A compelling non-Catholic argument

[FCEGM]

I’m not saying he was lying, but that doesn’t mean that he was necessarily correct. By Irenaeus’ time the Roman church had begun to assert itself as an authority, so obviously said Roman church would have a case for itself - and their case is that authority passed from Linus to Anacletus to Clement, etc. I just don’t see how that case can be correct given the total lack of evidence.

Who says there’s a lack of evidence? What you are apparently unaware of is that a) Ireneaus succession list is not his own. Rather, it is based on a list of the succession of bishops (in both Rome and in many other city-churches) made a generation before Ireneaus by the Jewish Christian, St. Hegessipus, whose writings are mostly lost to us, but quoted extensively in Eusebius and other works. Ireneaus would have full access to Hegessipus’ writings, e.g., writing about A.D. 170 (but describing a journey that he took in about 155), Hegessipus says …

“And the church of the Corinthians remained in the true Word until Primus was bishop in Corinth; I made their acquaintance during my journey to Rome, and remained with the Corinthians many days, in which we were refreshed with the true Word. And when I was in Rome, I made a succession up to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And in each succession, and in each city, all is according to the ordinances of the Law and the Prophets and the Lord” (Hegesippus in Euseb., IV, 22).

So, the succession of the Roman church was well document long before Ireneaus’ day. This succession is both well known and taken as a given by other fathers and other churches. For example, writing to Pope Soter in c. A.D. 170, Dionysius of Corinth accepts as a given that Soter is the direct successor of Clement of Rome, who wrote to the Corinthians back in the 1st Century. Dionysius compares Soter’s letter to that of Clement, writing …

“Today we kept the Holy Day, the Lord’s Day (Sunday), and on it we read your letter (Pope Soter’s Epistle). And we shall ever have it with us to give us instruction, even as the former one written through Clement.” (Dionysius Epistle to Pope Soter in Eusebius)

So, again, the succession was apparently well known and appreciated.

As for why the early part of Ireneaus’ list (which runs “Linus, Cletus, Clement”) differs from that of other fathers, and especially the earliest Latin tradition, in which Clement is said to have been the immediate successor of Peter, this is most likely explained by Edmundson, who points out (along with other scholars) that Ireneaus’ objective was not to produce a Papal succession list, but to show that Rome (and the other churches) always had bishops (who could be named in order), and that none of these bishops ever professed anything close to the so-called “secret knowledge from the Apostles” that the Gnostics claimed to possess. This being the likely case, it is quite possible that Linus and Cletus were not true Popes, but bishops in the Roman church during Peter’s lifetime, and who lead the Roman flock when Peter was not personally present in the city. This would allow for the Latin tradition of Clement being Peter’s actual successor, i.e., the first bishop of Rome after Peter’s death. However, the issue of whether or not Linus and Cletus were true Popes - that is, true successors of Peter rather than bishops under Peter - is still a matter of debate among scholars. Until proved otherwise, the presumption remains that Linus was Peter’s immediate successor in Rome.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

What? The NT was written by the apostles and their contemporaries.

How do you know that? Indeed, how do you know that the Gospels themselves were written by the Apostles or the associates of the Apostles apart from the claim of Ireneaus himself, who is the first to tell us that there are only four valid Gospels, and what their origins were. Papias also tells us about the origins of Mark and Matthew. But, it is Ireneaus who gives us the full story - the SAME Ireneaus who gives the succession list for the bishops of Rome.

The apostles did a great deal of writing, and there are written records of this time period in the church history.

Yes; Ireneaus himself. He’s the earliest, and he’s the guy you – or your friend - are calling into question.

It’s clear from the writings of this time that Peter was in charge.

And if this is the case, are you denying that Peter would appoint a successor or that the Church would know who this successor to Peter’s ministry was?

This is in stark contrast with the next generation, when the few writings we have certainly don’t come out of Rome, and there is no record whatsoever of authority being passed to Linus.

Then why did everyone assume Rome’s primacy and authority? Read 1 Clement to the Corinthians (which was accepted as inspired Scripture in Greece for two generations before the Gospel of John was!!). In this, we learn that 1st Century Corinth had appealed to Rome for a solution to their internal schism. Why? Read the Epistle of Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans (A.D. 107), in which he says that Rome “presides in the chief place” and that Rome “has [always] taught others.” Why is this? BTW, the word “presides” that Ignatius uses is the Greek word “prokatomene,” which means an authoritative, jurisdictional power; and this is the meaning of the word whenever Ignatius uses it in his other epistles. Likewise, in the Shepherd of Hermas, Rome is depicted with the authority to send instructions to other churches. Why? Likewise, in A.D. 155, Polycarp traveled all the way from Smyrna (in modern Turkey) to Rome to confer with Pope Anicetus on the dating of Easter and to explain to Anicetus why the Asian churches celebrate Easter on a different date. Polycarp did this at the age of 85! Why? What was explaining the Asians’ position to Rome so important? And, after this, we have the witness of Hegessipus, and Ireneaus, and Dionyius, and others - all of whom clearly (and independently) recognized Rome to possess a primacy of authority. Where did all this come from? Why did not one ever question it or deny it? Indeed, if the primacy of Rome was not recognized universally by all orthodox bishops at the time, AND if this was not always the case by Tradition, then Ireneaus’ who argument against the Gnostics crumbles and is rendered ridiculous. But, that’s not how his argument was regarded at the time; rather, his argument was unquestionably effective and devastating to the Gnostic claims. This alone shows that the Tradition was realistic and sound.

