A compelling non-Catholic argument

[PC_Master]

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).

Please excuse my poor choice of words. Replace “ruler” with “leader” or “pope” or “chief apostle” or some other word of your choice to reflect the office you believe the bishop of Rome held.

My question remains – is there, or is there not, evidence that Linus, or any of his contemporaries, considered him to hold that office/position/charism/gift/whatever, above and beyond being one bishop among many?

Or, in lay-man’s terms – Did Linus know he was the pope? Did others of his day know he was the pope? How can you prove it (without referring to writings by people who did not live in the same time as Linus)?

 

[jmcrae]

Please excuse my poor choice of words. Replace “ruler” with “leader” or “pope” or “chief apostle” or some other word of your choice to reflect the office you believe the bishop of Rome held.

My question remains – is there, or is there not, evidence that Linus, or any of his contemporaries, considered him to hold that office/position/charism/gift/whatever, above and beyond being one bishop among many?

Or, in lay-man’s terms – Did Linus know he was the pope? Did others of his day know he was the pope? How can you prove it (without referring to writings by people who did not live in the same time as Linus)?

We have no way of knowing, but Clement did, and surely Linus was the one who told him? Or else Anacletus.

 

[Chancellare]

My question remains – is there, or is there not, evidence that Linus, or any of his contemporaries, considered him to hold that office/position/charism/gift/whatever, above and beyond being one bishop among many?

The Bishop of Rome, regardless of who he was at a particular time has always been the leader held in high esteem by the other Bishops.

 

[CentralFLJames]

Please excuse my poor choice of words. Replace “ruler” with “leader” or “pope” or “chief apostle” or some other word of your choice to reflect the office you believe the bishop of Rome held.

My question remains – is there, or is there not, evidence that Linus, or any of his contemporaries, considered him to hold that office/position/charism/gift/whatever, above and beyond being one bishop among many?

Or, in lay-man’s terms – Did Linus know he was the pope? Did others of his day know he was the pope? How can you prove it (without referring to writings by people who did not live in the same time as Linus)?

There is evidence but not evidence that you will likely accept. But who has the burden of proof here and do you think we are in some kind of quasi-judicial proceeding? If so what are the charges you bring against God’s Catholic Church? Are you a self appointed prosecutor? What is the purpose for this line of challenge to the leadership of the Catholic Church? Do you propose to replace it with something else of your own design or just usurp the traditional order and give it to somone else? Will you convert to Catholicism if evidence is presented that proves Linus was designated as the 2nd head of the Church?

The evidence that is at hand is in the absence of any evidence that challenges the traditional succession given. If you are here to persecute the Church by calling it fraudulent by what evidence do you make this 2,000 year distant claim? The Catholic Church and all the faithful (10’s of billions of people over the intervening centuries) have never seen fit for 2000 years to challenge the succession of Popes. Why would somone not of the Catholic faith take it upon themselves to suddenly seek to challenge this and for what purpose?

If you are a man of faith as you claim you are why can’t you accept the only evidence you hold valid (scripture written and assembled by the Catholic Church)?

to wit:
MATTHEW 16:17-19
Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Do you doubt God’s words or do you seek here to test the gates or claim the keys and give them to somone else?

If scripture is not sufficient then use Tertullian’s line of reasoning about tradition. His logic is unassailable in concluding that by absence of disagreement within the Churches, their tradition is secure, for they could not all have strayed by chance into the same error (Praescr., xxviii) .

Are you forming a new opinion here that makes you think you are part of our Catholic Church and have a voice at the Bishop level?

What do you have to offer that can assail God’s scriptural promise, 2000 years of tradition and the profound intellect and scholarship of men such as Tertullian to prevail against God’s Catholic Church and its leaders?

So far, neither Satan nor any heretical man has succeeded in usurping and prevailing against the Catholic Church. Given the track record only somone betting on long shots would go against the proven leader that has stood the test of time.

Sorry, my bet is that The Catholic Church has it right.

James

 

[Ignatius]

Or, in lay-man’s terms – Did Linus know he was the pope?

It seems plain enough that, through the laying on of hands by St. Peter, he would have been fully aware of his duties as the servant of the servants of God; which is what the office really is.

 

[PC_Master]

We have no way of knowing, but Clement did, and surely Linus was the one who told him? Or else Anacletus.

Really?

