of only a single church in a single city (or perhaps a collection of house churches which more resemble modern Protestant “Bible Study groups”) – this it more akin to the role the Roman Catholic priest serves today.

As the Church got larger, priests were appointed to assist the Bishop in his ministry, and to be his “proxy” in places that he couldn’t be, for reasons of distance, etc.

Indeed Paul and others did appoint leaders over local congregations. This, I don’t think, is really in contention.

As Bishops today continue to do. (In fact, it’s one of the most visible things that they do; the lists of priest appointments is one of the few things that is made public from the Bishop’s office.)

Notice that it says to succeed to their ministry, not their office. Now, given that we’re speaking of numerous bishops/pastors/overseers, this text isn’t specific to the Roman position. Now, we obviously don’t have a 1:1 replacement for each of the individuals mentioned in scripture, so it seems that the focus on ministry, as opposed to specific individual office, is valid. The ministry is to shepherd the flock of God. As that flock grows, more individuals are needed to accomplish the task, admittedly. But regardless, this passage doesn’t speak specifically of the Roman bishop/whatever.

No, but it certainly includes him, and he is the one who makes final decisions regarding who the Bishops will be and where they will serve, who then make decisions about who the priests will be, and where they will serve, etc.

First, Clement’s letter was written to one church in one location, not to all the churches.

Well outside of his jurisdiction, though, if he only has authority over the church in Rome itself - Corinth is several days journey by sea away from Rome - surely they had their own Bishop? And we see that they did, but Clement even had authority over their Bishop.

Second, The tone of the letter is no more significant than that which Paul wrote with. Paul, as one enlightened by God, felt if his duty to write to the churches, admonishing them and correcting them of their errors. Do we assume Paul was the leader because he did this?

Yes, we do - Paul was an Apostle, and had the same Apostolic authority to instruct all of the Churches everywhere that the Pope does today, and that Clement had, in 80 AD.

Here, we have Clement claiming to speak the words of God (just as Paul did). The danger mentioned, of course, is not due to disobedience of the Roman bishop, but rather due to disobedience of God’s will, which Clement believed he was conveying.

So, you acknowledge that Clement had authority from God to convey His will to others - that’s a good start.

There is a difference between an enlightened church leader being used by God, and the office he occupies being first among the church.

What sign would God give to show that he had this authority, though? Why should they listen to him as their leader, rather than merely as one more opinion? Yet, he wrote as though he were expecting them to obey him.

 

[YADA]

And where is it that Clement actually claimed authority over the whole church?

As for the Isaiah reference – it’s an interpretation that Jesus meant that. The difference is it’s the one you’ve chosen to embrace.

From Scripture:

1. We have Jesus directly quoting Issiah in granting a unique authority upon Peter … the “Office” of Prime Minister upon whom the ‘keys’ are bestowed; who can Open and Shut with authority and whom the people call Father [Abba, Daddy, Papa, Pope] … but your friend will say, Jesus was not quoting Issiah it is just a wierd coincidence … and He [Jesus] did not realize that the hearers would think of Issiah … You buy that right? After all he is the new authority …
2. Jesus gives Peter the instruction to feed His [Jesus’] sheep … I’m sure your friend has a response for this too…
3. Peter quotes the Hebrew text “Let another, his office take’…”] when he [Peter] calls for a replacement for Judas … but ony Judas the ‘betrayer’ held an ‘office’ that needed to be filled… Not any of the other apostle, even though the scriptures clearly show develoment of offices [Deacon being necessary because the bishops were becoming too busy to ensure the care of widows and orphans directly] …

Personnally, I find your friends arguements very thin… one needs to throw common sense to the four winds to argue from the silence of writings that would be 2000 years old today …

After all, except for the Hebrew writings found at Qumran, we have no ‘scriptural’ originals that are 2000 years old … yet he accepts the New Testament … correct? We have lost much from antiquity and yet we know much about the ealry Christian Church. We have its beliefs, teachings, organization, and a record of the many struggles … Perhaps the Role of Linus as Pope was not as noteworthy at the time as your friend thinks it should have been … I guess Linis should have consulted your friend …

Personally, I will trust the Chruch, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth, and the scriptures … I’ll look to Pope Benedict XVI the Magisterium of the Church and the Bishops for guidance… not your friend…

 

[jmcrae]

How do you know that apostolic succession (possibly including the laying on of hands) is required for validity as a teacher of God’s truth? Certainly it’s a plus to receive acknowledgment from those who are themselves spiritually astute, but how do you know it’s necessary?