You’d think that if he was in charge of all the bishops, there would be some sort of correspondence between bishops announcing or discussing his authority.

You are thinking in a very secular sense, and not as early Christians thought and behaved. Jesus told the Apostles that “the first will be last” and “He who would be first among you must become as the servant of all.” This is how the early bishops of Rome operated and how they typically exercised their authority - not in a worldly or secular-administrative sense, but in a true Christian spirit. It was only as the Church and the Roman Empire became uneasy bedfellows that the Popes of Rome started to exert their Petrine authority in more aggressive and secular ways; and this was a necessary evil because someone had to stop the Roman Emperors who, according to imperial law were the legal heads of the Roman state religion, from leading the Church into one heresy after another. This is how the medieval-style Papacy came into being. But, even before then, the primacy of the Pope of Rome was unquestionable.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Again, more compellingly, there is no evidence that even HE thought he had authority. In the 12 year period of his reign, I see it as highly unlikely that he would be silent.

Again, you are imposing a secular mentality on early Christians. That is anachronistic and ignorant. Go read 1 Peter 5:1-4. This is how Peter himself, and his immediate successors, exercised their primal authority. They did not beat their own chests or announce their own importance. Rather, they behaved like actual Christians and only “put their foot down” when it became absolutely necessary.

Same with Anacletus. Once again, there is no correspondence to indicate that he rose to power.

The word you use is most telling: “power.” Your view is colored by a secular mentality. Anacletus (AKA Cletus) did not see himself as having “power.” He saw his ministry as a Divine responsibility. Big difference.

If it was believed that he was an authority over the whole church, there would have had to be some sort of communication between bishops announcing this rise to power.

Who says there wasn’t?? And, if you care to look at 1 Clement to the Corinthians, which was written during the reign of Cletus’ apparent successor, you see plenty of references to Clement’s unique authority and his responsibility. First of all, it was clearly the Corinthians who consulted the church of Rome:

“Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.” (1 Clement Chapt. 1)

Why do this? Why consult Rome? What was so special about it? Other churches still had living Apostles in them at this time. Simon was still presiding in Jerusalem, Likewise, John was still alive and apparently still presiding in Ephesus. Indeed, if you read Paul’s first Epistle to the Corinthians, he was based in Ephesus when the Corinthians appealed to him. So, why not continue this custom and appeal to Ephesus? Why appeal to Rome? And, we know that Corinth did not appeal to Ephesus, since the Corinthians themselves (e.g. Dionysius) declare that it was Clement and Rome that brought healing to their schism, not anyone else.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Such communication between bishops about a new bishop in Rome never came to pass until MUCH later.

How can you say that? You have no evidence for such a thing. Indeed, everything that we know about the early Church tells us that there was very efficient communication between the city-churches (thanks to the Roman roads and shipping lanes). Not only did they keep informed about who was governing each respective city-church, but the original custom was to send the remainder of each other’s Eucharists to each other! For example, as St. Ireneaus tells Pope Victor (specifically addressing the dating of Easter and the appropriate duration of Lent, i.e., “the Fast”):

“For the controversy is not merely as regards the day (or Easter), but also as regards the form itself of the Fast (Lent). For some consider themselves bound to fast one day, others two days, others still more, while others [do so during] forty: the diurnal and the nocturnal hours they measure out together as their [fasting] day. And this variety among the observers [of the fasts] had not its origin in our time, but long before in that of our predecessors, some of whom probably, being not very accurate in their observance of it, handed down to posterity the custom as it had, through simplicity or private fancy, been [introduced among them]. And yet nevertheless all these lived in peace, one with another, and we also keep peace together. Thus, in fact, the difference [in observing] the fast establishes the harmony of [our common] Faith. … . Notwithstanding this, those who did not keep [the feast in this way] were peacefully disposed towards those who came to them from other dioceses in which it was [so] observed (although such observance was [felt] in more decided contrariety [as presented] to those who did not fall in with it; and none were ever cast out [of the Church] for this matter. On the contrary, those presbyters who preceded thee (i.e., the earlier Bishop’s of Rome), and who did not observe [this custom], sent the Eucharist to those of other dioceses who did observe it. (Epistle of Ireneaus to Pope Victor)

So, if it was the custom even to send the Eucharist to other churches, not merely in neighboring regions, but in other parts of the known world (in order to signify their unity and full communion), you can be sure that the city-churches knew who each other’s bishops were! That goes without saying; and Ireneaus is adamant that this was the situation from earliest times. Indeed, if this were not the case, then his whole argument to Victor would have collapsed. Victor obviously knew that it was the case that Rome (and other churches) were in the custom of sending the Eucharist to their sister churches throughout the world; and this of course meant church legates, who would carry messages and well wishes to the other churches along with the Eucharist.

