E
ericc
Guest
I have been doing some reading on Church History and trying to figure out whether St Peter is justifiably declared as the First Bishop of Rome.
In Eusebius, Church History Book 3, Chapter 21 Paragraph 2 and 3 Eusebius list that Linius was the first Bishop of Rome, Anencletus second and third Clement, AFTER Paul and Peter. In Chapter 4, para 9, he states that Linius was Peter’s successor.
Likewise, in Chapter 22, Eusebius list Evodius as the first Bishop and Ignatius the second. However we know that Peter was the founder of the Church of Antioch.
Similarly, in Church History Book 2, he list Annianus the First Bishop of the Church of Alexandria after Mark. In Book 3, he followed in Chapter 14, listing Abilius as the second Bishop after Annianus.
My question is whether it is the norm to exclude the Founder Apostle when listing the lineage? Non-catholics have been trying to deny that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome by relying on such listings absent the names of the founder.
In Eusebius, Church History Book 3, Chapter 21 Paragraph 2 and 3 Eusebius list that Linius was the first Bishop of Rome, Anencletus second and third Clement, AFTER Paul and Peter. In Chapter 4, para 9, he states that Linius was Peter’s successor.
Likewise, in Chapter 22, Eusebius list Evodius as the first Bishop and Ignatius the second. However we know that Peter was the founder of the Church of Antioch.
Similarly, in Church History Book 2, he list Annianus the First Bishop of the Church of Alexandria after Mark. In Book 3, he followed in Chapter 14, listing Abilius as the second Bishop after Annianus.
My question is whether it is the norm to exclude the Founder Apostle when listing the lineage? Non-catholics have been trying to deny that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome by relying on such listings absent the names of the founder.