D
doke
Guest
How was the first pope chosen? (besides peter)
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
M
MariaG
Guest
So your question is actually how was the second pope chosen. Correct?How was the first pope chosen? (besides peter)
M
MariaG
Guest
There is an article from catholic.com called “Peter and His Successors” from This Rock magazine. I am using my phone to post this so please forgive me for not posting the link.
Www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9306iron.asp
Www.catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9306iron.asp
J
Julian0404
Guest
Actually the process was begun by Peter himself as is described in the first chapter of ACTS wherein Peter initiated the process of replacing Judas, and the replacement chosen was Matthias to be the 12th Apostle and replace the now dead Judas. And at the time of pentecost, when the HOLY SPIRIT descended upon the Apostles, the HOLY SPIRIT likewise descended upon Matthias, thus demonstrating that GOD had approved the process of election.
That process was continued from that day forward, although it has changed a bit over the ages.
That process was continued from that day forward, although it has changed a bit over the ages.
C
clmowry
Guest
“The passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) reads:How was the first pope chosen? (besides peter)
After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.”
This seems to imply that Peter and Paul chose [ordained?] Linus as Peter’s successor.
Chuck
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Peter was the first Pope. We don’t know how the second Pope was chosen.How was the first pope chosen? (besides peter)
D
doke
Guest
If we don’t kow how the second pope was chosen then we don’t really know that Jesus created the catholic church.
F
FCEGM
Guest
That does not follow; we know who succeeded St. Peter to the bishopric of Rome, we just don’t have records of the exact procedure.If we don’t kow how the second pope was chosen then we don’t really know that Jesus created the catholic church.
M
Mintaka
Guest
We probably used to have records of it. But the archival records of the Church were largely confiscated and destroyed by the Roman government, during the persecution that killed Pope Sixtus and St. Lawrence. (Some records were smuggled out and some destroyed, after the Pope and most of his deacons were arrested but before Lawrence had to report in with “the treasures of the Church”.)
We know that Peter and Paul and many of the brethren were arrested by Nero, and they were pretty much all together in the same prison (the Mamertine). Linus was not arrested, and Roman prisoners were allowed to have visitors and pass messages, to a certain extent. So it’s likely that St. Peter just held the same sort of meeting of senior guys as he’d held in the Upper Room to replace Judas, and it seems from Irenaeus’ wording that St. Paul got to cast one of the votes. (Not surprising, since he did bishop/apostle things.) So it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to them that Linus be elected, and there you go. Next person who visited, Peter passed the word of their election, and there you go.
We know that Peter and Paul and many of the brethren were arrested by Nero, and they were pretty much all together in the same prison (the Mamertine). Linus was not arrested, and Roman prisoners were allowed to have visitors and pass messages, to a certain extent. So it’s likely that St. Peter just held the same sort of meeting of senior guys as he’d held in the Upper Room to replace Judas, and it seems from Irenaeus’ wording that St. Paul got to cast one of the votes. (Not surprising, since he did bishop/apostle things.) So it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to them that Linus be elected, and there you go. Next person who visited, Peter passed the word of their election, and there you go.
G
guanophore
Guest
This is not true. Although history (Against Heresies III.3.3) testifies by IrenaeusIf we don’t kow how the second pope was chosen then we don’t really know that Jesus created the catholic church.
"After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.”
We do not have the liturgical details around this passing. we can assume that it occurred according to the model demonstrated in the NT through prayer, choosing, and the laying on of hands We are not told if there was a prophet present that said “set aside my servant Linus”, or there was another method. What is clear is that they passed on their episcopal duties and responsibilities.
K
kepha1
Guest
Proof of the existence of the Catholic Church is not dependent on how we know (or don’t know) the details of the choosing of the second pope. We know that Jesus instituted the Papacy in the Bible, and with it, Apostolic Succession. We have a living legacy that shows that popes were chosen, up to Pope Benedict XVI. A challenge to any critic might be to prove which Pope in history was the first Pope, if not Peter, or who was the last Pope, if not Benedict XVI.If we don’t kow how the second pope was chosen then we don’t really know that Jesus created the catholic church.
S
steve_b
Guest
If we don’t kow how the second pope was chosen then we don’t really know that Jesus created the catholic church.
- You did get the answer forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7145028&postcount=5
- Jesus appointed the first pope, Peter, when He instituted His Church. And we see in writing, from 1st century ECF’s on, the Church is called the Catholic Church.
J
Junebug999
Guest
The first pope I believe was APPOINTED by Christ himself…I remember my Baptist dad having sermons about the big rock and little rock, etc…bleah…it was just though art ROCK, and on you ROCK I will build my church.