. . .if Linus truly was the leader of the entire Christian Church, there could possibly be disagreement among the ECFs just a HUNDRED YEARS after the fact about this historical information.

There was no real or substantial disagreement. Anyone who tells you otherwise is blowing the issue out of proportion and making a big fuss out of a very small thing. In truth, the only “confusion” that exists is the proper succession of the first three Roman bishops after Peter: Linus, Cletus, Clement …with Clement being the Pope in question. Some Church fathers list Clement as Peter’s immediate successor.

continued. . .

 

[FCEGM]

Indeed, this is rooted in the Tradition (found in Tertullian, Hippolytus, Fabian, and elsewhere) which tells us that Clement was a close disciple of both Peter and Paul. Therefore, as patristics scholar John Chapman correctly points out …

"The varieties [of the succession] are as follows:

"Linus, Cletus, Clemens (in Hegesippus, ap. Epiphanium, & the Canon of the
Mass)

"Linus, Anencletus, Clemens (in Irenaeus, Africanus ap. Eusebium).

"Linus, Anacletus, Clemens (in Jerome).

"Linus,Cletus, Anacletus, Clemens (Poem against Marcion)

"Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anacletus [Hippolytus (?), “Liberian Catal.”-
“Liber. Pont.”]

Linus, Clemens, Anacletus (in Optatus & Augustine).

“At the present time, no critic doubts that Cletus, Anacletus, and Anencletus, are the same person. Anacletus is a Latin error; Cletus is a shortened (and more Christian) form of Anencletus. Lightfoot thought that the transposition of Clement in the ‘Liberian Catalogue’ was a mere accident, like the similar error ‘Anicetus, Pius’ for ‘Pius, Anicetus’, further on in the same list. But it may have been a deliberate alteration by Hippolytus, on the ground of the tradition mentioned by Tertullian. St. Irenaeus (III, iii) tells us that Clement ‘saw the blessed Apostles and conversed with them, and had yet ringing in his ears the preaching of the Apostles and had their tradition before his eyes, and not he only for many were then surviving who had been taught by the Apostles’. Similarly Epiphanius tells us (from Hegesippus) that Clement was a contemporary of Peter and Paul.”

So, which is it to be? If Clement was not Peter’s immediate successor, how are we to reconcile the Traditional lists with the Tradition about Peter personally ordaining Clement (as it is found in Tertullian, Hippolytus, Fabian and elsewhere)? Well, either Linus and Cletus were not true Popes, but bishops (sub-bishops) of Rome during Peter’s lifetime, or, St. Clement himself may give us the answer. In his Epistle to the Corinthians 44:1-2, St. Clement writes:

“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…”

Here, St. Clement was most likely talking about himself.

But, either way, the succession is resolved. It’s Linus, Cletus, Clement; and, when some fathers (like Augustine) place Clement just after Peter, this was clearly done to honor the Tradition about Clement being ordained by the Apostle himself, having been a close associate of both Peter and Paul, as is evidenced by both Ireneaus and by Philippians 4:3, where Paul calls Clement his “co-worker.”

 

[wanner47]

Ambrose,

Do you (or your firend) believe in the existance of Socrates?

If either of you do, that’s pretty interesting…

Therefore, the primary sources for the life of Socrates come without any claims of historical veracity. And since there are no known writings by Socrates, historians are faced with the challenge of reconciling the various texts that come from these men to create an accurate and consistent account of the historical Socrates.

(source)

It’s the same with the early popes such as Linus. Whatever writings they may have promulgated have since been lost, so we have to rely on the historical writings of those who knew him, or knew of him, to acertain his place in history.

If your friend believes that Socrates existed, then it’s not too far of a stretch to believe that Linus existed, and that the writings about him are accurate.

 

[pneuma07]

Thanks for the new replies, especially pneuma’s, that was very helpful. 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.

QUOTE]

Dear OnlyAmbrose, you’re welcome.

About the explanation, your friend appears to say then: either we have the hunanimity of bishops ( which we have not), or we have only the NT ( as interpreted by …himself ?). Unfortunately maybe I don’t get what his stance about episcopal authority in general is, yet.
But if, in any case, he points to the NT as the solution to a supposed structural disagreement within the episcopacy, this could only lead IMHO to delusions.

