Anacletus - last petrine pope?

[Catholig]

A non-catholic recently told me that all the popes after Anacletus had pauline apostolic succession, and that Anacletus was basically the last petrine bishop. Is there any document confirming this? And if so - do you have to have petrine apostolic succession to be the Bishop of Rome? Could say a bishop descended from Saint Matthew (India) be elected Pope?

Catholig

 

[Mannyfit75]

A non-catholic recently told me that all the popes after Anacletus had pauline apostolic succession, and that Anacletus was basically the last petrine bishop. Is there any document confirming this? And if so - do you have to have petrine apostolic succession to be the Bishop of Rome? Could say a bishop descended from Saint Matthew (India) be elected Pope?

Catholig

Anacletus wasn’t the last Petrine Bishop. Pope St. Clement of Rome succeeded Anacletus. We also have some of the writings of St. Clement of Rome.

I doubt you’ll find any document that Anacletus was the last petrine bishop. If he was, then who was Clement of Rome then?

 

[LilyM]

How could the Popes after Anacletus be Pauline? Paul and Peter died on the same day, so it’s not like Paul was appointing successors to the Bishopric of Rome after Peter’s martyrdom.

Rome wasn’t Paul’s province anyway - there was already a church established there by someone else (gee, I wonder who? ) hence Paul writing TO the Church in Rome before he’d ever visited.

And no Pope has ever claimed to be a successor of St Paul rather than St Peter that I know of.

Ask your friend for more specifics.

 

[Catholig]

Anacletus wasn’t the last Petrine Bishop. Pope St. Clement of Rome succeeded Anacletus. We also have some of the writings of St. Clement of Rome.

I doubt you’ll find any document that Anacletus was the last petrine bishop. If he was, then who was Clement of Rome then?

I think that the non-Catholic said that the bishops after Anacletus, while occupying the See of Rome, were traced back to St. Paul (i.e. it was either Paul himself or a bishop whom he consecrated by the imposition of hands that consecrated St. Clement). This non-C also said that Rome was a joint See founded by both Peter and Paul.

Catholig

 

[Mannyfit75]

I think that the non-Catholic said that the bishops after Anacletus, while occupying the See of Rome, were traced back to St. Paul (i.e. it was either Paul himself or a bishop whom he consecrated by the imposition of hands that consecrated St. Clement). This non-C also said that Rome was a joint See founded by both Peter and Paul.

Catholig

Actually it was Peter who ordained Clement of Rome.

The Father of the Church by Mike Aquilina’s book state the following:

St. Clement, for example was probably a disciple of St. Peter and St. Paul and was said to be **consecrated bishop by Peter **himself according to Tertillian.

On the basis whether Paul and Peter share the same office. I doubt it.

If you have any question, I recommend that you read the Fathers of the Church: An Introduction to the first Christian Teachers by Mike Aquilina. His book is simple to read.

 

[Catholig]

Mark, a translator of Peter, was sent (think apostle) to the Hebrews of Alexandia, Egypt by John the Apostle AFTER having borne the Gospel of Peter (now called the gospel of Mark) and the Gospel of Paul (now called Hebrews, but penned by Luke) to John in Ephesus of Asia – in the ministry of being an messenger (after the same special ministry Phoebe was an"angel" in bearing the book of Romans from Jerusalem to the Corinthian missionaries in Rome, pre-Peter and pre-Paul).

Hence, having been sanctified by John, and earlier by Paul (as being sent for as profitable to his ministry), even if Mark did not get approval from Peter – nor resistance, he was an equal to Clement. Paul was that co-founding Apostle of the Churches of Rome, whose disciple – Clement – perpetuated the Churches at Rome (that is, not Peter’s, but Paul’s disciple who sat upon the “holy see”) for 43-44 years (from May 57 to 100/101 A.D.) That is…with the death of Anacletus, the Apostolic Succession of Peter CEASED in ROME, and for 19 1/2 centuries, the Roman Catholic Church has cursed its origin in Paul.

The above is what the non-catholic poster actually said.

Catholig

 

[LilyM]

I think that the non-Catholic said that the bishops after Anacletus, while occupying the See of Rome, were traced back to St. Paul (i.e. it was either Paul himself or a bishop whom he consecrated by the imposition of hands that consecrated St. Clement). This non-C also said that Rome was a joint See founded by both Peter and Paul.

Catholig

Most EVERY Bishop of Rome is ordained (laid hands on) by Bishops other than the current Bishop of Rome y’know.

They’re all Bishops of other places beforehand, and it’s only when first elevated to their first See (Bishopric) that they’re actually ordained (laid hands on) per se.

If they change Sees it’s a matter of non-sacramental installation in their new See rather than any form of sacramental laying on of hands. That is also the case when it’s the Holy See itself. And it’s by virtue of the OFFICE (Bishop of Rome) that they are Pope, rather than by virtue of who makes them Bishop of Rome.

 

[Mannyfit75]

The above is what the non-catholic poster actually said.

Catholig

Mark, a translator of Peter, was sent (think apostle) to the Hebrews of Alexandia, Egypt by John the Apostle AFTER having borne the Gospel of Peter (now called the gospel of Mark) and the Gospel of Paul (now called Hebrews, but penned by Luke) to John in Ephesus of Asia – in the ministry of being an messenger (after the same special ministry Phoebe was an"angel" in bearing the book of Romans from Jerusalem to the Corinthian missionaries in Rome, pre-Peter and pre-Paul).

Cite the source of his information. Though his findings are rather questionable, my Catholic friend.

Hence, having been sanctified by John, and earlier by Paul (as being sent for as profitable to his ministry), even if Mark did not get approval from Peter – nor resistance, he was an equal to Clement. Paul was that co-founding Apostle of the Churches of Rome, whose disciple – Clement – perpetuated the Churches at Rome (that is, not Peter’s, but Paul’s disciple who sat upon the “holy see”) for 43-44 years (from May 57 to 100/101 A.D.) That is…with the death of Anacletus, the Apostolic Succession of Peter CEASED in ROME, and for 19 1/2 centuries, the Roman Catholic Church has cursed its origin in Paul.

I have just read Mike Aquilina’s book on the ECF and none of it mention that Paul sat on the Holy See, nor have I read any ECF saying that Paul was the Bishop.

The following ECF seem to disagree with your friend. Historically speaking, your friend is in error.

Tatian the Syrian

“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian

“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).