A compelling non-Catholic argument

[guanophore]

That Linus was bishop of Rome doesn’t establish that he was pope, or that any such office really existed in Linus’ day. This is what the OP is looking for.

Yes, I am sure the chair of Peter looks very different now, in our hindsight than it did in the early days of the Church.

How are you to know that falsehood from the truth? The only thing we have available to us is historical data.

This is what we have in differentiation from each other. Those of Apostolic faiths have Sacred Tradition, as well as the historical data.

Now, after the fact, the question comes up. What do we do? Some people write down what they think was the case. Some people claim their opinions as fact, but there’s very little, if any, real evidence presented.

What you are saying is that Jesus is either a liar, or a weakling, because he did not preserve what he started.

…speculative at best.

I understand that Sacred Tradition seems like “speculation” to those who reject the Apostolic succession. I am not sure there is any other way to discount this as a source, otherwise.

In the case of the papacy, it's incomprehensible to me to think that it would not have been considered extremely important to record the actions and authority of the leader of the church.

Jesus is the leader of the Church, and a record was made.

Even Irenaeus doesn’t say he was “leader of the church” or some term similar to pope. He says he was the bishop of Rome. It’s only through reading history backwards and assuming things were then as they are now, that we can think Linus was a pope.

Yes. Many things look different depending on one’s point of view.

There’s simply no written record that says it was true. Mistakes are common among historians. These mistakes are usually minor when dealing with current events (at least on the larger details – they still goof on the smaller ones), but they can get huge when you talk about the distant past.

Have you ever let yourself role play? What would happen if you just pretended it might be true? Is that incomprehensible too?

 

[guanophore]

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.

Do you not think that Jesus holds the Key of David?

Is not Jesus the One who inherited the throne of David?

Is He not King of a Kingdom? Can He not give the keys to anyone of His own choosing?

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

Wow, tempers flaring here…

I’m talking to various people about this issue and I’m getting satisfactory answers. I’m reading up and I’ll come back later when I’m through. More importantly for this thread here, I’ve read or will read soon all of the replies, and I DEEPLY appreciate the time and effort that you all have put or will put in the future into this thread.

Now, I have a few things to say about some of the comments made:

Thus he seeks to serve only himself not God.

Without going too much into detail, I can assure you that this is not the case.

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.

The reason I’m posting in THIS forum and doing research AT ALL is because I want to stay Catholic! I am very interested in seeing evidence! I WANT to see the Catholic Church proven right, I’ve grown up in it and served it in many ways and forms.

What I haven’t seen yet (and I am still searching for it in various libraries) is EYEWITNESS evidence of Linus’ succession to the office of Pope. I’m not seeing that. I AM seeing controversy among the ECFs of who even WAS pope at Linus’ time (again, Terteullian held that it was Clement and not Linus or Anacletus…). So why should I take Irenaeus’ word for it over Terteullian’s? Point is, the ECFs weren’t always right on their history (one of them had to be wrong after all…)

I’m looking for the eyewitness evidence and I truly desire to see it, that’s why I posted as such on this Catholic forum.

I want to be Catholic, but perhaps more than that I want to know WHY I’m Catholic.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Do you suppose that Peter REALIZED that he was writing divinely-inspired epistles that would eventually be included in what would become the New Testament? Was that what he was conscious of doing when he wrote the words about “making every effort”? I doubt it.

As for providing Mark with the data needed to write the gospel, I’ll give that a maybe at best.

However, you must recall that Peter was only too aware of the fact that Jesus had named him the shepherd of the flock just prior to His departure from this earth (cf. John 21). Since his own martyrdom had been foretold by the Lord, Peter would have been very conscious of the necessity of naming a successor to shepherd the flock prior to his immanent death - just as Jesus had done.

In my humble opinion, of course.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

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 exactly does that mean, “acted like it”? What exactly are people expecting that Linus would have done, or said, if he truly inherited the chair of Peter?

 

[guanophore]

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…

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)

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?