1. How do you know Clement (or any of his contemporaries) thought him to be the pope, and not simply the bishop of Rome.

The Bishop of Rome, regardless of who he was at a particular time has always been the leader held in high esteem by the other Bishops.

That’s a nice claim, but you have presented no evidence at all to support it.

There is evidence but not evidence that you will likely accept.

Present it already! That’s what this thread is about – evidence contemporary to Linus that explicitly shows he was the leader of the church. I personally would even accept such evidence all the way out to Clement at least, or one of his contemporaries, if it explicitly demonstrated the papacy.

But who has the burden of proof here…

Traditionally, logic says that the person making the affirmative claim (that X happened or is true) has the burden of proof on their shoulders – the general idea is that it’s very hard to prove a negative. This is true, though I certainly don’t hold this to be an absolute truth – there are times when a negative can be proved, though usually that involves affirmative claims that contradict that which is being negated, so I guess even that is only proving affirmations, not negations.

You say “Linus was the second pope”. I say “He was the bishop of Rome, but there was no recognition by him or his contemporaries of him being the pope”. For you to prove your case, you need only one piece of evidence – a contemporary witness to the leadership of Linus over the whole church. For me…I can’t really prove it. All I can do is say that in every text I’ve consulted, I see no evidence of it. You’re the only one who possibly can prove your case. That you have not done so stands against your claims. My failure to prove anything does not, because logic suggests that there should be no evidence for or against the papacy if it didn’t exist in that day, and thus me finding nothing reflects history perfectly well.

…and do you think we are in some kind of quasi-judicial proceeding? If so what are the charges you bring against God’s Catholic Church?

I wouldn’t call it that, so much as logical exploration of church history to discover the truth. If I were making charges, I would charge that the RCC has falsely interpreted history to show that Linus was a pope, when in fact he was not. However, trying to apply this to a judicial setting makes very little sense.

Are you a self appointed prosecutor?

I am an individual who has decided to search for truth as it relates to God and his church. There is no other way to handle such than to do it myself. It’s the same process you no-doubt went through at some point in your life.

What is the purpose for this line of challenge to the leadership of the Catholic Church? Do you propose to replace it with something else of your own design or just usurp the traditional order and give it to somone else?

The purpose is only to find out what the truth is. I have no malicious intention of subverting the truth with my own system. I simply wish to find out what God established and what he intended for those who wish to follow him, and then do it.

Will you convert to Catholicism if evidence is presented that proves Linus was designated as the 2nd head of the Church?

Such evidence would certainly be a huge step toward convincing me of the validity of the papacy. It’s certainly not enough, on it’s own to convert me to the RCC in specific, but it definitely would help to establish my belief in a single authoritative leader of the church.

Continued…

 

[PC_Master]

The evidence that is at hand is in the absence of any evidence that challenges the traditional succession given.

That’s sophistry. If such an office did not exist in that day, there would be no contemporary challenges to the validity of it. It’s interesting that the counter-arguments we see against the papacy only crop up in later centuries, which would seem to indicate that the papacy only cropped up over time, and was not present in the beginning. A lack of challenges only usually accompanies a lack of a given claim.

On the other hand, we also have no texts affirming the office in question that are contemporary to Linus (or even up through Clement).

The rest of your post is simply off-topic again. Therefore, I choose not to respond to it. The usual diatribe about “the RCC has a 2000 year history – how dare you try to contradict it” is not believed by me, so telling me this over and over serves little purpose in this argument, except to try to grab some traction and minimize attention to the fact that you have no proof that Linus or his contemporaries considered him to be pope.

As I said, this in itself does not disprove your belief, but it also does nothing to help convince me that you’re right, either.

If you are a man of faith as you claim you are why can’t you accept the only evidence you hold valid (scripture written and assembled by the Catholic Church)?

I do – I just don’t accept the Roman Catholic interpretation thereof.

It seems plain enough that, through the laying on of hands by St. Peter, he would have been fully aware of his duties as the servant of the servants of God; which is what the office really is.

I see, and this is written down where? I imagine Peter laid hands on many, ordaining them. Were they all popes at the same time, or did the papacy transfer only after Peter died?

Again, you’re claiming an understanding of Linus based on no evidence. That’s really not fair.

 

[jmcrae]

Really?