What an awesome responsibility he was given and extraordinary grace to accomplish that task.
What an awesome responsibility he was given and extraordinary grace to accomplish that task.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
How the second Pope was chosen has nothing to do with Jesus’ establishing the Church.If we don’t kow how the second pope was chosen then we don’t really know that Jesus created the catholic church.
Or, put another, way…does knowing how the 47th (pick your number) Pope was chosen determine whether or not Jesus “created” (poor choice of words) the Catholic Church?
I
inkaneer
Guest
I disagree. Matthias was not an apostle. He was a bishop. Paul was the twelfth apostle. To be an Apostle one must have been chosen by Christ and be sent. That is what the word apostle means, one who is sent. Matthias replaced Judas who was selected by Christ but Judas was never sent. The “sending” of the Apostles was done by Jesus just before His Ascension [See Mt 28:20] But Judas committed suicide before that and thus was never sent. Paul was selected by Christ and sent to the Gentiles. Scripture calls Paul an Apostle but scripture only says of Matthias that he was “numbered with the Apostles.” That is not the same as calling Matthias an Apostle.Actually the process was begun by Peter himself as is described in the first chapter of ACTS wherein Peter initiated the process of replacing Judas, and the replacement chosen was Matthias to be the 12th Apostle and replace the now dead Judas. And at the time of pentecost, when the HOLY SPIRIT descended upon the Apostles, the HOLY SPIRIT likewise descended upon Matthias, thus demonstrating that GOD had approved the process of election.
That process was continued from that day forward, although it has changed a bit over the ages.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Many would interpret the passage you cite from Acts as saying yes, Matthias was an Apostle.I disagree. Matthias was not an apostle. He was a bishop. Paul was the twelfth apostle. To be an Apostle one must have been chosen by Christ and be sent. That is what the word apostle means, one who is sent. Matthias replaced Judas who was selected by Christ but Judas was never sent. The “sending” of the Apostles was done by Jesus just before His Ascension [See Mt 28:20] But Judas committed suicide before that and thus was never sent. Paul was selected by Christ and sent to the Gentiles. Scripture calls Paul an Apostle but scripture only says of Matthias that he was “numbered with the Apostles.” That is not the same as calling Matthias an Apostle.
More significantly, the Roman Catholic Church celebrates the feast of St. Matthias, Apostle, on May 14. So, regardless of how one interprets Scripture, the Catholic Church considers Matthias an Apostle.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Regardless of how people interpret Acts 1:28, Matthias was not an Apostle. The Church has never issued any formal infallible decree on his Apostleship and I will remind you that the Church, beginning in the 16th century, also marked July 25 as the feast day of St, Christopher but then removed St. Christopher from the Roman martyrology because there was no factual historical basis for him, only legends and myths. So having a feast day is no guarantee . If the church could be wrong on St. Christopher and remove his feast day then so too it could be wrong on Matthias. Again, remember there is no infallible teaching on his Apostleship.Many would interpret the passage you cite from Acts as saying yes, Matthias was an Apostle.
More significantly, the Roman Catholic Church celebrates the feast of St. Matthias, Apostle, on May 14. So, regardless of how one interprets Scripture, the Catholic Church considers Matthias an Apostle.
But there is a big reason for Matthias to not be an Apostle. His ordination, as reported in scripture, established the Apostolic Succession of bishops in the Written Tradition. That is that bishops succeeded the Apostles. That would not be the case if he were an Apostle because then an Apostle would be succeeded by another Apostle and then Apostolic Succession died out 1900 years ago for we have had no Apostles for 1900 years. Plus there is the problem with the 24 elders in the Book of Revelation which are believed to be the twelve OT patriarchs and the twelve NT Apostles. If Matthias is an Apostle then there should be 25 elders not 24 and therefore scripture contains error.
C
clmowry
Guest
I believe you are mistaken. Matthias, unlike say Timothy was called explicitly to be an Apostle.
We have the 11 sent as you describe and we have two extraordinary exceptions to who one would normally classify as an apostle: Paul and Matthias.
Chuck
newadvent.org/cathen/10066a.htm
We have the 11 sent as you describe and we have two extraordinary exceptions to who one would normally classify as an apostle: Paul and Matthias.