I don’;t see how this precludes the Papacy either. Jesus clearly said that the mustard seed would grow into a tree. No one looking at a mustard seed can possibly imagine what the tree would look like. Likewise, looking from the large tree we have now, it is difficult to see the seed.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Do you suppose that Peter REALIZED that he was writing divinely-inspired epistles that would eventually be included in what would become the New Testament? Was that what he was conscious of doing when he wrote the words about “making every effort”? I doubt it.

My apologies for the use of “Epistles” when “letters” would have made my point. I don’t believe that Peter needed to be aware of either the inspiration or future pedigree of his two letters in order for him to consider them a valid effort at calling his teaching to his readers’ remembrance.

Peter would know that he set forth a true and accurate statement of his belief and teaching that future leaders could call on when memory became a bit fuzzy. Even if his letters had only been accorded the status of those of Clement or Ignatius (i.e. edifying but non-inspired), they would still have been treasured for their apostolic connection.

As for providing Mark with the data needed to write the gospel, I’ll give that a maybe at best.

Thanks-I believe preserving sayings of Jesus as well as certain key events would have been of tremendous importance to Peter, given the content of his sermons in Acts. The apostolic imperative of being a witness to Jesus tweaks this point for me as well.

However, you must recall that Peter was only too aware of the fact that Jesus had named him the shepherd of the flock just prior to His departure from this earth (cf. John 21). Since his own martyrdom had been foretold by the Lord, Peter would have been very conscious of the necessity of naming a successor to shepherd the flock prior to his immanent death - just as Jesus had done.

Good points. I agree that preserving leadership for the future would have been very important to Peter, and confirmed by his concern in selecting a replacement for Judas. I also think, given some of the examples of failed leadership mentioned in the New Testament (that Peter may have been aware of) that he would also find it important to set in writing his testimony to Christ and his teaching in case some of the future leadership decided to stray.

Having said all this, it still hasn’t been demonstrated that Linus as a successor of Peter, considered himself to possess some special leadership prerogative/authority. That’s the point it all seems to hang on for those of us not presently accepting papal presuppositions.

(One other thought jumps quickly to mind, I don’t believe it to to be worthy of major reflection, but brief consideration of it might prove fruitful for individuals.

If, as some have claimed in reference to Clement’s quote, it was so very important that Peter select his successor to ensure the successor was worthy, does the fact that popes no longer select successors reduce the validity of using Clement’s quote to support the current papacy?

As I said, not something I’ve pondered a long time, so don’t fret over it)

 

[Non_Serviam]

What exactly does that mean, “acted like it”? What exactly are people expecting that Linus would have done, or said, if he truly inherited the chair of Peter?

I can’t speak for others, but some thoughts that come to mind are:

• Specifically declaring primacy/authority over other bishops at that time in a letter
• Making a binding statement on the faithful, similar to Acts 15
• A contemporary writer identifying Linus as “the Rock” of the church or some similar title
• discovery of an early contemporary liturgy making reference to Linus as a leader with primacy over other leaders
• catacomb inscriptions according Linus similar titles and/or honours as Peter

Since it appears that none of these exist (I confess to being unsure about catacomb inscriptions and these would hold the least weight with me unless they were made very close to Linus’ demise) the point appears moot. Hence those with papal presuppositions will accept the papacy of Linus on the basis of those presuppositions and those holding other presuppositions will likely be sceptical.

I don’t see how this precludes the Papacy either. Jesus clearly said that the mustard seed would grow into a tree. No one looking at a mustard seed can possibly imagine what the tree would look like. Likewise, looking from the large tree we have now, it is difficult to see the seed.

Bearing in mind that the teaching of the mustard seed might simply refer to numerical size rather than appearance, the argument proves little. If I were to mix up six seeds in my hand and then point at six different trees, one would be hard pressed to link seed with tree.

Likewise the possibility that the tree of the modern papacy may have come from an early mustard seed of apostolic church leadership is equally challenging to prove. Others churches claiming apostolic succession have suggested that some papal beliefs have been grafted in. That’s not my axe to grind.

Personally, my studies in the New Testament suggest a plurality of episcopal leadership at the local church level as opposed to a monarchical episcopate, hence my interest in this particular subject. To discover evidence that demonstrated that the monarchical episcopate was the Apostles’ intent for the church would cause me to seriously re-evaluate my beliefs.

