I think you know already that Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy [II Tim 4:21]. His successor was Anacletus."
Dear OnlyAmbrose and everyone,
I hope I've lurked the thread enough not to repeat too many issues which have already been settled.:)
) telling you how strong the roots of catholicism ( and orthodoxy) are through history, and how nothing else (among which his own beliefs) can claim anything even comparable. You don’t even have to ask him: “Tell me then please, where **your **Fathers are”.
I’m just curious…have you ever drawn a timeline of the lives of each of these guys?
Assume for the moment that Linus was NOT considered the leader of the Church during Linus’ own day. What does that matter? All that does matter is that he WAS the successor of Peter (whether he realized it or not) and that he, in turn, was succeeded by Anacletus. Is it really necessary for Linus to have understood his election to the chair of Peter and his own infallibility in order for him to have served as Pope?
Just a few things I’d like to reply to:His stance isn’t that any doctrine should be held as true by all bishops, his stance is that since no (basically) doctrine has ever been held true by all bishops, we should simply refer back only to the writings of the apostles.
If Linus didn’t know he was Pope, then obviously the apostles never passed authority to him. And if he didn’t receive his authority from the apostles (who received theirs from Christ), then I can’t see a clear line between the pope and Christ. We can’t just arbitrarily pick a person and say “he was pope. he just didn’t know it.”
While I agree, it seems odd to think that Tertullian wouldn’t know the leaders of the early church in proper order. After all, even though many citizens of the US can’t name them all, they can at least name the first several.
I don’t think it even matters too much in regards to Linus in particular. The main point is that whoever it was that was the second bishop of Rome seems to have left no indications that he actually was in charge of the whole church, rather than strictly being the bishop of Rome. The only thing we can do to get that picture is to read history backwards.
It matters because it demonstrates that the papacy was a later invention of the bishops of Rome, rather than what Christ himself instituted.
Is it really necessary for a king, president, or other leader to understand their own position to serve in that position? I’d say that must be answered with an emphatic yes.
What’s the difference between being bishop and being the pope? Is it not entirely in the extra duties/privileges that come with it? And if none of those are understood or exercised…how can it be said that the office was held?
I have memorized the first five popes for the sake of apologetics argument…I could not name the first five presidents in proper order.
Okay…one of these two men was wrong about the sequence. So what? The important point is that there WAS a correct sequence…only one man WAS the pope at any give time (this principle extends to the time of the anti-popes) because there was only one Bishop of Rome at any given time even if Tertullian (or Irenaeus) did not name them in proper order. FWIW, my money’s on Irenaeus.
Whether Linus understood that he was head of the entire Church during his bishopric/pontificate matters not a whit. He WAS the head of the entire Church even if he didn’t realize it. Either way, this reality has become unquestionably clear.
To the contrary…the authority invested in Peter (and his successors) by Christ forms the ONLY basis for the papacy - later inventions notwithstanding. As you know, MANY theological concepts have taken hundreds of years to mature and become evident. If the fullness of the papacy (and papal infallibility) required some passage of time to ripen, so be it. As the Lord Himself said, “there are many things I would like to tell you, more than you can now bear.”
Easily spoken NOW. But did Washington foresee the awesome responsibility wielded by a later president who had to determine whether to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki? I think not. The fact that Washington or Adams or Jefferson did not understand the full authority granted to them by the constitution in their own day does not make them lesser presidents or void their presidencies completely. Over time, the separation of powers and the authority of the executive branch of our government has been more clearly defined.
The office does not depend upon the exercise of privilege or the carrying out of duties. The office of pope has been filled by men who, sadly, had little regard for the spiritual welfare of the Church. Yet, they were validly elected as successors nonetheless.
In a largely illiterate society, and considering that Peter himself was considered to be illiterate, at least at the time of Pentecost ("… who are these unlearned men …?") - although perhaps he did the first century equivalent of an adult literacy program after being accused of being “unlearned” - but it seems unlikely to me that someone immersed in an oral culture would entrust something that important solely to the written word.
The Church was not “playing telephone” in any way that would be fun for kids to play today. What the Church did was it repeated the message many times, out loud, so that the first, second, and third people in line (representing generations) could hear it. Then, each generation repeated it, with the succeeding two generations repeating back what they heard from the original, as well.
Thanks for reading my previous post and noting that I don’t have a problem with Petrine primacy (subject to proper definition-another thread, another time)
, the existence of Linus, is having a leadership role, etc. Some have posted trying to convince me of these things when they haven’t been an issue for me.
Thanks goodness for those those Catholics who quickly distanced themselves from this solution and what it would mean for the church. I trust it is also proving beneficial to the OP, who has my appreciation for creating such a great thread.I’ve concurred in previous posts that there is a need for leadership and that Peter almost certainly made provision for that. Teaching and correct praxis would be a key part of any such leadership transfer. Having said that, such leadership preparation neither diminishes the importance of Peter’s contributions to Scripture, nor implies the necessity of a Pope. Linus functioned as a bishop for certain, but I don’t see evidence for any more than that.
Yet, in theory, all other legal texts as well as the actions of citizens and residents are reviewed against the contents of the Constitution should the need arise.
Unity of the Bishops was of paramount importance to Christ, and also to those who directly followed after the Apostles - indeed, the letter of Clement to the Corinthians goes on at great length on this very subject. One rather obvious way to unify them (and it seems to me that this actually seems to have occurred to Christ Himself, when I read John 21:15-19) is to provide from among them one who is recognized to be their leader, to whom they take their concerns, and from whom they receive direction.
These traditions tend to be passed on orally - my parents were heavily involved in politics, but I don’t remember them reading anything but Hansard’s (the daily summaries of the various parliamentary bodies, whenever they were in session) - everything else, they learned from those around them, through conversation.With regard to the issue of details in documents, neither the American nor the Canadian constitution explain how to deliver mail, levy taxes, fight wars or make empty promises to citizens.
Of course, neither the Canadian Constitution nor the Canadian way of life have the promise of the Holy Spirit, either.(having brought up Supreme Courts, I’ve always thought that both the Canadian and American Supreme Courts provide object lessons of the troubles that can occur when a group of individuals who believe in a “living tradition” are the final authority in interpreting a document of that import)
Both things are true. Linus was one Bishop among many. He was given the Keys to the Kingdom by Peter.
Already laid out in scripture. When Jesus spoke to Peter in Jn 21:16, after the resurrection, He said to Peter alone, but in front of all the apostles, to feed and rule His Church. The second time Jesus says to Peter feed my sheep, the word in Greek is poimaino which means to rule. And we see this in writings of the ECF’s
Jesus gave the power to bind and loose to His Church but to Peter in a specific way… You know the scripture passages I’m referring to
Only Peter was renamed Rock. That doesn’t mean Peter’s successors aren’t really successors or don’t have authority over the Church.
The fact He’s successor to Peter is enough.
poke around the link given. I think you’ll find many of your questions answered.
Bad example. The point is, an acorn develops into an oak tree, not a redwood. Seeds grow true to type.
Fire… ready… aim!!!
Referring to Orthodox perhaps?
If you’re really serious about remaining Catholic, the link provided here is loaded with material that one should read. Here is the home pagePersonally, 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.
Super!I am still Catholic
I have a couple other thoughts on the matter…:
We have a far better case for Papal succession, and he should become Catholic.