Because that’s how authority works. Authority is always, always, and always received from already-existing authority. It never just randomly appears ex nihilo.

The parent receives authority over his children from God, by virtue of fathering/mothering those children. The eldest child receives authority over the younger children from the parent. The babysitter, the teacher, and the catechist all receive authority over children from their parents.

The business man receives authority over his business from God by virtue of the fact that he created his business. He in turn passes this authority on to his employees at various levels and in varying degrees.

The government receives authority over the nation from God by virtue of the fact that there are recognizable means by which these leaders are selected, whether it is a monarchy, a democracy, or a republic - or some combination of the three. It distributes its authority to the military, to the police, to various different kinds of educators, and to its various bureaucracies.

In the Church, we recognize that Jesus gave authority to the Apostles, and that they passed it on to their successors by the laying on of hands. It is this unbroken succession that shows us who the true Church is. (The Apostles could have chosen to dance around their successors singing “Kum ba yah” - the effect would have been the same; it is the intent of appointing successors that counts, and the fact that each successive generation repeats what the first one did, by way of appointing successors.)

 

[steve_b]

:
Originally Posted by steve b

Irenaeus as well as others, have already answered your question. For example

Again, from Irenaeus

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (*Against Heresies *3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Then we have the bishop and historian Eusebius

Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. … Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome … to Miltiades.

 

[Ignatius]

That Linus was bishop of Rome doesn’t establish that he was pope.

The bishop of Rome is the Pope.

Now let’s discuss first, second and third century the leaders of your church, if there are any. You attempt to discredit the historical evidence but have nothing to replace it with. This is as has been ever since Christ founded The Church.

Let me give you an example.

There is not, and there never was on this earth, a work so well deserving of examination as the Roman Catholic Church. The history of that Church joins together the two great ages of human civilization. No other institution is left standing which carries the mind back to the times when the smoke of sacrifice rose from the Pantheon, and when camelopards and tigers bounded in the Flavian amphitheatre. The proudest royal houses are but of yesterday, when compared with the line of the Supreme Pontiffs. That line we trace back in an unbroken series, from the Pope who crowned Napoleon in the nineteenth century to the Pope who crowned Pepin in the eighth; and far beyond the time of Pepin the august dynasty extends, till it is lost in the twilight of fable. The republic of Venice came next in antiquity. But the republic of Venice was modern when compared with the Papacy; and the republic of Venice is gone, and the Papacy remains. The Papacy remains, not in decay, not a mere antique, but full of life and youthful vigour. The Catholic Church is still sending forth to the farthest ends of the world missionaries as zealous as those who landed in Kent with Augustin, and still confronting hostile kings with the same spirit with which she confronted Attila. The number of her children is greater than in any former age. Her acquisitions in the New World have more than compensated for what she has lost in the Old. Her spiritual ascendency extends over the vast countries which lie between the plains of the Missouri and Cape Horn, countries which a century hence, may not improbably contain a population as large as that which now inhabits Europe. Nor do we see any sign which indicates that the term of her long dominion is approaching. She saw the commencement of all the governments and of all the ecclesiastical establishments that now exist in the world; and we feel no assurance that she is not destined to see the end of them all. She was great and respected before the Saxon had set foot on Britain, before the Frank had passed the Rhine, when Grecian eloquence still flourished at Antioch, when idols were still worshipped in the temple of Mecca.

And she may still exist in undiminished vigour when some traveller from New Zealand shall, in the midst of a vast solitude, take his stand on a broken arch of London Bridge to sketch the ruins of St. Paul’s.

 

[Chancellare]

You are willing to assert that Iranaeus was not “necessarily correct” based on your own musings that he had some unsubstantiated bias. But you are not willing to accept the historical record of Linus as Pope and the ad nauseum testament of the ECFs to the role of the Roman Bishop.

