How was the second Pope chosen?

[DavidFilmer]

Does that mean *anyone * could have stepped up and filled the Office once it was vacant after Peter’s death?

Yes, as long as that person was recognized as Bishop of Rome by the Church. It would not matter who it was. It has always been that way, and It’s still that way today.

Why is only the Bishop of Rome the only valid Pope? Why does the Bishop of Rome take precedent before any other?

That’s probably a question that deserves its own thread.

Isn’t it important that we know that the Papal Office was not lost at some point in time? If it was, then no one has authority and no one alive today has the keys to the Kingdom or possesses infallibility.

The Office cannot be lost, because it doesn’t depend on anything that came before it (except the establishment of the Office itself). We could go without a Pope for 200 years (or 2000 years) and still elect a valid Pope. We could have 200 years of rule by nothing but undisputed anti-Popes and still elect a valid Pope. There’s no such thing as Papal succession.

The keys are not passed from Pope to Pope, so it doesn’t matter if any particular Pope is invalid. If the silly “Pope Joan” legends were true, and the Church somehow elected a female “pope,” it would not matter - we could still elect a valid Pope. There’s no such thing as Papal succession.

So who’s Pope is true and infallible, the Orthodox or Roman Catholic? How do you know which is the right one and based on what?

The Orthodox don’t claim the charism of infallibility. Their Patriarch (which is the title of their head Bishop, not Pope) is merely a “first among equals” who holds administrative authority but not theological authority. So, I suppose, if you ask who is infallible - the Pope or the Patriarch, the answer would be the only guy that claims to be infallible (or nobody, as the Orthodox would answer).

 

[DavidFilmer]

And how is the Office passed on?

Somebody is elected or appointed as Bishop of Rome. If this act is accepted by the Church then the Office passes to him.

How he is selected is irrelevant. He could

• Be designated by his predecessor (we don’t know if that’s ever been done)
• Claim it for himself
• Be elected by the clergy and/or the laity
• Be appointed by an Emperor
• March in with an army, murder the sitting Pope in the middle of the public square, and crown himself.

As long as the Church accepted it, that guy would be the Pope (an unlikely outcome in the latter scenario).

By the way, nothing about this is unique to the Pope - it applies to ALL Bishops (both Catholic and Orthodox), and it still applies today. Napoleon appointed all the Bishops in his Empire.

At times, it has been unclear if one individual was accepted by the Church - notably in the Western Schism. The Church has still, to this day, not made any definitive statement on who was Pope during this 40 year period (or if anybody was Pope). For 40 years, we have absolutely no idea who was Pope.

But it doesn’t matter, because…There’s no such thing as Papal succession.

 

[commenter]

If a bishop dies, they have to bring in bishops from other dioceses to ordain his successor. There has to be physical laying on of hands (as well as other sacramental conditions of form, matter, intent) to ensure valid apostolic succession. There cannot be any interval where there are no bishops in the world, or apostolic succession would be broken. Actually this is also true of the US presidency, except that it’s automatic, not personally conferred; if he dies someone else automatically becomes president, in a line of succession.

The papacy is different. Every time a pope dies, there is no pope until a new pope is chosen and accepts the position. Peter’s chair was vacant several times in the 20th century, twice in 1978. It is not a sacrament, like becoming a bishop.

There is no requirement that there be someone with “Infallibility” on hand at all times. Infallibility is a negative charism; there is no assurance that a pope WILL teach infallibly at any given time, only an assurance that **if **a pope teaches, with a certain emphasis under certain conditions on matters of faith and morals, that what he says will not contain error.

 

[Thorns]

That’s probably a question that deserves its own thread.

Could you summarize it briefly?

The Office cannot be lost, because it doesn’t depend on anything that came before it (except the establishment of the Office itself). We could go without a Pope for 200 years (or 2000 years) and still elect a valid Pope. We could have 200 years of rule by nothing but undisputed anti-Popes and still elect a valid Pope. There’s no such thing as Papal succession.

After 200 or 2000 years without a Pope, how would you know where the true Office was though? Is the Office of the pope just an idea and as long as somebody thinks about it at some point in time, the Office then exists?

The keys are not passed from Pope to Pope, so it doesn’t matter if any particular Pope is invalid. If the silly “Pope Joan” legends were true, and the Church somehow elected a female “pope,” it would not matter - we could still elect a valid Pope. There’s no such thing as Papal succession.

So why do Catholics use the example of Jesus giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom as justification for having authority and infallibility on earth? That seems to suggest that it matters who Jesus assigned and how the Papal lineage was kept and unbroken.

So, I suppose, if you ask who is infallible - the Pope or the Patriarch, the answer would be the only guy that claims to be infallible (or nobody, as the Orthodox would answer).

How can you tell who’s correct though?