 

[anthony022071]

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

Written documents are not enough to spread the gospel with or base Church doctrines upon. There needs to be an apostolic,ordained clergy which passes on the doctrines through word of mouth and which interpret the written documents rightly,in the right spirit. Otherwise,the written documents will be interpreted in the direction of Gnosticism,Arianism,Pelagianism,or some other heresy;or they will be interpreted as if they were an instruction manual,or a social-political tract.

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.

Irenaeus,Epiphanius,Augustine and the historian Eusebius all say he succeeded Peter as bishop of Rome. Why should we doubt them? What does a pope “act like”?
The role of the pope is that of a supreme pastor (shepherd)
which has jurisdiction over the whole Church,maintaining unity and orthodoxy. That was the commission that Christ gave to Peter.

members.aol.com/philvaz/debates/debate14.htm

< 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? >

As I said in post 67,it shouldn’t be suprising that there is no written record about Linus from that time,since we are dealing with a small,underground,illegal,persecuted society.

 

[anthony022071]

Non Serviam;3211440:

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

Written documents are not enough to spread the gospel with or base Church doctrines upon. There needs to be an apostolic,ordained clergy which passes on the doctrines through word of mouth and which interpret the written documents rightly,in the right spirit. Otherwise,the written documents will be interpreted in the direction of Gnosticism,Arianism,Pelagianism,or some other heresy;or they will be interpreted as if they were an instruction manual,or a social-political tract.

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.

Irenaeus,Epiphanius,Augustine and the historian Eusebius all say he succeeded Peter as bishop of Rome. Why should we doubt them? What does a pope “act like”?
The role of the pope is that of a supreme pastor (shepherd)
which has jurisdiction over the whole Church,maintaining unity and orthodoxy. That was the commission that Christ gave to Peter.

members.aol.com/philvaz/debates/debate14.htm

< 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? >

As I said in post 67,it shouldn’t be suprising that there is no written record about Linus from that time,since we are dealing with a small,underground,illegal,persecuted society.

 

[Kolbe300]

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.

I’d be glad to say “I don’t know” for you Non Serviam, at least when it comes to whether or not there is a written record from that time. Keep in mind that I haven’t looked for one either (nor do I plan on it). I hope I’ve fulfilled your desire for a Catholic to say “I don’t know.”

Thankfully, I don’t need that evidence to believe the Church is divinely protected (isn’t that what true “authority” really is?). And even more thankfully, the Holy Spirit doesn’t need that evidence in order to act as the divine protector.

 

[PC_Master]

The purpose of finding evidence is not to prove something to the Holy Spirit, but rather to prove it to ourselves. We are human beings, and whether Roman Catholic, Protestant, or something else, there’s the possibility, because we’re human, that we’re in error. Thus some of us look for evidence to prove that we’re not deceiving ourselves and believing lies.

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?

Where did anyone argue Linus wasn’t actually the successor to Peter? I thought we all kind of agreed that Linus was the second bishop of Rome. However, where is there record that he was pope? Where is there record that Clement was pope? There is a difference.

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 …

Agreed – which is precisely why a believable lie is rarely totally a construct – it’s usually based on a truth.

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

Perhaps, but for those of us who are uncertain, and who are seeking additional information, if that information is not to be found, one way or the other, all we have to fall back on is our initial preconceptions – that Linus wasn’t a pope (though he was bishop of Rome).

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

I’d ask you to elaborate, but this seems off-topic. I don’t dispute that Linus was validly ordained (by whatever method the apostles considered valid in their day), and thus was considered qualified as a teacher and bishop of the church.

Yes, I am sure the chair of Peter looks very different now, in our hindsight than it did in the early days of the Church.

You probably like the mustard seed example. I like the example pointed out by another poster…only with a slight twist. I’ll show you a seed (representing what the original church actually looked like in reality). I’ll then show you a dozen trees of different species (representing the RCC, various Protestant sects, Eastern Orthodoxy, etc), but all of whom come from a seed. You get the fun task of picking out which one came from the seed. Unless you know what the mustard seed is supposed to look like ahead of time, and what the full tree is supposed to look like ahead of time, the chances are that you’ll be wrong in your selection.