Chuck
newadvent.org/cathen/10066a.htm
I disagree. Matthias was not an apostle. He was a bishop. Paul was the twelfth apostle. To be an Apostle one must have been chosen by Christ and be sent. That is what the word apostle means, one who is sent. Matthias replaced Judas who was selected by Christ but Judas was never sent. The “sending” of the Apostles was done by Jesus just before His Ascension [See Mt 28:20] But Judas committed suicide before that and thus was never sent. Paul was selected by Christ and sent to the Gentiles. Scripture calls Paul an Apostle but scripture only says of Matthias that he was “numbered with the Apostles.” That is not the same as calling Matthias an Apostle.
C
clmowry
Guest
I think He was both.
Apostle:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061018_en.html
Bishop:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05061987_sescentesima-anniversaria_en.html
Apostle:
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20061018_en.html
Bishop:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05061987_sescentesima-anniversaria_en.html
Regardless of how people interpret Acts 1:28, Matthias was not an Apostle. The Church has never issued any formal infallible decree on his Apostleship and I will remind you that the Church, beginning in the 16th century, also marked July 25 as the feast day of St, Christopher but then removed St. Christopher from the Roman martyrology because there was no factual historical basis for him, only legends and myths. So having a feast day is no guarantee . If the church could be wrong on St. Christopher and remove his feast day then so too it could be wrong on Matthias. Again, remember there is no infallible teaching on his Apostleship.
But there is a big reason for Matthias to not be an Apostle. His ordination, as reported in scripture, established the Apostolic Succession of bishops in the Written Tradition. That is that bishops succeeded the Apostles. That would not be the case if he were an Apostle because then an Apostle would be succeeded by another Apostle and then Apostolic Succession died out 1900 years ago for we have had no Apostles for 1900 years. Plus there is the problem with the 24 elders in the Book of Revelation which are believed to be the twelve OT patriarchs and the twelve NT Apostles. If Matthias is an Apostle then there should be 25 elders not 24 and therefore scripture contains error.
I
inkaneer
Guest
Scripture definitely calls Paul an Apostle [Ro 1:1; Ro 11:13; 1Co 1:1; 1Co 15:9; 2Co 1:1; Ga 1:1; Eph 1:1; Col 1:1; 1Ti 1:1; 1Ti 2:7; 2Ti 1:1; 2Ti 1:11 and Tit 1:1]. But the most scripture says of Matthias is that he was numbered [listed] with the eleven Apostles [Acts 1:26]. Interestingly, that is what Peter says of Judas in Acts 1:17 that he was “numbered” with the Apostles. But Acts 1:17 says something else besides. It says:
“For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.” [Acts 1:17 DR and KJV]
So Judas only had a part or a portion of the ministry that the other Apostles had. So what portion did Judas have? Or what didn’t he have? I contend that Judas only had thet portion of the ministry relating to being a bishop and because he was dead by the time of the Ascension, Judas was never sent as were the Apostles [Mt 28:19-20]. I submit as evidence Peter’s remark in Acts 1:17 [as quoted above] that Judas did not have a complete ministry as did the Apostles. I also submit Peter statement in Acts 1:20 to tell us what part or the ministry Judas had when he says:
" 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take." [Acts 1:20 DR and KJV]
Other translations like the RSV have “…let another take his office” The word here that is translated as ‘bishopric’ or ‘office’ is the Greek word episcope and it is the word from which we derive our word ‘bishop’ as well as episcopal, So Matthias takes over Judas’ office of bishop. The Greek word for Apostle,* apostolos* is not used anywhere. Matthias replaced Judas as a bishop because Judas, like the other Apostles, was a bishop and only a bishop. As Judas’ replacement Matthias can not become what Judas was not and Judas was not an Apostle.
“For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry.” [Acts 1:17 DR and KJV]
So Judas only had a part or a portion of the ministry that the other Apostles had. So what portion did Judas have? Or what didn’t he have? I contend that Judas only had thet portion of the ministry relating to being a bishop and because he was dead by the time of the Ascension, Judas was never sent as were the Apostles [Mt 28:19-20]. I submit as evidence Peter’s remark in Acts 1:17 [as quoted above] that Judas did not have a complete ministry as did the Apostles. I also submit Peter statement in Acts 1:20 to tell us what part or the ministry Judas had when he says:
" 20 For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take." [Acts 1:20 DR and KJV]
Other translations like the RSV have “…let another take his office” The word here that is translated as ‘bishopric’ or ‘office’ is the Greek word episcope and it is the word from which we derive our word ‘bishop’ as well as episcopal, So Matthias takes over Judas’ office of bishop. The Greek word for Apostle,* apostolos* is not used anywhere. Matthias replaced Judas as a bishop because Judas, like the other Apostles, was a bishop and only a bishop. As Judas’ replacement Matthias can not become what Judas was not and Judas was not an Apostle.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.