• It was precisely through a substantial agreement within the episcopacy that the inspired books were selected among other ones, so that we and your friend got the NT.
• anything can be said about considering Scripture the only or
  even absolutely primary source of our knowledge about Christ, but that this attitude has produced or is producing agreement and unity
• he can be shown as trusting the Church’s precise *selection *of the 27 books of the NT( she got it right in this major achievement), while making his case on her supposedly biased
  and arbitrary minor and unofficial selection about the listing of whom the ECFs were.
• on the peculiar issue of the historicity of an early Roman primacy, once he disqualifies the witnesses by ECFs, can the issue even be tackled according to him ? He indeed more or less postulates, by the ECFs’ exclusion, that we can know almost nothing ( having removed the little we can know through ECFs ) about the sub-apostolic Church History.

 

[Non_Serviam]

Hi all,

Thanks to steve b for the links, Marco Polo for the list of witnesses and FCEGM for his contribution. Having looked through most of this material before I nonetheless reviewed it this evening. Unfortunately, none of it solidifies the case for Linus as pope.

It provides enough proof to identify Linus as having existed and to place him in the leadership of the church at Rome, but there is nothing explicitly papal about any reference to him until hundreds of years later.

As I stated yesterday, it’s unfortunate that rather than own up to this lack of evidence, some have resorted to repeating “Of course he’s pope” more rapidly, and in a few cases with more volume. (thankfully that hasn’t been the norm)

For those who did put forth some interesting points, some brief replies:

Clement’s “authority” in I Clement: We do know from the text that someone in the church at Corinth asked Clement to intervene in the troubles they were having there. Lacking the original letter and any explicit mention from Clement we can only speculate as to why he was selected.

Catholics have chosen to speculate that is was his universal authority that led to this. Possibly it was. Or it may have been Clement’s character, former association with Paul, his familiarity with some of the individuals involved or many other reasons as well.

Regarding the woe promised those who disobey his words, the simplest explanation is that due to their present ungodly actions they were placing themselves in danger of divine punishment. Clement may be merely pointing out the ultimate result of persistent rebellion. Likewise, the fact of Clement’s epistle being read in the church at Corinth is no more an indication of papal authority than the reading of the epistle of Barnabas and the *didache *in some congregations.

I did find it interesting that one poster used Clement’s epistle as proof of his authority and also Linus’ lack of an epistle as proof of his authority-when presuppositions are running strong, everything can be cited as “proof”.

**Hegesippus **(and by extension Eusebius) This was without a doubt the most interesting item I’ve seen so far. Were his original document to be discovered, it would be of great benefit to all believers. Unfortunately, only traces of the work were quoted-quotes that clearly prove the existence of leadership that came down from the Apostles, but with no distinction being made between episcopal succession in Rome or Corinth.

One is tempted to wonder what else was in the document’s contents that led to Eusebius not quoting more of it, and to it’s not being reproduced by contemporary scribes in his day, but such would only be speculation.

Regarding Eusebius himself, while for the most part his record seems sound, he himself admits to shaping certain events and withholding certain details in more than one section of his history in order to present the church in the best possible light. Likewise, he seems to make no distinction between real documents and forgeries in some sections of his work. It was for this reason that I was so eager to be given contemporary references rather than Eusebius or those who may have quoted him.

Clement/Linus who came first issue Some of the material presented on this topic was also most interesting. Given that I accept both men as church leaders in Rome, it wasn’t necessary to convince me, but did prove useful in letting me see that individuals were open to an overlap in ordination and other solutions.

My solution follows the point made by Irenaeus that Peter and Paul both ordained the first bishops in Rome. If the Apostolic Constitutions are correct and Paul ordained Linus and Peter ordained Clement, then the problem of the textual variants is solved. Of course if one is needing to include Linus in a uniquely Petrine lineage to meet the demands of papal presuppositions, then such a solution is unworkable.

(con’t in next post)

 

[Non_Serviam]

Victor The whole story of Victor and Polycrates is the basis for another of my key reservations about Catholic dogma. I’ve never understood how he could have been canonized given that he explicitly tried to force other bishops to abandon Apostolic teaching and practice. (It is of note that the practice of Victor was never claimed to have Apostolic pedigree) Since Victor wasn’t open to charitably “agreeing to disagree” as Anicetus did with Polycarp, Polycrates rightly told him to “go fly a kite” (rough translation)

When Victor sought to “exert his authority” and excommunicate them, he was “sharply rebuked” by a number of bishops, including Irenaeus. (oddly enough, this was one of Irenaeus’ letters that was seen as important to copy and perpetuate)

For me, the story of Victor is someone who overstepped his authority and worst of all, had the nerve to try and force others to desist from following Apostolic practice.

I recognize that Eusebius may have had a political axe to grind in highlighting divisions between east and west portions of the church, but it is still an incident that left a bad taste in my mouth when I first read of it.

