Clement versus Linus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Erick_Ybarra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Erick_Ybarra

Guest
I have been reading St. Francis De Sales’ collection of writings called The Catholic Controvery, which by the way sums up all of Catholic Apologetics, and there come a question to mind: According to tradition, Clement was the 1st successor of St. Peter (this is written in Catholic Controvery). However, other tradition says that Linus was the 1st to be the Pope, after St. Peter.

How do we reconcile this?
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
I have been reading St. Francis De Sales’ collection of writings called The Catholic Controvery, which by the way sums up all of Catholic Apologetics, and there come a question to mind: According to tradition, Clement was the 1st successor of St. Peter (this is written in Catholic Controvery). However, other tradition says that Linus was the 1st to be the Pope, after St. Peter.

How do we reconcile this?
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/cathen/12272a.htm

*The historical lists of the popes, from those drawn up in the second century to those of the present day, form in themselves a considerable body of literature. It would be beyond the scope of the article to enter upon a discussion of these catalogues. For an account of the most famous of them all, the article LIBER PONTIFICALIS may be consulted. It appears, however, desirable to indicate very briefly what are our authorities for the names and the durations in office of the popes for the first two centuries of the Church’s existence.

St. Irenaeus, writing between 175 and 190, not many years after his Roman sojourn, enumerates the series from Peter to Eleutherius (Against Heresies III.3.3; Eusebius, Church History V.6). His object, as we have already seen, was to establish the orthodoxy of the traditional doctrine, as opposed to heretical novelties, by showing that the bishop was the natural inheritor of the Apostolic teaching. He gives us the names alone, not the length of the various episcopates. This need is supplied by other witnesses. *

1.St. Peter (32-67)
2.St. Linus (67-76)
3.St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4.St. Clement I (88-97)
5.St. Evaristus (97-105)
6.St. Alexander I (105-115)
7.St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
8.St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9.St. Hyginus (136-140)
10.St. Pius I (140-155)
11.St. Anicetus (155-166)
12.St. Soter (166-175)
13.St. Eleutherius (175-189)

Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3) - St. Irenaeus
  1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.
 
Ok, so the following epistle from Clement to James is false?

compassionatespirit.com/Homilies/Epistle-Clement-to-James.htm

here is a quote

“Hear me, brethren and fellow-servants. Since, as I have been taught by the Lord and Teacher Jesus Christ, whose apostle I am, the day of my death is approaching, I lay hands upon this Clement as your bishop; and to him I entrust my chair of discourse, even to him who has journeyed with me from the beginning to the end, and thus has heard all my homilies-who, in a word, having had a share in all my trials, has been found stedfast in the faith; whom I have found, above all others, pious, philanthropic, pure, learned, chaste, good, upright, large-hearted, and striving generously to bear the ingratitude of some of the catechumens. Wherefore I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing, so that with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens. For he shall bind what ought to be bound, and loose what ought to be loosed, as knowing the role of the Church. Therefore hear him, as knowing that he who grieves the president of the truth, sins against Christ, and offends the Father of all. Wherefore he shall not live; and therefore it becomes him who presides to hold the place of a physician, and not to cherish the rage of an irrational beast.”

According to this, Peter ordained Clement, not linus. So this may be false…but do we have evidence that Linus appointed Clement?
 
St. Francis de Sales says “But before dying, taking by the hand his disciple S. Clement. St Peter appointed him his successor, an office which S Clement would not accept nor exercise till after the death of Linus and of Cletus, who had been coadjutors of St. Peter in the administration of the Roman Bishopric.” (Page 287 Under Rule of Faith Art XI.X.XI)

Is this valid? For to be appointed successor of Peter should not be a secret but open. And if Peter imposed hands on Clement while Linus and Cletus were in authority, why would he not just lay hands on Linus?
 
What quote?

And I wanted to mention that if Linus and Cletus are considered successors of Peter while Peter was alive, wouldn’t that mean that this early bishopric of Rome did not follow the constitutions of the modern day papacy?
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
What quote?