1. How do you know Clement (or any of his contemporaries) thought him to be the pope, and not simply the bishop of Rome.

St. Clement thought himself to be Pope. Someone - one of the possible three - St. Peter, St. Linus, or St. Anacletus - told him that he was the Pope. Does it matter, really, at this stage, which one of the three it was who appointed him?

Less than 100 years later, St. Irenaeus placed St. Linus and St. Anacletus in between St. Peter and St. Clement - and he probably had very sound historical reasons for doing so. We don’t really have anything at this late stage of the game to say, either way, so what makes the most sense is to believe him. In any case, we have been proceding on that assumption for the past nearly-2,000 years, and we are still here, having outlived the rise and fall of three world civilizations and an uncountable number of localized Empires, in the meantime.

(To put it into perspective, when St. Clement was Pope of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, my ancestors were living in caves, painting themselves blue, and trying to figure out how this “fire” thing works.)

 

[CentralFLJames]

.

Traditionally, logic says that the person making the affirmative claim (that X happened or is true) has the burden of proof on their shoulders – the general idea is that it’s very hard to prove a negative. This is true, though I certainly don’t hold this to be an absolute truth – there are times when a negative can be proved, though usually that involves affirmative claims that contradict that which is being negated, so I guess even that is only proving affirmations, not negations.

Funny, tell that to most women who had children to prove it and they will look at you funny.

But are you signaling that you are finally coming around to the validity of tradition now or only secular tradition?

James

 

[PC_Master]

St. Clement thought himself to be Pope.

Care to share some proof, if you please?

Someone - one of the possible three - St. Peter, St. Linus, or St. Anacletus - told him that he was the Pope. Does it matter, really, at this stage, which one of the three it was who appointed him?

Not at all – what does matter is that there seems to be no proof that any of them actually told him this. Where’s your evidence?

Less than 100 years later, St. Irenaeus placed St. Linus and St. Anacletus in between St. Peter and St. Clement - and he probably had very sound historical reasons for doing so. We don’t really have anything at this late stage of the game to say, either way, so what makes the most sense is to believe him. In any case, we have been proceding on that assumption for the past nearly-2,000 years, and we are still here, having outlived the rise and fall of three world civilizations and an uncountable number of localized Empires, in the meantime.

And I don’t argue against this lineage at all! All I’m arguing is that these individuals were only the bishop of Rome, and not the head of the entire church. There is actually a difference.

Funny, tell that to most women who had children to prove it and they will look at you funny.

And then they show you pictures of the child, or show you the child itself – it’s called evidence. Further evidence might include a birth certificate with the child and parent’s names on it (thus proving the child wasn’t adopted). See, this is what I’m looking for – real, tangible proof.

If I say to you that I’m a father, would you believe me? The fact of the matter is that I am not a father. But what if down the road someone thinks I was at this time? Of course, it’d be reasonable to ask them for proof, would it not? This is all I’m doing – asking for proof of a claim.

You claim that Linus was the second bishop of Rome. I agree. Irenaeus, among others, serve as testimony to that.
You claim that Linus was also pastor of the entire church, holding a primacy above all other bishops. I disagree. Thus, it’s very reasonable to provide evidence to support the claim.

But are you signaling that you are finally coming around to the validity of tradition now or only secular tradition?

No, I’m saying that I do, and always have, accepted historical sources of reasonable credibility and antiquity. Contemporary accounts are highest among these, obviously.

At this point, I’m simply going to assume that you have no evidence to present (aside from that which demonstrates Linus was bishop of Rome – a point which is not in contention by me). All that’s left is to see if anyone else has such evidence, and if not, to move on to another topic – perhaps including later historical accounts of the early bishops of Rome, to determine at which point mentions of their primacy over others came into being.

 

[Chancellare]

This thread is reaching a loose end. Non-Catholic opinions will maintain that there is no evidence on Linus. No amount of historical citations and testimonies from ECFs will convince them.
Yet, according to Federal Rules of Evidence, (Rule 701, Opinion Testimonies by Lay Witnesses and Rule 703, Bases of Opinion by Experts) these writings are admissible in a court of law. Testimonies of St Clement, St Ireneaus et al qualify under this criteria. Multiply this by the number of historical writings and testimonies from other ECFs and other personages from the same period, you have a body of evidence that can close the case with your eyes closed.
Still the non-believers might say rules of courts are not the most logical way to establish truth and logical appreciation of facts.
What will that make of this thread?

