Mormon claims there were two Pope Linus?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BartBurk
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BartBurk

Guest
I listened to an MP3 tape of a talk by a Mormon named Hyrum Smith. He makes a list of all of the dates leading to the apostasy and restoration. According to this guy, Peter went to Rome in 42 A.D. and appointed Linus as Bishop of Rome. Paul showed up the next year and saw the Roman Church was in deep trouble. He appointed another person named Linus as Bishop to clean up the mess. The first Linus is an apostate, the second Linus a wonderful guy. Anyway, the second Linus gets killed in 60 A.D. The first Linus continues to be Bishop of the apostate Roman Church which becomes the Catholic Church.

Here’s a list I found on the internet with this guy’s claims:

listology.com/content_show.cfm/content_id.29606

The dates are slightly different than on the tape and the second Linus is only listed when he gets martyred, but it gives you an idea.

Where is this guy getting the idea there were two Linuses? I have searched high and low without finding any evidence of this claim, but apparently the Mormon missionaries are using this tape as a means of showing the Catholic Church is apostate. It also makes no sense that Peter or Paul would appoint a Bishop of Rome in 42 or 43 or 44 A.D.
 
When your whole religion is made up, I guess you need some made up facts to back it up. 🤷
 
Chronister4673 said:
When your whole religion is made up, I guess you need some made up facts to back it up. 🤷
Click to expand...
Here is a brief transcription of what this Hyrum Smith said about Linus on the MP3:

“The next year you need to write is 42 A.D. In 42 A.D. Peter went to Rome and established the church in Rome. He ordained a bishop in Rome by the name of Linus. Linus is the man through whom the Catholics retrace their historical lineage. In 43 A.D. Paul, performing the function that apostles still perform, went back to Rome to see how the church was doing. He discovered that in one short year the church under the Bishop Linus had completely apostasized from what Peter had established. Read the first chapter of Romans in the New Testament, understanding that that chapter was written upon Paul’s return from Rome and describes what he found there. As a result of this apostasy that had taken place in Rome, Paul established a new leader of the church in Rome a Deacon by the name of Linus as well. History sort of gets messed up here between the two Linuses, but understand the Deacon Linus was the authorized leader of the Church of Jesus Christ in Rome. Bishop Linus’ church was an aberrant church already. The next date you need to write is 64 A.D. In 64 A.D. Nero had Linus the Deacon killed. When Linus the Deacon was killed the Church of Jesus Christ, the authorized sanctioned Church of Jesus Christ, disappeared from Rome. The Christian Church under the Bishop Linus was still there and surviving … About 78 A.D. the Bishop Linus’ church was called the Church of Rome. At that point Linus received a letter from a person who said, “You know we really are a universal church.” Bishop Linus thought about it and said, “You know we really are a Universal Church, we are trying to appeal to everyone in Rome, why don’t we call ourselves the Universal Church. At that point they became known as the Roman Catholic Church."

He later goes on to say the Apostle John was on Patmos Island and eventually disappeared from history around 101 A.D. and the apostasy was complete.

This is actually something Mormon missionaries seem to be listening to as an explanation of the apostasy.
 
Wow, that Pope Joanaia story has been so thoroughly debunked, I thought only toothless snake-handlers still believed it! :rotfl:

Paul
 
PaulDupre said:
Wow, that Pope Joanaia story has been so thoroughly debunked, I thought only toothless snake-handlers still believed it! :rotfl:

Paul
Click to expand...
Exactly.

It’s this garbage which is proof positive that anything else this guy has to say is suspect:rolleyes: .
 
This Smith guy is quite the historian! Here are a few gems from his “history” of Christianity:

101 AD: Book of Revelations complete; Apostasy complete; Dark Ages begin
  • Code: 
      Even those dubious historians that still use the term "dark ages" don't believe they began in 101 AD!*
325 AD: Church of State; Reign of Popes begins (Emperor = Pope)
Code: 
      *When exactly was Constantine made pope?*
1200 AD: printing press invented and bibles become available to the public; Boss Pope Imosen III runs out of money in the process of fighting 3 wars and develops the practice of the Sale of Indulgences (people pay for forgiveness or even prepay for future sins) to fund his wars
Code: 
         *This guy's misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine is astounding!  I can't believe that even a Mormon would swallow this stuff!*
Good grief!
Paul
 