However, I digress. None of these points in and of themselves confirm or deny that Linus was pope. That point is still unconfirmed and it doesn’t appear that it can be, unless one accepts certain presuppositions. Having said this, I believe it is time for me to move on to one of the other reservations I have about Catholic dogma.

I will continue to check out the thread and see if any new information appears, while preparing an initial post for a thread on one of the other topics that perplexes me. I thank everyone for their charity shown here and hope that they will contribute to my future thread if they have pertinent information to share.

Thanks again to the OP for such a useful thread.

 

[PC_Master]

Non Serviam has said pretty much everything I was thinking, and therefore I feel need to add very little to his discourse on the subject. Though I’m not as well researched as he is (having only read portions of the authors in question), I believe that if there was a smoking gun, so to speak, it would have been presented by now.

As Non Serviam said, it is a shame that people aren’t supporting their claims. Such is the case, for example, with this…

Both things are true. Linus was one Bishop among many. He was given the Keys to the Kingdom by Peter.

This immediately begs the question – How do you know Linus was given the keys? Where is it written? What’s the oral story that has been passed down, and how do we know this isn’t an invention of later centuries?

Again, for clarification, there is little or no question that Linus was the bishop of Rome. The question is whether or not the bishop of Rome was recognized (either by himself, or his contemporaries) as leader of the universal church. You all say that the answer is yes, but not a single one of you has shown any written evidence to that effect, making the whole case doubtable.

(Oh, and the comparison with the presidents is apples and oranges. No understanding what the full power of the office might be in the future is one thing – not understanding they had the office at all, would be quite absurd, and is the situation being proposed by some for the early supposed popes.)

 

[CentralFLJames]

Non Serviam has said pretty much everything I was thinking, and therefore I feel need to add very little to his discourse on the subject. Though I’m not as well researched as he is (having only read portions of the authors in question), I believe that if there was a smoking gun, so to speak, it would have been presented by now.

As Non Serviam said, it is a shame that people aren’t supporting their claims. Such is the case, for example, with this…

This immediately begs the question – How do you know Linus was given the keys? Where is it written? What’s the oral story that has been passed down, and how do we know this isn’t an invention of later centuries?

Again, for clarification, there is little or no question that Linus was the bishop of Rome. The question is whether or not the bishop of Rome was recognized (either by himself, or his contemporaries) as leader of the universal church. You all say that the answer is yes, but not a single one of you has shown any written evidence to that effect, making the whole case doubtable.

(Oh, and the comparison with the presidents is apples and oranges. No understanding what the full power of the office might be in the future is one thing – not understanding they had the office at all, would be quite absurd, and is the situation being proposed by some for the early supposed popes.)

Hoboy! Now you all have really done it. With the entire credibility of the Catholic Church now in serious doubt without a tangible proof that Peter didn’t fumble the hand-off during the Papal succession to Linus we should all just go home, open a bible that was compiled centuries downstream of Linus by the Catholic Church and pray. Wait! OMG, we can’t even do that. In killing the Catholic Church you have also killed Sola Scriptura since this means we can’t even trust anything the Catholic Church did in assembling scripture or anyone or thing after Peter! This means we can’t even assume that the enlightenment was correct since that came out of an illicitly formed Catholic Church that had not authority to start with! Where did Luther and the gang get their authority to hijack the now dubious scriptures and those other traditions and teachings he elected to not toss out? OMG! OMG! What have we to put our faith in now since you all just drove a wooden stake into the heart of Protestantism too? What’s left - Islam, Judaism?!!

Thanks for single handily taking out the only hope humanity had.

Spoken in the manner of The Wicked Witch in Oz: ‘Look what you’ve done!! Our faith is melting, melting. Ohhhhh, what a world, what a world. Who would have thought that some little minor foot note in history argued just for fun to buck the authority of The Church could destroy all the beautiful wickedness of human invention!’

Just kidding. This is all pragmatically meaningless of course - except to heretics, schismatics and those academically interested in history.

James

 

[MarcoPolo]

It provides enough proof to identify Linus as having existed and to place him in the leadership of the church at Rome, but there is nothing explicitly papal about any reference to him until hundreds of years later.

Were his original document to be discovered, it would be of great benefit to all believers.

Hey, you’re farther along than most Fundamentalists! At least you understand there were men in authority in the early Church! Maybe you don’t believe in the Catholic Church as the One True Church, and that is fine for now. As a Catholic I recommend proceeding to studies on the development of doctrine (and here for Newman’s take…I haven’t read it all but Newman is very good and I think you will like him) to see why Linus’ office was indeed papal. Again I remind you of the absence of outcry when writings pointing to Roman authority were first made (and when there eventually was…who had the authority, like in Acts 15, to settle the matter???..).

As to explicit definitions coming centuries later, there is a whole lot more than a definition of the Papacy that didn’t come until centuries later when it comes to Christian doctrine. Details on the Incarnation, settling Arianism…even the explicit notion of Protestant Rapture comes to mind, articulated some 1800+ years later… Perhaps you accept none of that either, but I am just pointing it out.