And I wanted to mention that if Linus and Cletus are considered successors of Peter while Peter was alive, wouldn’t that mean that this early bishopric of Rome did not follow the constitutions of the modern day papacy?
Click to expand...
sigh

page 287 - 288

But before dying, taking by the hand his disciple S. Clement, S. Peter appointed him his successor, an office which S. Clement would not accept nor exercise till after the death of Linus and of Cletus, who had been coadjutors of S. Peter in the administration of the Roman bishopric. So that to him who would know why some authors place S. Clement first in order after S. Peter, and others S. Linus, I will make him an answer by S. Epiphanius, an author worthy of credit, whose words are these : * " Let no man wonder that Linus and Cletus took up the episcopate before S. Clement, he being a disciple of the Apostles, contemporary with Peter and Paul; for they also were contemporaries of the Apostles whether therefore whilst they were alive he received from Peter the imposition of the hands of the episcopate, and refusing the office waited, or, after the departure of the Apostles was appointed by the bishop Cletus, we do not clearly know."
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
Ok, so the following epistle from Clement to James is false?
Click to expand...
It might be. New Advent lists it as a “spurious” epistle if you click the Homilies link under Clement’s name, followed by Introductory Epistle.

As for Peter’s successors, most, if not all early Roman Bishops lists have Linus #2. As to St. Francis de Sales’ comment, it might be referring to Clement having been ordained a successor as auxiliary bishop first, then to the Roman See later. Catholicfaithandreason states the following:*There is a tradition that he was ordained by St. Peter and acted as a kind of auxiliary bishop to Linus and Anacletus, his predecessors in the papal chair. *And I’ve heard that elsewhere as well, although memory fails me at the moment.
 
Why add the sigh…that was kind of rude. Love your neighbor as yourself
 
MarcoPolo said:
It might be. New Advent lists it as a “spurious” epistle if you click the Homilies link under Clement’s name, followed by Introductory Epistle.

As for Peter’s successors, most, if not all early Roman Bishops lists have Linus #2. As to St. Francis de Sales’ comment, it might be referring to Clement having been ordained a successor as auxiliary bishop first, then to the Roman See later. Catholicfaithandreason states the following:*There is a tradition that he was ordained by St. Peter and acted as a kind of auxiliary bishop to Linus and Anacletus, his predecessors in the papal chair. *And I’ve heard that elsewhere as well, although memory fails me at the moment.
Click to expand...
That makes more sense.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
Ok, so the following epistle from Clement to James is false?

compassionatespirit.com/Homilies/Epistle-Clement-to-James.htm

here is a quote

“Hear me, brethren and fellow-servants. Since, as I have been taught by the Lord and Teacher Jesus Christ, whose apostle I am, the day of my death is approaching, I lay hands upon this Clement as your bishop; and to him I entrust my chair of discourse, even to him who has journeyed with me from the beginning to the end, and thus has heard all my homilies-who, in a word, having had a share in all my trials, has been found stedfast in the faith; whom I have found, above all others, pious, philanthropic, pure, learned, chaste, good, upright, large-hearted, and striving generously to bear the ingratitude of some of the catechumens. Wherefore I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing, so that with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens. For he shall bind what ought to be bound, and loose what ought to be loosed, as knowing the role of the Church. Therefore hear him, as knowing that he who grieves the president of the truth, sins against Christ, and offends the Father of all. Wherefore he shall not live; and therefore it becomes him who presides to hold the place of a physician, and not to cherish the rage of an irrational beast.”

According to this, Peter ordained Clement, not linus. So this may be false…but do we have evidence that Linus appointed Clement?
Click to expand...
We do not know if this record of Peter ordaining Clement is a reliable letter to St. James, bishop of Jerusalem. We have several records of Linus preceeding Clement.

In the first two hundred - three hundred years of the church, succeeding bishops (after the apostles had died) were liturgically ordained by two or three bishops in the surrounding see, once the local laity had chosen a qualified candidate.

The record of the Apostolic Constitutions state that Linus was ordained by the apostle Paul as the first bishop, and Clement was ordained by the apostle Peter as the second bishop of Rome.

God’s peace

micah
 
Your appeal to be tiresome is rudeness and unkind, which are works of the flesh. Be it protestant or Catholic, just as it be tax collector or Pharisee, it matters not what you claim to be but rather if your bear fruits of repentance. Jesus taught all people, be it catholic or any one else, that we should lend to those who wish to borrow from us, to go the second mile for those who ask, to be gentle and of a merciful spirit, to treat others as you would to them. One of the fruits of the spirit is long suffering.