PaulDupre said:
This Smith guy is quite the historian! Here are a few gems from his “history” of Christianity:

101 AD: Book of Revelations complete; Apostasy complete; Dark Ages begin
  • Code: 
      Even those dubious historians that still use the term "dark ages" don't believe they began in 101 AD!*
325 AD: Church of State; Reign of Popes begins (Emperor = Pope)
Code: 
      *When exactly was Constantine made pope?*
1200 AD: printing press invented and bibles become available to the public; Boss Pope Imosen III runs out of money in the process of fighting 3 wars and develops the practice of the Sale of Indulgences (people pay for forgiveness or even prepay for future sins) to fund his wars
Code: 
         *This guy's misunderstanding of Catholic doctrine is astounding!  I can't believe that even a Mormon would swallow this stuff!*
Good grief!
Paul
Click to expand...
Our local missionaries have apparently swallowed it. You would think if there were really a false Pope Linus appointed by Peter and a true Pope Linus appointed by Paul and the true one was killed while the false one started the Catholic Church that the fundamentalists would be all over that one. Yet I don’t find anything on the internet to back that one up at all. He had to have just made this up from whole cloth, but the Utah folks seem to just eat this stuff up.
 
And yet LDS do believe these things. As a Mormon for over 20 years, I was never encouraged to think outside the box or to question. Often I was asked to put my intellect and commonsense on hold, because “faith” is so much higher than intellect. It almost seemed that the crazier the doctrine was, the more “spiritual” you were marked down as being, when you accepted it.

As a new missionary in the 1980s, I listened to what my companions would say. One of them may have listened to a tape sent from a parent, and then he would pass this on.

For example, I taught that one of the Popes was a woman. Another was a real live “ee-awing” donkey. (Truthfully the animal that looks like a pony). The Catholics had to confirm popeship onto someone when a Pope died and this was the only creature available.

Falsehood and untruths are taught and perpetuated. Hyrum Smith the man you refer to in the talk you listened too, has to support the “great and universal apostasy”. If there was no apostasy, then there is no Mormon church. It stands or falls on this. And so the stories about a woman Pope or a donkey. We know that some Popes were less than the best, e.g. Alexander VI. However, LDS confuse the role of a Pope with their conception of a Prophet, such as Gordon B. Hinckley, the current Mormon prophet. Last month, President Hinckley said this in the world General Conference of the LDS Church:

"…Realizing the importance of knowing the true nature of God, men had struggled to find a way to define Him. Learned clerics argued with one another. When Constantine became a Christian in the fourth century, he called together a great convocation of learned men with the hope that they could reach a conclusion of understanding concerning the true nature of Deity. All they reached was a compromise of various points of view. The result was the Nicene Creed of A.D. 325. This and subsequent creeds have become the declaration of doctrine concerning the nature of Deity for most of Christianity ever since.

I have read them all a number of times. I cannot understand them. I think others cannot understand them. I am sure that the Lord also knew that many would not understand them. And so in 1820, in that incomparable vision, the Father and the Son appeared to the boy Joseph. They spoke to him with words that were audible, and he spoke to Them. They could see. They could speak. They could hear. They were personal. They were of substance. They were not imaginary beings. They were beings tabernacled in flesh. And out of that experience has come our unique and true understanding of the nature of Deity."

And so the untruths will continue. Now, there will be a new one to add to Pope Joanaia: Catholic doctrine was determined by a committee and the creeds that come from it are not comprehensible. Even as a “becoming” Catholic, I know the purpose of the conferences. These were generally to codify what was already believe, that which was passed down from the apostles through the Church Fathers, and particularly to hear and then warn the members of heresies that were beginning to creep into the Church.

But I can just see how these words by Presdient Hinckley are going to be promulgated. I would like to hear a talk in LDS Conference that has as its theme the desire for truth and the need to correct the false things that are said about the Catholic Church. Or even a book from a Mormon apostle. But, you see, if something will turn people away from Catholicism and at the same time confirm Mormonism, EVEN IF IT IS UNTRUE, will not be corrected. So, I suppose the good Brother Hyrum will remain uncorrected and his work will be held up as a scholarly, intensivel and extensively researched, historically factually, expose (ex-pose-say) of Catholicism. No need to research any further, Brother Hyrum has done it all.