As to your comment about original documents discovered…remember what I said about Scripture. Not only do we not know who wrote a number of books in the Bible…but we don’t have those originals either. And there are variations among a number of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we do have.

But then again, you go by Non Serviam, so I hope you are indeed open to the further study on any of this…

 

[PC_Master]

Hoboy! Now you all have really done it. With the entire credibility of the Catholic Church now in serious doubt without a tangible proof that Peter didn’t fumble the hand-off during the Papal succession to Linus we should all just go home, open a bible that was compiled centuries downstream of Linus by the Catholic Church and pray. Wait! OMG, we can’t even do that. In killing the Catholic Church you have also killed Sola Scriptura since this means we can’t even trust anything the Catholic Church did in assembling scripture or anyone or thing after Peter! This means we can’t even assume that the enlightenment was correct since that came out of an illicitly formed Catholic Church that had not authority to start with! Where did Luther and the gang get their authority to hijack the now dubious scriptures and those other traditions and teachings he elected to not toss out? OMG! OMG! What have we to put our faith in now since you all just drove a wooden stake into the heart of Protestantism too? What’s left - Islam, Judaism?!!

Thanks for single handily taking out the only hope humanity had.

Could you possibly just stay on topic, rather than trying to win an argument (which is what this seems to be for you, rather than an honest discussion of beliefs) by attrition? This is essentially a red herring.

There are a number of rather large flaws in your argument, by the way, but they are well beyond the original topic of this thread. If you don’t have the evidence the original poster was looking for, just say “I don’t have anything explicit, but I still believe Linus was a pope.” Not being able to prove your beliefs is fine – it doesn’t mean your beliefs are wrong. All it does is fail to convince those of us who doubt those beliefs.

Now, is there explicit proof of Linus being considered, either by himself or his contemporaries, as ruler of the universal church, and not merely as one bishop among many…or isn’t there? (If you can’t address this, let’s at least try to address Cletus or Clement in this regard.)

But above all else, let’s stay on the topic at hand. While there are reasonable defenses against all of the points you’ve raised (though I’m sure you don’t think there are), to provide them here would take us way off-topic, and I don’t think that’s polite or appropriate given the forum rules.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Could you possibly just stay on topic, rather than trying to win an argument (which is what this seems to be for you, rather than an honest discussion of beliefs) by attrition? This is essentially a red herring.

Honestly, do you really think its not “on topic” to present a trial “strawman capitulation”? I wanted to pre-peak post “end-game” discussion outcome to “what-if” and project what the implications of a “win” are for the anti-Catholic side of this debate.

The motive here is to demonstrate a principal. That principal is that it may be irresponsible & supreme folly to robustly take the antagonistic side (anti-Catholic) of this line of argument and open Pandora’s box to its full logical conclusion. What is there to be gained verses what is there to be risked in committing much perspiration to this question?

What if the proper or improper concession of this question is made to favor of the antagonist side & it leads to an outcome that is self defeating to both parties? That suggests that it might be better to table the question or admit the natural bias-trap compelling a finding in favor for the protagonist case; since clearly, only a fool should willingly argue to his own self condemnation and destruction. I have surmised that to continue to persecute the case down the antagonistic side of this question is like the dog chasing its own tail. Lack of evidence does not prove anything other than incompetence in record keeping or the competence of those who persecuted the early church. If the dog catches it’s tail what then?

Thus a mutually self defeating argument such as this one is very much a Pandora’s Box in one case but not necessary to the faith of the other case. What’s to be gained? This is the very kind of situation that calls for a charitable “poisoned pot” defense by the protagonist side. In fact it is is morally valid, honorable and even charitable to preempt a neighbor committed to his own ruin. But additionally - its a valid debating mechanism as well that can’t be rightfully denied as these forums have been recast from teaching and sharing faith to open debate and challenge to Church Teaching.

As a minor concession to your complaint I will say that at this point I firmly believe that God operating through His Holy Spirit and the authority passed through St. Peter has given us exactly the proper succession of popes that we have today. The first 30 or so were all martyred. That very common Baptism in Blood tells me that all were hated by God’s enemies and were men who died for what they believed in. None of these, nor anyone distant to them following in their teaching would be of a nature to want to fabricate the history or accounts of succession. What profits a man for dieing for deceit or a lie? The pattern of God’s enemies attacking and murdering the head of the Church for about 30 successive popes is compelling enough testament to who was important in the eyes of God’s enemies - the leadership.