This is what we have in differentiation from each other. Those of Apostolic faiths have Sacred Tradition, as well as the historical data.

Ever play telephone? One man tells the next, who tells the next, who tells the next. Even with five or six people, it’s distorted by the time the last guy hears it. And you’re telling me an oral tradition could have continued for 2,000 years? Sounds about like the claimed oral traditions of the Jewish Rabbis.

What you are saying is that Jesus is either a liar, or a weakling, because he did not preserve what he started.

No. I’m saying Jesus didn’t make the promise you think he made. Jesus keeps his word, but he never said “and I will give you an unbroken line of authoritative earthly leaders to guide you in the truth”. You pretend as though he did.

Jesus is the leader of the Church, and a record was made.

So you’re saying Linus, Cletus, and Clement…the earthly leaders of the church with jurisdiction over the whole church…weren’t an important enough detail to be recorded? That’d be like saying we have adequate records of the founding fathers of the USA (including many written documents which survive from then to the present day), but not enough records to be sure what the office of president of the USA entailed back in the early days?

Have you ever let yourself role play? What would happen if you just pretended it might be true? Is that incomprehensible too?

I have tried placing myself in the position of a believer, but try as I might, I can’t make a convincing argument to explain away this gaping lack of evidence.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Written documents are not enough to spread the gospel with or base Church doctrines upon. There needs to be an apostolic,ordained clergy which passes on the doctrines through word of mouth and which interpret the written documents rightly,in the right spirit. Otherwise,the written documents will be interpreted in the direction of Gnosticism,Arianism,Pelagianism,or some other heresy;or they will be interpreted as if they were an instruction manual,or a social-political tract.

Agreed that documents don’t spread the Gospel or lead the church-I never claimed that they did. However, written documents permit listeners to evaluate an Evangelist or Bishop and their message with teaching from a previously trusted source. Bereans anyone?

Then if a teacher is found to be teaching contrary to the received faith, church leadership has an obligation to step in and act.

Irenaeus,Epiphanius,Augustine and the historian Eusebius all say he succeeded Peter as bishop of Rome. Why should we doubt them? What does a pope “act like”?
The role of the pope is that of a supreme pastor (shepherd)
which has jurisdiction over the whole Church,maintaining unity and orthodoxy. That was the commission that Christ gave to Peter.

That’s a whole other ball of twine, one of those “papal presuppositions” I’ve been mentioning. I also believe Jesus gave Peter a special commission, where we differ is in the job description. (definitely a topic for another thread).
anthony022071;3211769:

As I said in post 67,it shouldn’t be suprising that there is no written record about Linus from that time,since we are dealing with a small,underground,illegal,persecuted society.

And yet, if Linus was “a supreme pastor (shepherd) which has jurisdiction over the whole Church, maintaining unity and orthodoxy” wouldn’t it be likely that the church would have kept stories of his acts and letters that he wrote, in the same way that they kept those of the Apostles surviving Peter and ECF’s, since his jurisdiction surpassed any they might possess?

Arguments for and against Linus as Pope are arguments from silence in terms of contemporary attestation, so once again we agree to disagree.

 

[Non_Serviam]

I’d be glad to say “I don’t know” for you Non Serviam, at least when it comes to whether or not there is a written record from that time. Keep in mind that I haven’t looked for one either (nor do I plan on it). I hope I’ve fulfilled your desire for a Catholic to say “I don’t know.”

Thankfully, I don’t need that evidence to believe the Church is divinely protected (isn’t that what true “authority” really is?). And even more thankfully, the Holy Spirit doesn’t need that evidence in order to act as the divine protector.

Thank you for that act of charity, Kolbe300, I’m happy to hear that you have found evidence that is convincing for you and that you recognize that different people can look for different measures/types of evidence.

Anyhow, I need to run-busy day ahead-enjoy your weekend.