 

[Thorns]

How he is selected is irrelevant.

He could

• March in with an army, murder the sitting Pope in the middle of the public square, and crown himself.

As long as the Church accepted it, that guy would be the Pope (an unlikely outcome in the latter scenario).

This seems to be contradictory. If it doesn’t matter how one is selected as Pope, why would the Church have to accept it?

If there’s no such thing as Papal Succession, then anyone could fill the Office whether the Church likes it or not, really, because they’d have no say in the matter if it were the case. The Office is there for the taking, it doesn’t belong to anyone since no one in particular holds the keys and if you don’t have to be a Papal successor, then it does not matter, as you initially said.

 

[tafan]

Somebody is elected or appointed as Bishop of Rome. If this act is accepted by the Church then the Office passes to him.

How he is selected is irrelevant. He could

• Be designated by his predecessor (we don’t know if that’s ever been done)
• Claim it for himself
• Be elected by the clergy and/or the laity
• Be appointed by an Emperor
• March in with an army, murder the sitting Pope in the middle of the public square, and crown himself.

As long as the Church accepted it, that guy would be the Pope (an unlikely outcome in the latter scenario).

By the way, nothing about this is unique to the Pope - it applies to ALL Bishops (both Catholic and Orthodox), and it still applies today. Napoleon appointed all the Bishops in his Empire.

At times, it has been unclear if one individual was accepted by the Church - notably in the Western Schism. The Church has still, to this day, not made any definitive statement on who was Pope during this 40 year period (or if anybody was Pope). For 40 years, we have absolutely no idea who was Pope.

But it doesn’t matter, because…There’s no such thing as Papal succession.

All known history shows the popes being selected based on the process determined by his selector. And we certainly know who were the valid popes during the Western Schism: Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, Gregory XII. I doubt an person could bring an army into Rome and be accepted as pope.

But you are correct about the charisms of the papacy are due to the office:

882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403

 

[tafan]

Could you summarize it briefly?

After 200 or 2000 years without a Pope, how would you know where the true Office was though? Is the Office of the pope just an idea and as long as somebody thinks about it at some point in time, the Office then exists?

So why do Catholics use the example of Jesus giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom as justification for having authority and infallibility on earth? That seems to suggest that it matters who Jesus assigned and how the Papal lineage was kept and unbroken.

How can you tell who’s correct though?

We know who is correct, because they have been installed as the Bishop of Rome. We would not have 200 or 2000 years without a pope. How would that ever happen?

BTW, I asked earlier, maybe you missed it: why the fixation on St Linus?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Could you summarize it briefly?

No. That’s why I suggested another thread. It’s a complex question.

After 200 or 2000 years without a Pope, how would you know where the true Office was though? Is the Office of the pope just an idea and as long as somebody thinks about it at some point in time, the Office then exists?

The Office is not THROUGH anyone or anything.

OK, suppose that, for some reason, the United States was unable to elect a President for 200 years, and we were ruled by the military. 200 years from now, we could still elect a President.

So why do Catholics use the example of Jesus giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom as justification for having authority and infallibility on earth?

The Papacy originated with Peter, who was the first Pope. Jesus could have chosen anyone.

That seems to suggest that it matters who Jesus assigned and how the Papal lineage was kept and unbroken.

There is no lineage. There’s no such thing as Papal succession.

How can you tell who’s correct though?

Clearly there is no definitive proof, because, if there were, we wouldn’t be in schism. When I converted from Anglicanism, I considered both sides and went with the one I felt was most persuasive. But it wasn’t 100% - I still favor the Orthodox view of Purgatory.

 

[DavidFilmer]

This seems to be contradictory. If it doesn’t matter how one is selected as Pope, why would the Church have to accept it?

The Church DOESN’T have to accept it. That’s the point. And the Church could accept it, and then change its mind. That’s what got the Western Schism going - the Church elected a Pope (Urban-6), changed its mind, and, five months later, the SAME GUYS who elected Urban turned around and elected somebody else (Clement-7), and 40 years of anti-Popes ensued. The matter was finally (somewhat) settled by the Council of Constance, who deposed three Papal claimants and installed Martin-5, but we’re not even sure about HIS legitimacy, because one of the three deposed popes might have been legitimate. But it doesn’t matter, because there’s no such thing as Papal succession.

If there’s no such thing as Papal Succession, then anyone could fill the Office whether the Church likes it or not

No, the Church has to ACCEPT it. If I declared myself Pope, the Church doesn’t have to go along.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

This is just my opinion–I think that St. Peter probably told others in the Roman Church and the vacinity around Rome–both laity and bishops–that he might be martyred and he recommended that Linus be the next Pope–maybe he chose St. Linus over St. Paul because maybe St. Paul was also in jail and maybe Linus wasn’t? Could that be possible?