God bless you,

Hal.
 
Actually there have been two popes since the schism of 451 a.d.

The Eastern Church Defends Petrine Primacy and the Papacy
Someone sent me this list of quotes from Eastern Patriarchs, bishops, etc. It’s been posted on Usenet, but I decided to also put it here in an abridged form as a public service. It has since been brought to my attention that many (if not all) of the quotes seem to have been taken from the book “Jesus, Peter & the Keys” by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren and David Hess (published by Queenship Publishing Company, 1996). Their book contains many more quotes like the ones below, so I’d encourage you to buy their book if you have an interest in this sort of thing. You can buy it online

Alexandria
Antioch
Constantinople
Jerusalem
Cyprus

St. Macarius of Egypt (371 A.D.):

The Chief, Peter. (Macarius, De Patientia, n. 3, p. 180)
Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood. (Macarius, Hom. xxvi. n. 23, p. 101)

St. Athanasius (362 A.D.):
Rome is called the Apostolic throne. (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35).
The Chief, Peter. (Athan, In Ps. xv. 8, tom. iii. p. 106, Migne)
web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm

The Eastern Catholic Churches
There are 22 rites in the universal Catholic Church, the 21 rites comprising the Eastern Catholic Churches, and the Latin Western rite. They are outlined in the following chart. A brief study of each one proves to be a fascinating study in Church history!

The Eastern Catholic Maronite Church
And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch. Acts 11:26
maryourmother.net/Eastern.html

Copts - They have thier own “POPE”

It is important to note that Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria was never labeled as heretic by the council’s canons. The precise differences in theology that caused the split are still disputed, and highly technical.

The Church belongs to the Oriental Orthodox family of churches, and has been a distinct church body since the Council of Chalcedon in 451 AD,

the Coptic Orthodox Church is the Church of Alexandria that was established by Saint Mark, the apostle and evangelist, in the middle of the 1st century (approximately 42 AD). The head of the church, and the See of Alexandria, is the Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of All Africa on the Holy See of Saint Mark, currently His Holiness Pope Shenouda III. More than 95% of Egypt’s Christians belong to the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria, though other churches also claim Patriarchates and Patriarchs of Alexandria, among them:
The Greek Orthodox Church of Alexandria,
The Coptic Catholic Church of Alexandria,
The Greek Melkite Catholic Patriarchate of Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coptic_Church

The Sacrament of Baptism has the first rank among the Seven Holy Sacraments, as it is the door by which the believer enters the church and has the right to partake in the rest of the Sacraments.

Baptism is a redemptive Sacrament, necessary for redemption and entry to eternal life according to what the Lord said: “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of Water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God” (John 3). It is one of the four redemptive Sacraments: Baptism, Myron, Confession and Communion of the Holy Body and precious Blood of the Lord.

but if the new-born is sick and his parents are afraid the baby will die, they must request the priest to baptize and anoint the baby with the Myron, even if the child is one day old, and under any circumstance (as the priest may not be fasting or unable to baptize him by immersion); the baptism must be carried out quickly, so that the child does not die without Baptism and is deprived from entry or sight of the Kingdom, according to the words of our beloved Savior (John 3). The method to be followed is that someone, except the mother, should take the child to the church to be baptized. If the baby lives, the Baptism is correct and should not be repeated.

If his parents neglect the Baptism, and the child dies without Baptism, it is the right of the church to impose a punishment on the parents for a period of one year, of prayers and fasting with prostration. They may also be forbidden to receive the Holy Eucharist during this whole year. copticchurch.net/topics/thecopticchurch/sacraments/1_baptism.htm
 
dosdog said:
Actually there have been two popes since the schism of 451 a.d.
Click to expand...
There have not really been two popes. Since the Coptic Church is not in communion with Rome since the 451 AD schism, their pope is actually an anti-pope.

God bless,
Paul
 
PaulDupre said:
There have not really been two popes. Since the Coptic Church is not in communion with Rome since the 451 AD schism, their pope is actually an anti-pope.