 

[guanophore]

I can’t speak for others, but some thoughts that come to mind are:

• Specifically declaring primacy/authority over other bishops at that time in a letter

This seems like an odd requirement. Why would he need to do such a thing? Part of the Sacred Tradition included Peter as the Rock. This was later written into the scripture, and accepted by the whole church throughout the world! It also seems somewhat arrogant and self serving…the office is not one that is “taken” by force, but passed on from previous authority. We can see in the writings of Peter that no such attitude exists anywhere.

* Making a binding statement on the faithful, similar to Acts 15

This one does make sense. Of course, we don’t know that it did not happen, as you noted. Such things are not done unless it is necessary, and there have been many Popes that never found a need for it.

• A contemporary writer identifying Linus as “the Rock” of the church or some similar title

I am not sure this applies. Peter is the Rock. He was grafted into Christ’s rockiness by virture of his reception and confession of divine revelation. Although His successors have held his office and ministry, and some even took the name of Peter, their particular charism was to strengthen the brethren and feed the sheep.

• discovery of an early contemporary liturgy making reference to Linus as a leader with primacy over other leaders

That would be sweet! However, I am not sure the current prayers we use today were even yet part of the liturgy at the time. The bulk of the liturgy is based on the Jewish synagogue service.

• catacomb inscriptions according Linus similar titles and/or honours as Peter

Do you note that Peter had “titles and honors”? I do not see that in the NT. Yes, they all called him Cephas or Peter after Christ renamed him, except sometimes adding Simon Peter. He was considered a “pillar” of the church, but no more so than any of the other Apostles. When I look at the office of the Papacy today, I think Peter would have felt very silly and out of place! A little Popemobile, a huge palace at the Vatican…

Since it appears that none of these exist (I confess to being unsure about catacomb inscriptions and these would hold the least weight with me unless they were made very close to Linus’ demise) the point appears moot. Hence those with papal presuppositions will accept the papacy of Linus on the basis of those presuppositions and those holding other presuppositions will likely be sceptical.

I do wonder where the early historians got their papal “lists”. I don’t think it was catacombs, though.

Bearing in mind that the teaching of the mustard seed might simply refer to numerical size rather than appearance, the argument proves little.

If that were the case, I think Christ would have used some other metaphore, like a flock of sheep. They still look the same, though there are many more of them. I think the appearance is also relevant.

If I were to mix up six seeds in my hand and then point at six different trees, one would be hard pressed to link seed with tree.

Verily, but Jesus only planted one!

Likewise the possibility that the tree of the modern papacy may have come from an early mustard seed of apostolic church leadership is equally challenging to prove. Others churches claiming apostolic succession have suggested that some papal beliefs have been grafted in. That’s not my axe to grind.

Even those who have been wounded by the misbehavior of popes still to this day affirm the primacy of Peter, and the uniqueness of the Petrine gifts.

Personally, my studies in the New Testament suggest a plurality of episcopal leadership at the local church level as opposed to a monarchical episcopate, hence my interest in this particular subject. To discover evidence that demonstrated that the monarchical episcopate was the Apostles’ intent for the church would cause me to seriously re-evaluate my beliefs.

I think plurality has always been meant, by Jesus, by the Apostles, and by their successors, the Bishops. Ithink it is very clear from the NT teachings and the early fathers that all were expected to be in union with one another, and to move together as one.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Arguments for and against Linus as Pope are arguments from silence in terms of contemporary attestation, so once again we agree to disagree.

Please accept this as charitable admonishment - in the face of the extreme persecution of the early Church this becomes profoundly absurd and even disrespectful to the sufferings of these saints.

You try to apply a contemporary standard from a cushy context of current relative world civility and peace (won on the backs of our persecuted Christian brethren) to demand there be evidence and records etc. to back up every aspect of the church’s history? Come on! That is like saying that unless a scribe journals every man’s life actions or a man does not have a marked grave that contains a shard of bone as evidence to attest to his existence that he did not live. This flies in the face of reason since we know that in the face of heavy persecution and MODERN heresy the church still prevails today; no matter how many saints bones and writings were destroyed and scattered to the winds by God’s enemies and through the chaos in the times of the early church history. If all the original writings save the gnostic ones were destroyed by fire do you think that gnostic scripture would have become scripture? Of course not - the original teachings would have continued through the traditions and eventually repinned and published as canon.