 

[PC_Master]

This thread is reaching a loose end. Non-Catholic opinions will maintain that there is no evidence on Linus. No amount of historical citations and testimonies from ECFs will convince them.
Yet, according to Federal Rules of Evidence, (Rule 701, Opinion Testimonies by Lay Witnesses and Rule 703, Bases of Opinion by Experts) these writings are admissible in a court of law. Testimonies of St Clement, St Ireneaus et al qualify under this criteria. Multiply this by the number of historical writings and testimonies from other ECFs and other personages from the same period, you have a body of evidence that can close the case with your eyes closed.
Still the non-believers might say rules of courts are not the most logical way to establish truth and logical appreciation of facts.
What will that make of this thread?

If the case you were trying to make was that Linus was the bishop of Rome, then I agree – there’s ample evidence. But to prove that Linus was pope? Not one bit of evidence has even been presented with claims that it proves that.

 

[Chancellare]

If the case you were trying to make was that Linus was the bishop of Rome, then I agree – there’s ample evidence. But to prove that Linus was pope? Not one bit of evidence has even been presented with claims that it proves that.

Non-believers will not accept the fact that the Bishop of Rome = Pope applies to Linus.
Again, a loose end.

 

[PC_Master]

Non-believers will not accept the fact that the Bishop of Rome = Pope applies to Linus.
Again, a loose end.

That the bishop of Rome was not always considered the pope is the very topic of this thread. You’re saying we simply have to accept that it’s true, or not? But how can I do that without any reasonable evidence to support that claim, especially when I see a very plausible explanation that discounts the possibility?

Oh, and I wouldn’t just argue that it doesn’t apply to Linus. I don’t believe it applied to Cletus/Anacletus or Clement either, and possibly others after that (though I’m not sure at this moment exactly how far the list goes before the papacy comes into play).

If we were in a semi-judicial proceeding, and you insisted this claim, someone would no-doubt ask for proof that the papacy was indeed found in Linus (or another early pope – even something explicit in regards to Peter would work, but we don’t have that either).

I get the distinct feeling here that there is in fact no true evidence to present on this claim. Thus, I’m probably done with this thread. I’ll keep reading it, in the hope that someone will find that document which explicitly shows early bishops of Rome to have been considered popes (it’d make Roman Catholicism a heck of a lot easier to swallow for me), but I’m not exactly holding my breath while I wait.

 

[pneuma07]

That the bishop of Rome was not always considered the pope is the very topic of this thread. You’re saying we simply have to accept that it’s true, or not? But how can I do that without any reasonable evidence to support that claim, especially when I see a very plausible explanation that discounts the possibility?

Dear PCM,

      by reading the OP  the impression was that  the very topic was a  supposed circularity in  relying on  the pro-catholic witnesses by ECFs.   But I do see Linus' position has become the crux.  What is the "very plausible explanation"  of yours about that  ?

Oh, and I wouldn’t just argue that it doesn’t apply to Linus. I don’t believe it applied to Cletus/Anacletus or Clement either, and possibly others after that (though I’m not sure at this moment exactly how far the list goes before the papacy comes into play).

Now, either the papacy comes into play abruptly in a given time

• and we know you do not bet on that -, or you see an evolution, a development. On this idea we find common ground.
  What I’d like to qualify is a sentence such as " X perceived himself/was
  perceived as a pope". If you substitute X with the name of a
  I century bishop of Rome ( it is agreed we do have them, if I get it correctly), then with a III century boR, then with let’s say a VI century, then a X century, then a XIII , then a XVI, a XVIII and finally Benedict XVI, are we asking for the very same perceptions/self-perceptions ?. We’re on a borderline between historical and speculative here, admittedly, but we cannot imagine an institution and its representatives crossing centuries and millennia ( we’re speaking about that) with the same expressions of a principle. And the word “papacy”, since it appeared , does not evidently imply the very same perceptions, the very same relations with bishops, the Council, the emperor, …
  For every above quoted period we can get and bet that the boR used to be perceived and to exercise his service by different means, different styles, in a different world. So, questions about the very first bishops of Rome have to be qualified by avoiding any risk of anachronism. Was Linus perceived as pope ? Sure he was not, if we implicitly imagine " as a XIII ceentury pope", or a VI century pope, or of any other different century, including of course our own. And a VI century century pope was perceived differently from a XIII century one, and so on.
  I do not mean we can solve the issues which are dealt with here about Linus by this qualification alone, nontheless it appears really necessary in order to avoid frequent anachronisms such as " I do not see Peter acting as a pope in Scripture".