How many bishops were around Rome at that time? We know that Peter and Paul were bishops–maybe there were a few others around the outskirts of Rome?

I have often wondered if any Popes left recommendations of who their successor should be after they died? Maybe with the proviso that the bishops remaining alive after their deaths could never reveal such recommendations?

The College of Cardinals nowadays can elect anyone they want–I just wonder if any Popes have left them advice on who they should choose?

I think St. Linus should be more revered by many. He was a saint and I’m sure that God wanted Him to be pope after St. Peter.

As for apostolic succession most agree that the bishop of Constantinople was a direct successor of St. Andrew.

Why is the Bishop of Rome the Pope? Because the Holy Spirit has guided the Church into accepting this and the Holy Spirit always guides the Church into all truth.

Why does God want it this way? Who knows the mind of God? Maybe God wants all mankind to know that His Church conquered the Imperial might of the greatest empire of all times–Rome and the He is always in charge of human history–He has Divine Providence.

The Roman Church suffered many martydoms and always clung to the truth. The Bishop of that particular Church is who God wants to be head of the universal Church.

The closest apostle to Jesus might have been St. John. He was never Pope. St. Matthias became one of the 12 by lot. And St. Stephen–only a deacon became the first martyr. And Jesus stood up in Hheaven to receive him!

Remember Jesus saying “The first shall be last and the last shall be first”.

We never know the mind of God–and some of the men who were Popes might not have been the best men–a small number were great sinners–and who knows–maybe some of them became Pope not because of God’s intentional will but because of his circumstantial will. God sometimes allows things in human history that aren’t the best but He can always make good out of it.

I’m sure that any man who becomes the Bishop of Rome and is recognized as Pope–that God will help that man in the exercise of his office.

I am so happy to be Catholic and have a man that by God’s will is in charge of the universal Catholic Church! Thanks be to God!

 

[Thorns]

We know who is correct, because they have been installed as the Bishop of Rome.

That reasoning sounds kind of circular. But as I asked earlier, why the fixation on Rome? Why does only the Bishop of Rome matter?

BTW, I asked earlier, maybe you missed it: why the fixation on St Linus?

Because I think it’s important.

 

[Thorns]

OK, suppose that, for some reason, the United States was unable to elect a President for 200 years, and we were ruled by the military. 200 years from now, we could still elect a President.

The United States is a physical place. We know who the President of the U.S. is because we know if he’s in the U.S. and governing it, that he is the president of the U.S.

The Office is not tangible though, but it sounds like you’re insisting that it is and that its place is in Rome. That’s why I ask, why Rome? Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Church are not confined to Rome.

What it sounds like you’re saying is, that the president of the U.S. is also the president of Turkey, Egypt, Armenia, Russia, Greece, etc. and that he has authority over those places. But at the same time, the presidents of all those countries don’t have authority over the U.S. And I’m asking why is only the U.S. that has the aurhority? Says who? Sounds a little biased. Oh and in fact the U.S. president is not the president of those other countries and has no authority there.

The Papacy originated with Peter, who was the first Pope. Jesus could have chosen anyone.

But then you contradict yourself when you say only the Bishop of Rome matters. How did Rome become involved in being the only legit authority when Christianity didn’t even start there? How do you know that the Office is in fact not in Russia?

There is no lineage. There’s no such thing as Papal succession.

Then why do Catholics continually point out that we can trace our popes all the way back to St Peter in an attempt to prove that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church?

 

[Usagi]

That reasoning sounds kind of circular. But as I asked earlier, why the fixation on Rome? Why does only the Bishop of Rome matter?

The powers of the papal office belong to the Roman See. That’s where Peter died, so he had the powers up until then and didn’t “leave” them in Jerusalem or Antioch or anyplace else he might temporarily have taken as a headquarters.

There is no “becoming the Pope” separately from becoming the Bishop of Rome. They are the same thing. Even the Popes (and anti-popes) who lived in Avignon claimed to be Bishops of Rome in exile, not Bishops of Avignon.

Becoming a bishop is a sacrament that requires direct transmission from someone who is already a bishop. Becoming bishop of a particular place requires only that you be selected by the currently accepted method – appointment, election, whatever. Being elected Pope is becoming bishop of a particular place (Rome), not being elevated to a super-episcopal level of holy orders (which does not exist).

Usagi

 

[Usagi]

Then why do Catholics continually point out that we can trace our popes all the way back to St Peter in an attempt to prove that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church?

If that is the sole point of evidence they are putting forward, they are not doing a very good job.

There are certain episcopal sees (bishops’ offices, in particular cities) that are believed to have been occupied first by apostles or those closely connected to them (like St. Mark or St. Timothy). The current bishops of those cities consider themselves successors to their respective apostles in the sense that the occupy the same office the apostle did, not that they necessarily trace their line of episcopal ordination to that specific apostle.