Unless I am completely misreading you, as to the “total lack of evidence”…at this point, I can only conclude you aren’t interested in seeing it.

Well said.

And if I may add:
People who disregard historical evidence on Linus offered by ECFs but quick to assert that there is none, are at least guilty of intellectual dishonesty in the same proportion as that of Ahmedinajad’s denial of holocaust.
I’m sorry to say this.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And where does Linus claim to have, or an early historical figure from that time period claim that Linus did? Yes, we see many claims much later that Linus held that position, but do we see that established in Linus’ day?

Did he? Did it? How do you know? Where’s your historical record that says so? This is what the original poster is searching for (as am I), and so far, it hasn’t been found by or presented to him (or me, for that matter).

Actually, Peter tells us that he will make such arrangements in scripture:

2 Peter 1:12-15
So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have. I think it is right to refresh your memory as long as I live in the tent of this body, because I know that I will soon put it aside, as our Lord Jesus Christ has made clear to me. And I will make every effort to see that after my departure you will always be able to remember these things.

What effort could Peter make to ensure his message would be remembered after his departure?

Uh huh…that’s right…he named a successor.

Hope this helps.** :tiphat:**

 

[Non_Serviam]

What effort could Peter make to ensure his message would be remembered after his departure?

It’s a shame you didn’t ask yourself this question before sending it on to PC Master. You would have realized at least two other possible answers that are as good or better than a “naming a successor”:

• Peter wrote two Epistles
• Peter provided Mark with key information to write his Gospel

I’ve been lurking for some time, wondering what topic would finally provoke me to post. (Congratulations, btw )What has become clear for me reading this thread and other similar ones is that no matter how clear the question is, some Catholics will do anything to avoid saying “I don’t know” or admitting that there may be an alternate explanation to the party line.

So far, no one has proved conclusively that Linus was the Pope and acted like it (without some major presuppositions coming into play) and likewise, no one has proved he wasn’t and didn’t.

What I’m going to ask is if there is a Catholic besides OnlyAmbrose who is willing to say that absent the presupposition of a divinely protected church, the hypothesis that the papacy passed to Linus is unsupported by any written record contemporary with Linus?

Anyone? Then perhaps the discussion can move forward.

 

[dmelosi]

It’s a shame you didn’t ask yourself this question before sending it on to PC Master. You would have realized at least two other possible answers that are as good or better than a “naming a successor”:

• Peter wrote two Epistles
• Peter provided Mark with key information to write his Gospel

I’ve been lurking for some time, wondering what topic would finally provoke me to post. (Congratulations, btw )What has become clear for me reading this thread and other similar ones is that no matter how clear the question is, some Catholics will do anything to avoid saying “I don’t know” or admitting that there may be an alternate explanation to the party line.

So far, no one has proved conclusively that Linus was the Pope and acted like it (without some major presuppositions coming into play) and likewise, no one has proved he wasn’t and didn’t.

What I’m going to ask is if there is a Catholic besides OnlyAmbrose who is willing to say that absent the presupposition of a divinely protected church, the hypothesis that the papacy passed to Linus is unsupported by any written record contemporary with Linus?

Anyone? Then perhaps the discussion can move forward.

A little off topic, but are there other things you doubt about the Catholic faith or does it come down to this?

 

[Non_Serviam]

A little off topic, but are there other things you doubt about the Catholic faith or does it come down to this?

It is off topic, but thanks for taking the time to look at my profile. There are a number of things, some that have been touched on in other threads and others that haven’t. But best to stay on topic here.

To be clear, I don’t doubt that there was a Linus, that he held leadership in the early church, and that he likely received that leadership as a result of Peter’s presence in Rome. There is a good deal of historical evidence to prove that. Where things get fuzzy is when one tries to look at the nature of Linus’ leadership role and his concept of it. There are a lack of contemporary sources to speak to it. Hence the typical jump to Clement for support.

Any answer to the question in my previous post?

 

[dmelosi]

It is off topic, but thanks for taking the time to look at my profile. There are a number of things, some that have been touched on in other threads and others that haven’t. But best to stay on topic here.