How has a pope precisely to act to be such ? Does the author of such a sentence mean Peter didn’t act as a XX century Pope, or like B16, or what else ? About that, I’d plainly say that we do not see B16 acting exactly like a Pius IX could act. Does that mean the former or the latter are not to be considered popes ? I hope the point is clear.

If we were in a semi-judicial proceeding, and you insisted this claim, someone would no-doubt ask for proof that the papacy was indeed found in Linus (or another early pope – even something explicit in regards to Peter would work, but we don’t have that either).
I get the distinct feeling here that there is in fact no true evidence to present on this claim./

QUOTE]

If by evidence you mean contemporary textual documents, I can share your own feeling.
Let’s take a look eg here www.earlychristianwritings.com
Linus was alive around 70AD, if we accept that. Now, what extra-scriptural christian literature do we have from about 70AD ?
Well, most likely nothing at all, yet.
This is the very simple perspective against which the claim about contemporary evidence ( or lack thereof ) is to be weighed. If we have nothing about Linus, that is simply a nothing …among nothing.

Is that surprising, that we got probably nothing from such a primitive stage ? Unfortunately, it is not.
What Church are we speaking about ? A scattered, tiny, persecuted communion of believers. To get the idea, we don’t count the I century believers by the millions. Probably we can count them just by the thousands in the whole world ! (We certainly have to wait the IV century to count them by the millions, and probably the III to have the hundreds of thousands.)
With the exponential growth of the number of christians, so grows the literature they leave.

Shouldn’t we then be grateful about the precious little we have from the poor tiny generation after Linus ?
Are our earliest existing sources against or in a favor of the principle of a roman primacy ?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Is that surprising, that we got probably nothing from such a primitive stage ? Unfortunately, it is not. What Church are we speaking about ? A scattered, tiny, persecuted communion of believers. To get the idea, we don't count the I century believers by the millions. Probably we can count them just by the thousands in the whole world ! (We certainly have to wait the IV century to count them by the millions, and probably the III to have the hundreds of thousands.) With the exponential growth of the number of christians, so grows the literature they leave.
Shouldn’t we then be grateful about the precious little we have from the poor tiny generation after Linus ?
Are our earliest existing sources against or in a favor of the principle of a roman primacy ?

This mirrors much of my feeling on the matter too pneuma. People sit back 2000 years after the church first started crawling and now want to apply almost judiciary legal standards to the early leaders and Church organization itself! This was a time when most of them were barley able to stay alive and care for themselves during deliberate and brutal persecution. After Jesus’ resurrection early Christian leadership had little time to even contemplate “what now” - much less organize themselves and write down and record everything.

I imagine that the early church must have been conflicted with the joy of certain salvation and the desire to get the good news out as fast as possible taken together with the shear panic about how to get about living and caring for basics. These men not only had to start a new religion from scratch they also had to escape persecution and stay alive; and somehow also manage to find a way to feed and shelter themselves and put down heretical ideas.

These men and women of the early church were heroic - but they were certianly not beurocrats and lawyers. I can’t imagine how these first Christians didn’t pull their hair out over the convoluted feelings of panic, stress, joy & excitement of the good news and fear of persecution all at the same time. Against that heroic backdrop it becomes almost insulting for anyone to sit back 2000 years distant and first wanting to assume the worst here rather than accept that these were men of impeccable moral character. As much as some here would want to suggest that the early Church was a rabble of anarchy with a borg like conscience it flies in the face of the integrity and character of these men to even speculate on this being the more probable case. The default should be to give the benefit of the doubt to the moral standard of the people - not to the assumption of deception nor the assumption of error in the accounts. It would be against all known organizational principals instilled by the Romans and the Jews for an ordered society to spurn order in favor of an anarchical organizational model. It would have been an anomaly that flies in the face of common sense if the Bishops did not decide among themselves who was their successor leader. Finally it becomes morally impossible to impute the notion that they would fabricate who was leader as if in a “you’re it, no you’re it” game of tag where no one wants the position…

