Ever heard this one?
…
…a claim about Pope Linus, that he fell into apostasy and that Paul had to return to Rome to remove him … and “Deacon” Linus replaced him. However, Deacon Linus was martyred, and so former Pope Linus, who had been kicked out of the Church for false teachings, stepped back into the role.
…
This, according to the missionary, completely disproves the idea of papal infallibility and the authority of Rome.
Hmmm. I had considered myself somewhat of an authority on Mormon doctrine (having accumulated and studied a fairly substantial library of Mormon writings some years ago, by such noted Mormon theologians as Bruce McConkie) but I was unable to find such a theological claim among my sources.
So I Googled the phrase “Deacon Linus.” I expected to find lots of references. But Google returned only 13 hits, most of which have nothing to do with this fanciful history (such as references to a Deacon Linus Blair of Wyocena, etc).
I found only three obscure references to this idea (though no substantiation is offered). The most detailed explanation I found is this (from userid AH1986 posting on 01/29/2008 on
newsweek.com/id/105857/output/comments ):
Comment: Let me lay out the history for you. On Paul’s first visit to Rome he Ordained a certain Bishop Linus, gave unto him the keys and authority to lead the early church in Rome. Paul then left to orgainze other branches of the church thoughout the region, and things were going well. ON Pauls return to Rome roughly a year later he found that Bishop Linus was using his authority for personal gain, had altered the doctrines to conform to his view of what the doctrine meant, and for this Paul EXCOMMUNICATED him and stipped him of all authority. After this Paul ordained a DEACON Linus to take charge in his stead. Paul left and the church was begining to thrive once again in Rome. Shortly thereafter the persecution of chriistian became more and more persistant, and the Apostels and other leaders of the church were being hunted down and martyred. ONe of the Martyrs of the early church was Deacon Linus, the only one with the higher priesthood to lead and recive revelation for the church in rome. Without a prophet and revelator the doctrines began to evolve and become distorted. Much stife occured due to this and Emporor Constantine decided to reunify the christian faith and saught out the supposed authority in Rome. This authortiy was the corrupt and previously excommunicated Bishop Linus, through whom the Roman Catholic Church claim their authority and unbroken chain of succession. There was an apostacy and the only thing I need to prove my point are the thousand of diferent christian faiths present in our current world.
So the author’s only “proof” is the proliferation of protestant belief systems. Of course, there were no protestants at all until the 16th Century. The various faiths he references are all rather modern inventions.
This author also (correctly) acknowledges that Linus was the second Pope (so he was appointed in the First Century), but the author goes on to claim that this Linus was excommunicated but was restored to power by Emperor Constantine. But Constantine did not come into power until the Fourth Century. Hmmm.
In another forum posting (
forums.hannity.com/showthread.php?t=67111&page=9) the author claims that
Paul finds Bishop Linus has apostatized by calling Christ’s church the Roman church
I found another post (
xanga.com/home.aspx?user=DBE_BG1&nextdate=5%2F11%2F2006+23%3A59%3A59.999) which provides a bit more “explanation:”
Bishop Linus was ordained and set apart to be the authorized leader of Rome by Peter, however, within a year the Church under his direction had gone astray and was returning to elaborate laws and rituals that the Apostles taught were no longer needed. Bishop Linus was then removed from power by the Apostle Paul. Paul set in his stead a different leader, coincidently named Deacon Linus. Deacon Linus was then the authorized Church leader in Rome, but sadly, Deacon Lunus was killed by Emperor Nero. When that happened, Bishop Linus, who had continued his preaching, reestablished himself as the head of the Church in Rome without the Apostle’s direction. Thus, apostasy began in Rome. A majority of the Christian world, however, traces its authority to Bishop Linus.
Another post on a Mormon apologetics website (
mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=23688) seeking further information failed to elicit anything of substance.
This is EVERYTHING that Google finds related to this particular Mormon apologetic argument.
A couple of years ago I read a (borrowed) copy of “The Great Apostasy” by Mormon theologian James Talmage. This lays out the Mormon claim that the Church that Jesus established fell into apostasy and invalidated itself (the book is easily refuted, BTW). But I am very sure that I did not encounter this “two Linus” theory in this book.
This appears to be some new idea that some Mormon apologists have invented to support their doctrine of Great (Total) Apostasy. This is the central doctrine (and weakness) of Mormon theology - if the Church of Jesus Christ never fell into total apostasy then the Mormon church cannot be valid. Without total apostasy, there is no basis for validity Mormon church.
Mormons dare not attack the Apostles themselves and accuse them of heresy or apostasy. So they attack Linus (the second Pope) instead, and claim that corruption originated with him.
But this is apparently a new and obscure fabrication in Mormon theology. I can’t find or recall seeing it in any Mormon publication, and references to it on the Web are very scant and vague, without even a passing effort to provide substantive verification.
But I suspect that this will gain traction in the Mormon community.