To be clear, I don’t doubt that there was a Linus, that he held leadership in the early church, and that he likely received that leadership as a result of Peter’s presence in Rome. There is a good deal of historical evidence to prove that. Where things get fuzzy is when one tries to look at the nature of Linus’ leadership role and his concept of it. There are a lack of contemporary sources to speak to it. Hence the typical jump to Clement for support.

Any answer to the question in my previous post?

Not from me, a little over my head at this point. Just watching, reading and learning.

 

[YADA]

It is off topic, but thanks for taking the time to look at my profile. There are a number of things, some that have been touched on in other threads and others that haven’t. But best to stay on topic here.

To be clear, I don’t doubt that there was a Linus, that he held leadership in the early church, and that he likely received that leadership as a result of Peter’s presence in Rome. There is a good deal of historical evidence to prove that. Where things get fuzzy is when one tries to look at the nature of Linus’ leadership role and his concept of it. There are a lack of contemporary sources to speak to it. Hence the typical jump to Clement for support.

Any answer to the question in my previous post?

However, if the hypothesis is that Linus was not the successor to Peter and that Clement made that claim up … where is the record of the dissenting voices? [we know that there are dissenting voices as the early church fought many heresies and we have much written evidence of that dissent/discussion.] It seems if this claim of the successors of Peter was created out of whole cloth [a lie to further some agenda] some person would have written a rebuttal …

Does not the absense of an alternative scenario speak as loudly as the absence of some document speaking directly of Pope Linus?

 

[Non_Serviam]

However, if the hypothesis is that Linus was not the successor to Peter and that Clement made that claim up … where is the record of the dissenting voices? [we know that there are dissenting voices as the early church fought many heresies and we have much written evidence of that dissent/discussion.] It seems if this claim of the successors of Peter was created out of whole cloth [a lie to further some agenda] some person would have written a rebuttal …

Thanks for the charitable reply. Let me point out that I never said Clement made anything up. Although one could theorize that Clement was out for some sort of personal gain, there’s nothing in the historical record to suggest this.

Having said that, there are a couple of other possibilities:

• Clement is being eisegeted, with later administrative structures being read back into his words
• Clement means exactly what the Catholic church says he means
• Clement was mistaken with regard to the degree of authority that the successors of the apostles held

If the first option, the one has a lively debate about the validity of development of administration. If the second, PC and I should take another step closer to Rome.

If the third, the question of why no rebuttals needs to be addressed. In response, I would ask the question: If through an honest misunderstanding, Clement misspoke about the authority of Linus et al. and rebuttals were written, is it likely that those who benefited from and consolidated his error would discourage the copying and distribution of such documents, whether actively or passively?

Moving on…

Does not the absence of an alternative scenario speak as loudly as the absence of some document speaking directly of Pope Linus?

I agree, hence I choose the first option. let’s revisit Clement’s quote about succession (I’ve copied and pasted from Randy Carson, thanks)

Clement:

Clement

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

It seems to me that Clement is saying the apostles chose successors-both leaders (bishops) and servers (deacons). I see nothing suggesting a diocesan structure at this time. If we look back at Scripture, we find that until midway through Acts most of the Apostles were in Jerusalem with no discussion of “territories” that we read of-Peter, Paul, James acted where needed.

I believe this flexibility of leadership was still in place during Clement’s time, hence Clement felt very comfortable directing the Corinthians, in spite of the geographical lack of proximity, much as Paul felt comfortable directing the Romans, even though they weren’t “his” church per se.

Papal presuppositions aside, can anyone see a major flaw in my hypothesis?

Can my belief be held intelligently by someone who does not previously accept the papacy?

 

[guanophore]

Actually, I see no rhetoric in his argument. The argument effectively is “If Linus was pope and held authority over the whole church, why don’t we see any reference to him believing or doing this in his own day?”

This is neither rhetorical, nor insincere. It’s rational, and reasonable.

For the same reason, I think, that Jesus gave it to the Apostles, but He didn’t write it down either.

How do you know that apostolic succession (possibly including the laying on of hands) is required for validity as a teacher of God’s truth? Certainly it’s a plus to receive acknowledgment from those who are themselves spiritually astute, but how do you know it’s necessary?

Perhaps there is a difference between authority and validity? Apollos was certainly valid and fervent, yet incomplete.