It is in that sense that the Pope (bishop of Rome) is the successor of St. Peter, who is believed to have been the first bishop of Rome. And that’s also why Rome is the important factor, because that sort of succession is measured geographically. Beyond that, there’s no great answer to “why”; within the first century, the bishops of the Church seem to have mostly spread out so that there was one in charge in each territory, and things just developed from there.

Usagi

 

[DavidFilmer]

That’s why I ask, why Rome? Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Church are not confined to Rome.

You are the OP, and you insist in throwing your OWN THREAD off-topic. This is something that normally happens TO the OP, and a MODERATOR has to intervene, because it violates Forum rules.

Stop trying to throw your OWN thread off-topic (it violates Forum rules). Create a new thread. CAF is running a Summer special, and ALL threads are free of charge.

What it sounds like you’re saying is, that the president of the U.S. is also the president of Turkey, Egypt, Armenia, Russia, Greece, etc. and that he has authority over those places. But at the same time, the presidents of all those countries don’t have authority over the U.S. And I’m asking why is only the U.S. that has the aurhority? Says who?

What are you talking about??? The Orthodox have rejected the Pope’s authority, and they are free to do so. The Pope cannot exercise authority over those who reject it.

But then you contradict yourself when you say only the Bishop of Rome matters. How did Rome become involved in being the only legit authority when Christianity didn’t even start there? How do you know that the Office is in fact not in Russia?

Again you persist in your desire to throw your OWN THREAD off-topic. Create a new thread. CAF is running a Summer special, and ALL threads are free of charge.

Then why do Catholics continually point out that we can trace our popes all the way back to St Peter in an attempt to prove that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church?

Because St. Peter was chosen as the first Pope. If St. John had been chosen, then we would be talking about St. John. SOMEBODY had to first hold the Office of the Papacy, and the Office would go back to the first person who held it, whether Peter or John (just as the Office of the President of the United States goes back to George Washington, but John Adams did not inherit the Office from Washington).

 

[Thorns]

The powers of the papal office belong to the Roman See. That’s where Peter died, so he had the powers up until then and didn’t “leave” them in Jerusalem or Antioch or anyplace else he might temporarily have taken as a headquarters.

There is no “becoming the Pope” separately from becoming the Bishop of Rome. They are the same thing. Even the Popes (and anti-popes) who lived in Avignon claimed to be Bishops of Rome in exile, not Bishops of Avignon.

Becoming a bishop is a sacrament that requires direct transmission from someone who is already a bishop. Becoming bishop of a particular place requires only that you be selected by the currently accepted method – appointment, election, whatever. Being elected Pope is becoming bishop of a particular place (Rome), not being elevated to a super-episcopal level of holy orders (which does not exist).

Usagi

Why does the Office stay where Peter died as opposed to where Peter was selected as Pope by Jesus? How was this determination made?

According to DavidFilmer, theres no such thing as Papal succession so it seems where Peter died isnt really even relevant to begin with. So like I said, whos to say the Office didnt stay or return back to the Middle East after Peter’s death?

 

[commenter]

Why does the Office stay where Peter died as opposed to where Peter was selected as Pope by Jesus? How was this determination made?

According to DavidFilmer, theres no such thing as Papal succession so it seems where Peter died isnt really even relevant to begin with. So like I said, whos to say the Office didnt stay or return back to the Middle East after Peter’s death?

Thorns,
It was pointed out in an earlier post that you are shifting the Thread around with different kinds of questions, all in a challenging way; it seems to me, not so much to find out information about how Linus was chosen (about whom we know so little) but about the papacy. Am I right?

If you have a larger concern about the papacy as such, past or present, it would be more courteous to air that concern itself. Lay your cards out. That might make an interesting thread. You are trying to make it sound like David conceded something about papal succession. How does that relate to the Thread topic, which has been already been answered (i. e. we don’t know)? Some people believe that we have no way of knowing who would be the true vicar of Christ now, thus all patriarchs, or all bishops, or even all Christians, are equal claimants; thus no pope. If that’s your idea, ok, put it out directly. If you have a different larger idea, put that out then. People will probably interact with you courteously, but they can’t, if you’re playing chess one day, checkers the next, and poker the third day. Your ideas are interesting.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Why does the Office stay where Peter died as opposed to where Peter was selected as Pope by Jesus? How was this determination made?

Since you CONTINUE TO INSIST on throwing your OWN THREAD off-topic, I have taken the liberty of opening a NEW THREAD to discuss this topic on your behalf.

CAF is offering a Summer Special for you (all threads are free), but they are charging longtime members $5000 per new thread. I will be sending you a bill to reimburse me.

 

[Michael_Francis]

Departed from topic and closed as per Forum Rules