Now I am torn in action on how further to proceed here. While Catholics may have a compelling desire to more fully know their early history I am at odds with conscience in entertaining dialog with those who debate in this area to make a case for dividing the Church or impugning it. The same early church fathers and religious men from whom we seek in this discussion to give us “evidence” for “Linus as pope” are the very same who admonish us that Heretics, According to the Apostle, are Not to Be Disputed With, But to Be Admonished - Tertullian.
Apostolic Sanction to This Exclusion of Heretics Ch. XVI:

I might be thought to have laid down this position to remedy distrust in my case, or from a desire of entering on the contest in some other way, were there not reasons on my side, especially this, that our faith owes deference to the apostle, who forbids us to enter on “questions,” or to lend our ears to new-fangled statements, or to consort with a heretic “after the first and second admonition,” not, (be it observed,) after discussion. Discussion he has inhibited in this way, by designating admonition as the purpose of dealing with a heretic, and the first one too, because he is not a Christian; in order that he might not, after the manner of a Christian, seem to require correction again and again, and “before two or three witnesses,” seeing that he ought to be corrected, for the very reason that he is not to be disputed with; and in the next place, because a controversy over the Scriptures can, clearly, produce no other effect than help to upset either the stomach or the brain.

Lacking at hand evidence would you not say that its anti-Catholic to give the benefit of the doubt to error over the assumption that The Church forefathers lived and died for what they believed in? If not then there is something here more fishy than red-herring.

James

 

[PC_Master]

You make some valid points, but it’s still off-topic content.

There’s an easy and simple solution to this – start a new thread on the topics you wish to address. I’ll even read and respond to it if you’d like, and I encourage you to link to it from this thread so that those wishing to follow that chain of discussion (which includes myself) can do so.

That way, you can continue in the discussion that seems most meaningful to you, and those that wish to go after the intended topic of this thread can do so as well. Whether or not the end result is shooting Protestantism in the foot (or both feet and the head – we can’t really say until we ascertain the truth of this matter) to follow this course to its finish, I sincerely would like to continue discussing the original topic of this thread, and I think it’s inappropriate for the other topics you wish to bring up (which are indeed valid and connected to this topic) to be discussed here.

Thus, I’m asking you – please take that off-topic content, and start a new thread with it.

Thank you, in advance. (I think I probably speak on behalf of others, like the OP, who want to answer the intended topic of this thread.) Let’s try to work together to discuss that which we each are interested in without fighting with one another, okay?

 

[Chancellare]

First he asked me to explain why I believe in the primacy of Rome.
He then asked me how I knew that the apostles passed authority to Linus.

So… that being said, how do we justify Roman authority?

Further readings about OP’s question, led me to retrace the thread from the non-existence of Linus back to Apostolic Succession which leads to Papal succession. This leads me to to a particular question raised by doubters as quoted from the pages of Scriptures:
“By whose authority do you do these things?”

My readings led me to conclude that the Authority handed down from Jesus Christ to the Apostles down to the succeeding Church Fathers down to the present Papacy is solidly supported not only by history but by Scriptures:

Scripture shows that only the Apostles are “entrusted” with the care of the Gospel message:

• St. Paul
  o “…they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised.”(Gal. 2:7)
• St. Timothy
  o “Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians… we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel.” (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:4)
  o “O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you.” (1 Tim. 6:20)

At this point one might say that St. Timothy was not among the 12 Apostles but you must concede that Scripture clearly calls St. Timothy an apostle, thereby attesting to his apostolic authority:

"Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians... nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ." (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:6)

It is not only St. Timothy who is called an apostle by Sacred Scripture, but also St. Barnabus, Apollos, and St. Titus:
St Barnabus - (Acts 14:14)
Apollos -(1 Cor. 3:6, 8)
Same with Titus with similar citations.

This shows that the message possessed by the Apostles were “entrusted” to them, i.e., given to them, and not taken by them on their own initiative. This is completely in keeping with the restriction imposed by Heb. 5:4.

Now back to the OP: how is this Gospel and apostolic authority passed on? Is it passed on at all? After the death of the last Apostle, can any individual who feels “called” by God simply take up the mission and message and carry on where the Apostles left off?
The answer to this question is plainly “no,” as we have already begun to see from Scripture. So this eliminates first the claims of other sects who cannot trace their apostolic succession from Jesus Christ because the mission and the message can only be passed on by someone who first possessed it. That is, the mission does not merely entail preaching the message, but with it comes the authority to spiritually “reproduce” and pass on the necessary authority to the next generation.
At this point the processes looks more like this:
* God is the source of this mission and authority
* He passes it to Jesus (“the Father has sent me… all authority has been given to me”)
* Jesus passes it on - along with “all authority” to act “in my name” - to the Apostles (“as the Father has sent me, * so I send you,” “go and make disciples”)
* The Apostles pass the mission and authority on to men like St. Timothy and St. Titus (“with all authority” Tit 2:15)
* The second apostolic generation is expected to entrust the mission to the next generation, ad infinitum

It should be clear at this point that the first generation of Apostles takes care to not only pass along the message, but also creates new pastors with apostolic authority to continue transmitting the message:
“And when they [Ss. Paul and Barnabus] had appointed elders for them in every church, with prayer and fasting they committed them to the Lord in whom they believed.” (Acts 14:23)
Same with (Tit. 1:5; 2 Tim. 2:2)

We must emphasize at this point that Scriptures used the word “entrust” in this last passage. St. Paul expects that St. Timothy will “guard what has been entrusted” to him, and then later “entrust” that same mission and authority “to faithful men.”
The rest as they call it is history:
Historical evidence show that the process happened inexorably along the succession lines from apostles to second generation apostles and on to the ECFs. This process did not end or continue solely on the existence or non existence of Linus as an ordinary Bishop of Rome but continued the succession lines as described above.

