I took a class on the roots of the papacy and yes, Linus was appointed but the Church of Rome was comprised of small house churches vs the one church in Alexandria and Antioch, of which Peter founded.
What nailed Peter and Paul as founders is that not only was Peter witness to Christ, Peter was led to Rome by the Holy Spirit as was Paul, they were both recognized as founders by the Nazarene Jews who escaped the Diaspora who came prior to them, and most of all because Peter and Paul shed their blood for Christ in Rome, their martyrdom the most signfiicant sign as founders.
Rome was comprised of home churches led by presbyters, but Linus was the dominant figurehead and could not be without the recognition and installation by Peter.
St. Clement followed Linus and in communication with the other early Churches – Antioch, Alexander, and Jerusalem – that church fading into insignificance for a period of time, these communications emphasized a certain endearment to Rome.
There was a period in the earliest Church of Rome where we have little information, but you have to consider the persecution by Nero and the environment that followed.
Posters here have brought forward the complete history of continued apostolic leadership of the Church of Rome.
Later a Pope Callixtus made a binding statement regarding a certain bishop in handling excommunicants – those guilty of lying, stealing or adultery - and how his decree was immediately accepted by the entire Christiandom with no dissent. Later some bishops came forward to ask Callixtus more reconciliation towards those excommunicated, along with this certain bishop.
This set the tone for the collaboration between the pope and bishops.
Yesterday I took a class on Vatican I. This Council in the 1800’s was a response to democracy vs the monarchy…people now wanting self - determination and democracy, the free press that was also most effective in spreading falsehoods that damage society, Marxism, industry and manufacturing. There were new missions in Africa, the Far East and the Americas requiring more support from Rome. The papacy needed to be a stronger unifying sign to believers, and there was the usual differing positions of the bishops.
Infallibility of the papacy did not begin until the 1800’s…only 3 dogmas…the one defining infallibility – that draws on the consultation of all the bishops based on practice of faith already existing in the faithful --.
Pope Pius IX stated to the bishops, that since the faithful already believe in the Immaculate Conception to make it a dogma of faith. He consulted with all the bishops, they agreed, and thus we have the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
Infallibility pertains to faith and morals, and we have had only 3 dogmas pertaining to faith, no defined infallible dogma pertaining to morals yet.
If you look at Church history, there is this working unity between Rome and the bishops.
Prior to the Vatican I, the papacy was and is a sign of universal unity–the binding of communion to keep us together most important, and the papacy position as being pastoral and supporting other churches, as well as disciplining and dealing with heresies.
I find this all most reasonable and keeping the allegation as the pope as some kind of deified person kept in perspective.