Would you say that the physical presence of a family is insufficient proof that they all had a common ancestral father if there was no photo in a family album? I hope not.

To give some insight into the volatility of the times of the early church consider that the following successive popes are all believed to have been martyred. Also note that there were times where the seat was vacant pending an assignment - that does not mean the succession was severed it just means the recognition of the Vicar of the church was held pending in the collection of ordained bishops until an election could be made.

To wit:
30 to 67 Peter Martyred
(Recognized as the first pope by the Roman Catholic Church.)
64/67(?) to 76/79(?) Linus Martyred
76/79(?) to 88 Anacletus Martyred
88/92 to 97/101 Clement I Martyred
97/99 to 105/107 Evaristus Martyred
105/107 to 115/116 Alexander I Martyred
115/116 to 125 Sixtus I Martyred
125 to 136/138 Telesphorus Martyred
136/138 to 140/142 Hyginus Martyred
140/142 to 155 Pius I Martyred
155 to 166 Anicetus Martyred
166 to 174/175 Soter Martyred
174/175 to 189Eleuterus Martyred
189 to 198/199 Victor I Martyred
199 to 217 Zephyrinus Martyred
c.217 to 222/223 Callixtus I Martyred
222/223 to 230 Urban I Martyred
21 July 230 to 28 September 235 Pontian Martyred
28 September 235 to 21 November 235 interregnum
21 November 235 to 3 January 236 Anterus Martyred
10 January 236 to 20 January 250 Fabian Martyred
6 March/11 March 251 to June 253 Cornelius Martyred
25 June 253 to 5 March 254 Lucius I Martyred
12 May 254 to 2 August 257 Stephen I Martyred
30/31 August 257 to 6 August 258 Sixtus II Martyred

Given the supreme sacrifice by of all these early Catholic Popes for their faith in God is there any reason to wonder there may not be complete written records of every aspect of their office?

James

 

[MarcoPolo]

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

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

Yes. It is the same problem I see throughout this thread. Arguments from plausibility. Not arguments from evidence.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The reason I’m posting in THIS forum and doing research AT ALL is because I want to stay Catholic!

What I haven’t seen yet (and I am still searching for it in various libraries) is EYEWITNESS evidence of Linus’ succession to the office of Pope. I’m not seeing that. I AM seeing controversy among the ECFs of who even WAS pope at Linus’ time (again, Terteullian held that it was Clement and not Linus or Anacletus…). So why should I take Irenaeus’ word for it over Terteullian’s?

You would not stay Catholic unless you can find an eyewitness who saw the Papal Succession of Linus? And if minority variances cause your faith shaken, why be Christian at all? Early Bible manuscripts vary quite often.

It would also be nice to all of us if you would at least acknowledge how we have made a far, far, far better case than your Pastor friend has for his own convictions.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

You would not stay Catholic unless you can find an eyewitness who saw the Papal Succession of Linus? And if minority variances cause your faith shaken, why be Christian at all? Early Bible manuscripts vary quite often.

It would also be nice to all of us if you would at least acknowledge how we have made a far, far, far better case than your Pastor friend has for his own convictions.

I am still Catholic

 

[PC_Master]

You would not stay Catholic unless you can find an eyewitness who saw the Papal Succession of Linus? And if minority variances cause your faith shaken, why be Christian at all? Early Bible manuscripts vary quite often.

It would also be nice to all of us if you would at least acknowledge how we have made a far, far, far better case than your Pastor friend has for his own convictions.

That presupposes that you actually have made a better case, something which I don’t think has been shown at all.

The original question, which you guys keep dancing around and avoiding is not:

A) Was Linus the bishop of Rome after Peter?
B) Was Linus a real person?
C) Was Linus the leader of the Roman Church?

The question actually was…

How do we know that the bishop of Rome was considered the leader of the church in Linus’ day? How do we know Linus held that authority, rather than just being one bishop among many?