Peter as Pope, Linus, Anaclet

[Tarhiel]

I have a question about Peter. ( I need it for my “penfriend”)
As I have heard, that second and third pope (saint Linus and Anacletus), were ordained by Paul. It is true and if it is, doesn´t violate this Peter´s Authority as Pope?

Thanks for answers.

Tarhiel

 

[mlchance]

As I have heard, that second and third pope (saint Linus and Anacletus), were ordained by Paul. It is true and if it is, doesn´t violate this Peter´s Authority as Pope?

Of course not. St. Peter was dead at the time.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[LilyM]

If I remember my martyrology right, Sts Peter and Paul were both martyred at roughly the same time in the year 63 were they not?

Perhaps Paul ordained Linus and Anacletus as priests or possibly Bishops, since no Pope is ever ORDAINED as such, rather simply chosen (via election these days) and installed - usually by a conclave (congregation of Bishops or Cardinals). I don’t know what the process was for installing Bishops in those days, or whether Paul could have or would have done this on his own. Even so this doesn’t invalidate the idea of Peter being the first Pope. For centuries after Kings would choose the Bishops and Archbishops of their countries (as Kings of England did with the Archbishops of Canterbury and York) and the Pope would give (with the occasional veto!) final approval to the candidate chosen.

It is difficult to see exactly what the OP means by the question anyway, since Peter would not have been around nor permitted to ordain a successor prior to his death. In fact no Pope in history has ever been chosen before the death of the previous Pope, although some Popes have hinted as to who they would prefer to succeed them.

 

[Maranatha]

I have a question about Peter. ( I need it for my “penfriend”)
As I have heard, that second and third pope (saint Linus and Anacletus), were ordained by Paul. It is true and if it is, doesn´t violate this Peter´s Authority as Pope?

Thanks for answers.

Tarhiel

The way I understand it, men get ordained as priests and popes get installed.

Perhaps your friend was implying that Linus and Anacletus were converted to Christianity by St. Paul. I haven’t heard this before but it is very possible. If it is true, it in no way undermines Peter’s Authority as Pope since any Apostle/Bishop can ordain a priest.

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Of course not. St. Peter was dead at the time.

Right! Although many Popes have ordained future Popes to the diaconate, priesthood, and/or episcopacy - no Pope in the history of Catholicism has ever ordained his successor to the Papacy. If this happened, I’d be looking for the number for Ghostbusters.

 

[Roman_Army]

I have a question about Peter. ( I need it for my “penfriend”)
As I have heard, that second and third pope (saint Linus and Anacletus), were ordained by Paul. It is true and if it is, doesn´t violate this Peter´s Authority as Pope?

Thanks for answers.

Tarhiel

As people have stated previously, Paul may have ordained Linus and Anacletus to the priesthood and/or episcopate. But that doesn’t mean that Pope St. Linus or Pope St. Anacletus are successors of Paul and not of Peter. They are successors of Peter because they validly and legitimately took over Peter’s office in Rome after he died.

This also doesn’t mean that because Paul ordained Linus and Anacletus as priests, Peter couldn’t have been Pope. The Pope is not the only person that ordains men to the priesthood or episcopate, other Bishops can do so also. It is not as if only the Pope can ordain. Remember, the Pope is a bishop like every other Bishop, the only difference is that he is the Prime Bishop (or leader of the Bishops) and so he has an extra special duty or extra power that the other Bishops don’t have.

May God bless you

 

[Tarhiel]

You know, even I don´t know what he wnats to porve with it, but nevermind. I think this information I have, should be enough for him.
Thanks to everyone.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I have a question about Peter. ( I need it for my “penfriend”)
As I have heard, that second and third pope (saint Linus and Anacletus), were ordained by Paul. It is true and if it is, doesn´t violate this Peter´s Authority as Pope?

Thanks for answers.

Tarhiel

There is no way of knowing who ordained either of them, so it would be immoral to claim to know.​

If the Church’s teaching is true, she does not need to support it by treating fables as facts - to treat fiction as fact would be the very worst kind of argument.

FWIW, Peter was an Apostle - but not a pope. To call him a pope is like thinking that because the US Armed Forces of today includes aeroplanes & tanks, George Washington must therefore have used aeroplanes and tanks in fighting the British. There is continuity in the political and military history of the US - but continuity is not the same thing as the absence of all differences.

So with the Papacy - there is continuity between Peter and (say) Pius IX; but it can’t be said that because Pius IX wore the triple tiara and offered the Mass in Latin, therefore Peter did the same.

Peter’s authority comes from his commission by Christ - and the Papacy is one of the forms into which the bishopric of Rome developed. He was not himself a pope, nor was he a bishop: but the authority committed to him was passed down to men who had the title of bishop; and the bishops in the church at Rome eventually acquired the degree of authority now exercised by those who succeeded them as Popes; each one remained bishop of Rome, as well as having other titles and responsibilities in the Church. There is succession - and there is change. ##

 

[The_Augustinian]

If the Church’s teaching is true, she does not need to support it by treating fables as facts - to treat fiction as fact would be the very worst kind of argument.

We shouldn’t confuse “fiction” with oral traditions that do not necessarily have the benefit of solid historical support.

“Fiction” implies something made up of whole cloth. Oral traditions develop over time, and are believed by many. Some tradtions are confirmed by the archaeological record, like the location of St. Peter’s tomb underneath his basilica. Others lack such support, and are even contradicted by the evidence.

However, even if there is no official support, there is definitely no harm in believing such traditions, if they are not shown to be false. People have been believing in in them for centuries. I think it would be an insult to tell them they believe in mere “fables.”

Just as people in court are innocent until proven guilty, the generous and Catholic mind should, I think, assume these “small-t” traditions as true or at least worth believing in until clearly shown otherwise.

As for calling St. Peter the first pope, there is certainly no harm in that, if by “pope” we do not mean a certain title which has developed over several centuries, but by the office, in particular the pope of Rome’s teaching office as pastor of all Christians. Any good Catholic would assume that St. Peter held this office without, of course, assuming the particular title. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, after all.

 

[prv]

…]

If this happened, I’d be looking for the number for Ghostbusters.

LOL

 

[frnate]

It is not completely un-heard of. Ordinations and consecrations are not static events. Rather they are dynamic and it would not be that unusual for a bishop to consecrate another bishop even in the presence of a patriarch. It would simply be a matter of who was presiding over the consecration service. For instance, if a patriarch were attending a consecration where one of his own bishops is presiding then he would not participate in the laying on of hands because that would require him to submit, albeit briefly, to the aposotolic authority of one who is supposed to be submitted to him. I have participated in just such a consecration and when I asked why the patriarch did not profer the great honor of the laying on of hands I was given that reason. Made sense to me.

Peace,
+Nathan