So what really troubles me here in this thread is the tacit backhanded slap in the face at our Church implied by this question. The bishops were all of exceedingly high reputation and character and that is evidenced by the face that about 30 of the first popes all died martyrs for their Church and their belief. Given the high character of these bishops and popes it is unthinkable to suggest or imply even academically that the traditional accounts of the papacy succession may have been fabricated at any point in the succession. That would require collusion among the bishops at the point where the break occurred. In that event fraud or false claim to the seat would have resulted in very loud protestations. If anything illicit occurred contrary to consent then there would have been evidence of formal writs of condemnation. But as I said before there is no evidence of dissatisfaction to be found anywhere. That is until Martin Luther comes onto the scene 1500 years later to start his Protestant rebellion and make an attempt at usurping the succession (God I hope somone prayed for this man before he died).

It is quite possible that the Church may have had to rely on distant or indirect accounts or made informed guesses about who was pope for the 2nd thru 4th popes or so to form the traditional succession list we have today. And it is also possible that there could be an error in fact here and there. But that is irrelevant. What remains unthinkable though is that there was never a succession of leadership in-fact.

Even if the chair was left vacant for many years this does not mean that there was no successive pope - it just means that the bishops had not yet come together to appoint one yet (due to logistics issues, persecution, other matters). But I want to also note that any time we have a break in the succession due to death or other vacancy (resignation etc.) we essentially have a reaffirmation of the papal/authority succession concept itself. Clearly the bishops still all come together to decide on who it will be!

BTW - many people do not know it but the term “Pope” has changed over the years and originally this was a title given to bishops. So I prefer to think of the head of The Church as Christ’s Vicar - since that is what he is.

James

 

[Chancellare]

That the bishop of Rome was not always considered the pope is the very topic of this thread. You’re saying we simply have to accept that it’s true, or not? But how can I do that without any reasonable evidence to support that claim, especially when I see a very plausible explanation that discounts the possibility?

Oh, and I wouldn’t just argue that it doesn’t apply to Linus. I don’t believe it applied to Cletus/Anacletus or Clement either, and possibly others after that (though I’m not sure at this moment exactly how far the list goes before the papacy comes into play).

If we were in a semi-judicial proceeding, and you insisted this claim, someone would no-doubt ask for proof that the papacy was indeed found in Linus (or another early pope – even something explicit in regards to Peter would work, but we don’t have that either).

I get the distinct feeling here that there is in fact no true evidence to present on this claim. Thus, I’m probably done with this thread. I’ll keep reading it, in the hope that someone will find that document which explicitly shows early bishops of Rome to have been considered popes (it’d make Roman Catholicism a heck of a lot easier to swallow for me), but I’m not exactly holding my breath while I wait.

You are assuming that truth can only be established from finite documentary evidence. Take the case of contracts law. The courts uphold contracts among parties as with the force of law.
There is a legal principle that says in effect: If the parties involved in certain relationships behaved as if a contract exists governing such relationships, then THERE IS A CONTRACT among them. And by law, it is binding.

No amount of absence of documentary evidence can add or detract from that contractual force that existed between and among the successors who passed on the office of Vicar of Christ from Peter down to the ECFs. Only the ECFs among themselves can dissolve this proto-contractual relationship. To paraphrase a famous personage: If there exists such contractual relationship governing Papal succession, ten angels swearing that you are right will not make any difference.

 

[PC_Master]

You are assuming that truth can only be established from finite documentary evidence. Take the case of contracts law. The courts uphold contracts among parties as with the force of law.
There is a legal principle that says in effect: If the parties involved in certain relationships behaved as if a contract exists governing such relationships, then THERE IS A CONTRACT among them. And by law, it is binding.

Please note the emphasis above. To draw out your analogy – if Linus, Anacletus, Clement, etc behaved as if they were pope, no written documentation need be present to establish it. But, since we’re 2000 years removed, and the earliest writers about the papacy are around 200 years removed, how are we to know that they behaved this way? Thus, there is a need for proof, and I still find it staggering that there is no clear record indicating who the leader of the earthly church was, if there was indeed such a person.