Repent, therefore, because Jesus taught us to go to our brother when he has sinned.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
Ok, so the following epistle from Clement to James is false?

compassionatespirit.com/Homilies/Epistle-Clement-to-James.htm

here is a quote

“Hear me, brethren and fellow-servants. Since, as I have been taught by the Lord and Teacher Jesus Christ, whose apostle I am, the day of my death is approaching, I lay hands upon this Clement as your bishop; and to him I entrust my chair of discourse, even to him who has journeyed with me from the beginning to the end, and thus has heard all my homilies-who, in a word, having had a share in all my trials, has been found stedfast in the faith; whom I have found, above all others, pious, philanthropic, pure, learned, chaste, good, upright, large-hearted, and striving generously to bear the ingratitude of some of the catechumens. Wherefore I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing, so that with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens. For he shall bind what ought to be bound, and loose what ought to be loosed, as knowing the role of the Church. Therefore hear him, as knowing that he who grieves the president of the truth, sins against Christ, and offends the Father of all. Wherefore he shall not live; and therefore it becomes him who presides to hold the place of a physician, and not to cherish the rage of an irrational beast.”

According to this, Peter ordained Clement, not linus. So this may be false…but do we have evidence that Linus appointed Clement?
Click to expand...
Sorry, am not familiar with this one. Perhaps someone can chime in.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
St. Francis de Sales says “But before dying, taking by the hand his disciple S. Clement. St Peter appointed him his successor, an office which S Clement would not accept nor exercise till after the death of Linus and of Cletus, who had been coadjutors of St. Peter in the administration of the Roman Bishopric.” (Page 287 Under Rule of Faith Art XI.X.XI)

Is this valid? For to be appointed successor of Peter should not be a secret but open. And if Peter imposed hands on Clement while Linus and Cletus were in authority, why would he not just lay hands on Linus?
Click to expand...
What this means is Clement was ordained as a bishop by Peter himself…perhaps auxilliary bishop…which is what a coadjutor is.

What it seems to say is…an order of succession has been established by Peter…with Linus, Cletus, then Clement. Keep in mind, nobody would succeed the other till the death of the prior head bishop.
 
Erick_Ybarra said:
wouldn’t that mean that this early bishopric of Rome did not follow the constitutions of the modern day papacy?
Click to expand...
It surely did not follow the modern constitutions.

There have been many ways that someone becomes Bishop of Rome. At times, he appointed his successor before his death. At other times it was decided by popular acclaim (and elections among the laity were held). At other times the Emperor of Rome designated the Pope. At other times, powerful and corrupt people rigged the process to insure their choice. At times, the Office has been bought (simony). There have been periods in history when it was not clear who had valid claim to the Office - the so-called “anti-Popes” (I dislike the term because it suggests evil intent - anti-Popes were men of good will who believed they had valid claim. One anti-Pope is a Saint of the Church). There have been periods lasting many months when there was no Pope (the Chair was vacant).

Fortunately, the only thing that is required to be Pope is that the Church recognizes him as Bishop of Rome. How he got there is irrelevant.
 
DavidFilmer said:
It surely did not follow the modern constitutions.

There have been many ways that someone becomes Bishop of Rome. At times, he appointed his successor before his death. At other times it was decided by popular acclaim (and elections among the laity were held). At other times the Emperor of Rome designated the Pope. At other times, powerful and corrupt people rigged the process to insure their choice. At times, the Office has been bought (simony). There have been periods in history when it was not clear who had valid claim to the Office - the so-called “anti-Popes” (I dislike the term because it suggests evil intent - anti-Popes were men of good will who believed they had valid claim. One anti-Pope is a Saint of the Church). There have been periods lasting many months when there was no Pope (the Chair was vacant).

Fortunately, the only thing that is required to be Pope is that the Church recognizes him as Bishop of Rome. How he got there is irrelevant.
Click to expand...
But isn’t this a lousy way to defend the point that Peter somehow passed on some authority to someone? If it is passed to anyone who occupies the throne in Rome, why isn’t it made more clear from the beginning?
 
I guess I don’t see the discrepancy. No one is ordained Pope; the Pope is simply the Bishop of Rome. Clement was ordained a Bishop by Peter, and later became official Bishop of Rome.

Peace and God bless!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top