God bless,
Paul
Click to expand...
Orthodox churches, although separated from the Catholic Church, have preserved apostolic succession, the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist. Nevertheless, they “lack something in their condition as particular churches” because they are not in union with the pope.The Protestant communities, however, are not churches because they do not have apostolic succession

The new Vatican document, he said, is looking at the term in a “strictly theological” way, explaining that if the Catholic Church believes apostolic succession and valid sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, are essential aspects of the church established by Christ
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703953.htm
 
Prince_Hal said:
And yet LDS do believe these things. As a Mormon for over 20 years, I was never encouraged to think outside the box or to question. Often I was asked to put my intellect and commonsense on hold, because “faith” is so much higher than intellect. It almost seemed that the crazier the doctrine was, the more “spiritual” you were marked down as being, when you accepted it.

As a new missionary in the 1980s, I listened to what my companions would say. One of them may have listened to a tape sent from a parent, and then he would pass this on.

For example, I taught that one of the Popes was a woman. Another was a real live “ee-awing” donkey. (Truthfully the animal that looks like a pony). The Catholics had to confirm popeship onto someone when a Pope died and this was the only creature available.

Falsehood and untruths are taught and perpetuated. Hyrum Smith the man you refer to in the talk you listened too, has to support the “great and universal apostasy”. If there was no apostasy, then there is no Mormon church. It stands or falls on this. And so the stories about a woman Pope or a donkey. We know that some Popes were less than the best, e.g. Alexander VI. However, LDS confuse the role of a Pope with their conception of a Prophet, such as Gordon B. Hinckley, the current Mormon prophet. Last month, President Hinckley said this in the world General Conference of the LDS Church:

"…Realizing the importance of knowing the true nature of God, men had struggled to find a way to define Him. Learned clerics argued with one another. When Constantine became a Christian in the fourth century, he called together a great convocation of learned men with the hope that they could reach a conclusion of understanding concerning the true nature of Deity. All they reached was a compromise of various points of view. The result was the Nicene Creed of A.D. 325. This and subsequent creeds have become the declaration of doctrine concerning the nature of Deity for most of Christianity ever since.

I have read them all a number of times. I cannot understand them. I think others cannot understand them. I am sure that the Lord also knew that many would not understand them. And so in 1820, in that incomparable vision, the Father and the Son appeared to the boy Joseph. They spoke to him with words that were audible, and he spoke to Them. They could see. They could speak. They could hear. They were personal. They were of substance. They were not imaginary beings. They were beings tabernacled in flesh. And out of that experience has come our unique and true understanding of the nature of Deity."

And so the untruths will continue. Now, there will be a new one to add to Pope Joanaia: Catholic doctrine was determined by a committee and the creeds that come from it are not comprehensible. Even as a “becoming” Catholic, I know the purpose of the conferences. These were generally to codify what was already believe, that which was passed down from the apostles through the Church Fathers, and particularly to hear and then warn the members of heresies that were beginning to creep into the Church.

But I can just see how these words by Presdient Hinckley are going to be promulgated. I would like to hear a talk in LDS Conference that has as its theme the desire for truth and the need to correct the false things that are said about the Catholic Church. Or even a book from a Mormon apostle. But, you see, if something will turn people away from Catholicism and at the same time confirm Mormonism, EVEN IF IT IS UNTRUE, will not be corrected. So, I suppose the good Brother Hyrum will remain uncorrected and his work will be held up as a scholarly, intensivel and extensively researched, historically factually, expose (ex-pose-say) of Catholicism. No need to research any further, Brother Hyrum has done it all.

God bless you,

Hal.
Click to expand...
Whew! I read between the lines of this post a great deal of personal struggle and courage. Getting God-bumps here!
 
PaulDupre said:
There have not really been two popes. Since the Coptic Church is not in communion with Rome since the 451 AD schism, their pope is actually an anti-pope.

God bless,
Paul
Click to expand...
Do the Copts use the word “pope” as we do? I understand that for them the Coptic “Pope” is just that – THEIR “papa”.

Now back to topic.
 
dosdog said:
Orthodox churches, although separated from the Catholic Church, have preserved apostolic succession, the ordained priesthood and the Eucharist. Nevertheless, they “lack something in their condition as particular churches” because they are not in union with the pope.The Protestant communities, however, are not churches because they do not have apostolic succession

The new Vatican document, he said, is looking at the term in a “strictly theological” way, explaining that if the Catholic Church believes apostolic succession and valid sacraments, particularly the Eucharist, are essential aspects of the church established by Christ
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703953.htm
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with the Copts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top