 

[Chancellare]

Please note the emphasis above. To draw out your analogy – if Linus, Anacletus, Clement, etc behaved as if they were pope, no written documentation need be present to establish it. But, since we’re 2000 years removed, and the earliest writers about the papacy are around 200 years removed, how are we to know that they behaved this way? Thus, there is a need for proof, and I still find it staggering that there is no clear record indicating who the leader of the earthly church was, if there was indeed such a person.

1 day or 1 year or 200 years after the incident, the Apostles and their scribes have written most of the NT within that span of time and I see nobody raising a question that some parts of NT are unacceptable on grounds that we have ‘no clear record’ of what Jesus really said. Are you saying Ireneaus’ writings and the rest of the ECFs describing the behavior of and stating the succession of popes were spurious simply because it was done 200 years later?

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

 

[Chancellare]

This mirrors much of my feeling on the matter too pneuma. People sit back 2000 years after the church first started crawling and now want to apply almost judiciary legal standards to the early leaders and Church organization itself! This was a time when most of them were barley able to stay alive and care for themselves during deliberate and brutal persecution. After Jesus’ resurrection early Christian leadership had little time to even contemplate “what now” - much less organize themselves and write down and record everything.

I imagine that the early church must have been conflicted with the joy of certain salvation and the desire to get the good news out as fast as possible taken together with the shear panic about how to get about living and caring for basics. These men not only had to start a new religion from scratch they also had to escape persecution and stay alive; and somehow also manage to find a way to feed and shelter themselves and put down heretical ideas.

These men and women of the early church were heroic - but they were certianly not beurocrats and lawyers. I can’t imagine how these first Christians didn’t pull their hair out over the convoluted feelings of panic, stress, joy & excitement of the good news and fear of persecution all at the same time. Against that heroic backdrop it becomes almost insulting for anyone to sit back 2000 years distant and first wanting to assume the worst here rather than accept that these were men of impeccable moral character. As much as some here would want to suggest that the early Church was a rabble of anarchy with a borg like conscience it flies in the face of the integrity and character of these men to even speculate on this being the more probable case. The default should be to give the benefit of the doubt to the moral standard of the people - not to the assumption of deception nor the assumption of error in the accounts. It would be against all known organizational principals instilled by the Romans and the Jews for an ordered society to spurn order in favor of an anarchical organizational model. It would have been an anomaly that flies in the face of common sense if the Bishops did not decide among themselves who was their successor leader. Finally it becomes morally impossible to impute the notion that they would fabricate who was leader as if in a “you’re it, no you’re it” game of tag where no one wants the position…

So what really troubles me here in this thread is the tacit backhanded slap in the face at our Church implied by this question. The bishops were all of exceedingly high reputation and character and that is evidenced by the face that about 30 of the first popes all died martyrs for their Church and their belief. Given the high character of these bishops and popes it is unthinkable to suggest or imply even academically that the traditional accounts of the papacy succession may have been fabricated at any point in the succession. That would require collusion among the bishops at the point where the break occurred. In that event fraud or false claim to the seat would have resulted in very loud protestations. If anything illicit occurred contrary to consent then there would have been evidence of formal writs of condemnation. But as I said before there is no evidence of dissatisfaction to be found anywhere. That is until Martin Luther comes onto the scene 1500 years later to start his Protestant rebellion and make an attempt at usurping the succession (God I hope somone prayed for this man before he died).

It is quite possible that the Church may have had to rely on distant or indirect accounts or made informed guesses about who was pope for the 2nd thru 4th popes or so to form the traditional succession list we have today. And it is also possible that there could be an error in fact here and there. But that is irrelevant. What remains unthinkable though is that there was never a succession of leadership in-fact.

Even if the chair was left vacant for many years this does not mean that there was no successive pope - it just means that the bishops had not yet come together to appoint one yet (due to logistics issues, persecution, other matters). But I want to also note that any time we have a break in the succession due to death or other vacancy (resignation etc.) we essentially have a reaffirmation of the papal/authority succession concept itself. Clearly the bishops still all come together to decide on who it will be!

BTW - many people do not know it but the term “Pope” has changed over the years and originally this was a title given to bishops. So I prefer to think of the head of The Church as Christ’s Vicar - since that is what he is.

James

Well said.
But as I have posted earlier, even if we apply the niceties of principles from contract law on the BEHAVIORS of ECFs during the early stages of the Church, any right-minded observer will conclude that documentary evidence is not needed to prove the succession of Popes (or whatever they were called at that time).