In contrast, many “pastors” from other sects claim their titles for themselves without being able to trace “by whose authority” they claim to be.
IMHO this is the bottomline for those who aim at disproving apostolic succession by simply disproving Linus.*

 

[CentralFLJames]

You make some valid points, but it’s still off-topic content.

There’s an easy and simple solution to this – start a new thread on the topics you wish to address. I’ll even read and respond to it if you’d like, and I encourage you to link to it from this thread so that those wishing to follow that chain of discussion (which includes myself) can do so.

That way, you can continue in the discussion that seems most meaningful to you, and those that wish to go after the intended topic of this thread can do so as well. Whether or not the end result is shooting Protestantism in the foot (or both feet and the head – we can’t really say until we ascertain the truth of this matter) to follow this course to its finish, I sincerely would like to continue discussing the original topic of this thread, and I think it’s inappropriate for the other topics you wish to bring up (which are indeed valid and connected to this topic) to be discussed here.

Thus, I’m asking you – please take that off-topic content, and start a new thread with it.

Thank you, in advance. (I think I probably speak on behalf of others, like the OP, who want to answer the intended topic of this thread.) Let’s try to work together to discuss that which we each are interested in without fighting with one another, okay?

I admit as a Catholic that I find it disconcerting that the very first succession from Peter we do not apparently have at hand hard evidence of a hand-off to a specific 2nd Pope. An irrefutable and concrete first instance evidence of the succession would have definitively and irrevocably established the inference of the scriptural principal by action. Nonetheless, in awareness to the fact that save Paul, the early apostles were very common men (fishermen etc.) that lacked certain administrative knowledge skills and methodologies. In these days men of God looked each other eye to eye, spoke their truths with conviction and shook calloused and dirty hands with firm handshakes. Such men did not spend a lot of time “writing” a lot of administrative things down - the gospel needed to be preached, people needed baptisms and new bishops needed to be ordained and set up and heresies were popping up left and right. In the early church these were times of high persecution and poor record keeping of administrative affairs as well as limited places to deposit a library of writings. Even paper and parchment I believe were recycled.

That said, “OK - I will try to limit my comments here to the more narrow topic”. But I don’t anticipate we will find any direct hard evidence any more so than we will find the grave sites or bishop signet rings and other things that came along much later. These early leaders expected Jesus’ second coming to be imminent - not distant. Who knows what exists in the huge repository of Vatican library manuscripts though. We know that there is data and writing there that has been miscatalogued and “missing” (e.g. the recent discovery of the writs of innocence exonerating the Templar Knights of heresy charges instigated by the King of France to relief himself of the large indebtedness to them). It would not surprise me in the least if we do have other private information. But in any case I personally don’t need the proof anymore so than I need physical proof of the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist nor in the spiritual marks imprinted during baptism.

Amen.
James

 

[guanophore]

Now, is there explicit proof of Linus being considered, either by himself or his contemporaries, as ruler of the universal church, and not merely as one bishop among many…or isn’t there?

This is the wrong question to ask. This is not the type of leadership model Jesus used, and it is not the one that would have been passed on by Peter, who was a very humble man (at least by the time of the epistles).

 

[steve_b]

Hi all,

Thanks to steve b for the links, Marco Polo for the list of witnesses and FCEGM for his contribution. Having looked through most of this material before I nonetheless reviewed it this evening. Unfortunately, none of it solidifies the case for Linus as pope.

[snip]

My solution follows the point made by Irenaeus that Peter and Paul both ordained the first bishops in Rome. If the Apostolic Constitutions are correct and Paul ordained Linus and Peter ordained Clement, then the problem of the textual variants is solved. Of course if one is needing to include Linus in a uniquely Petrine lineage to meet the demands of papal presuppositions, then such a solution is unworkable.

What apostolic constitutions are you speaking of?

 

[Non_Serviam]

What apostolic constitutions are you speaking of?

steve b,

I’m headed out of town for work, so I can only answer briefly. The Apostolic Constitutions are a mixed bag of documents, many claiming apostolic origins, that touch on early tradition, church government and legislation. Various scholars have come to various conclusions as to which parts of them may be authentic, hence my use of “if”. If you’d like more information, good starting places would be:

wikipedia

The Catholic Encyclopedia

The documents themselves

I hope this is helpful-take care.