The second Pope

[roseproject]

I’m not sure if this the right thread or not (there doesn’t appear to be a “Church traditions” thread or something like that '^^), but anyways, here’s my question:

After Saint Peter, who was the authority (that God used) to select the next Pope (Pope Linus)? Were there bishops who selected the next Pope? Who ran this process?

Thanks in advance

 

[E_7]

I’m not sure if this the right thread or not (there doesn’t appear to be a “Church traditions” thread or something like that '^^), but anyways, here’s my question:

After Saint Peter, who was the authority (that God used) to select the next Pope (Pope Linus)? Were there bishops who selected the next Pope? Who ran this process?

Thanks in advance

Hi roseproject. This might come in handy in the future when choosing where to post a new thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=145189

Traditional Catholicism - discuss Catholic traditions, history, church law, Extraordinary Form of the mass, hagiography, Catholic devotions, Ecclesia Dei communities and societies, and other topics that the moderator feels may be appropriate for this forum

.

By the way, good question.

 

[E_7]

This is what I found it the Original Catholic Encyclopaedia:

Linus, Saint, POPE (about A.D. 64 or 67-76 or 79). All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book “Adversus haereses”. As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian’s assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, “De vir. ill.”, xv). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his II Tim., iv, 21. The passage by Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads: “After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus”. We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as "being p he Linus mentioned in II Tim., iv, 21, goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name.

Linus’s term of office, according to the papal lists handed down to us, lasted only twelve years. The Liberian Catalogue shows that it lasted twelve years, four months, and twelve days. The dates given in this catalogue, A.D. 56 until A.D. 67, are incorrect.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Pope_Linus%2C_Saint

 

[JamalChristophr]

Interesting question…I’m curious about it, too, at least.

It seems that it was Linus. I think Peter probably could have just laid hands on him and made him Bishop of Rome by his own decree. That’s just my “hypothesis” if you will.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Linus

 

[E_7]

Interesting question…I’m curious about it, too, at least.

It seems that it was Linus. I think Peter probably could have just laid hands on him and made him Bishop of Rome by his own decree. That’s just my “hypothesis” if you will.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Linus

More by Original Catholic Encyclopedia

Perhaps it was on account of these dates that the writers of the fourth century gave their opinion that Linus had held the position of head of the Roman community during the life of the Apostle; e.g., Rufinus in the preface to his translation of the pseudo-Clementine “Recognitiones”. But this hypothesis has no historical foundation. It cannot be doubted that according to the accounts of Irenaeus concerning the Roman Church in the second century, Linus was chosen to be head of the community of Christians in Rome, after the death of the Apostle. For this reason his pontificate dates from the year of the death of the Apostles Peter and Paul, which, however, is not known for certain. The “Liber Pontificalis” asserts that Linus’s home was in Tuscany, and that his father’s name was Herculanus; but we cannot discover the origin of this assertion. According to the same work on the popes, Linus is supposed to have issued a decree “in conformity with the ordinance of St. Peter”, that women should have their heads covered in church. Without doubt this decree is apocryphal, and copied by the author of the “Liber Pontificalis” from the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians (xi, 5) and arbitrarily attributed to the first successor of the Apostle in Rome. The statement made in the same source, that Linus suffered martyrdom, cannot be proved and is improbable. For between Nero and Domitian there is no mention of any persecution of the Roman Church; and-Irenaeus (I. c., III, iv, 3) from among the early Roman bishops designates only Telesphorus as a glorious martyr.

oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Pope_Linus%2C_Saint

 

[glendab]

I have this from my copy of Eusebius:

Book 3, Para. 2. “After the martyrdoms of Paul and Peter, the first to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. Paul mentions him when writing to Timothy from Rome in the salutation at the end of the epistle. (2 Tim. 4:21)”

As for the actual procedure, no it wasn’t anything like what we have today. But you can bet it was correctly preformed. I imagine this would be a question you could find an answer to on the shelves of the Vatican Library or from a Professor of such things.

Glenda

 

[JamalChristophr]

Is it a possibility that the other apostles could have played any part in the election of the next bishop of Rome?

What about the idea of “the people” electing the next bishop. Didn’t that happen sometimes in some diocese…that a bishop was named by will of the people?

I know, I’m so out of order, answering questions with questions, but, hey, I"m just a fish after all. I flunked out of my school.

 

[SJacob7]

I have this from my copy of Eusebius:

Book 3, Para. 2. “After the martyrdoms of Paul and Peter, the first to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. Paul mentions him when writing to Timothy from Rome in the salutation at the end of the epistle. (2 Tim. 4:21)”

As for the actual procedure, no it wasn’t anything like what we have today. But you can bet it was correctly preformed. I imagine this would be a question you could find an answer to on the shelves of the Vatican Library or from a Professor of such things.

Glenda

Thanks for mentioning 2 Tim 4:21. I just read it and can’t help but wonder why Paul didn’t mention St Peter’s name? Curious.

 

[Bonnie]

I think Peter probably could have just laid hands on him and made him Bishop of Rome by his own decree. That’s just my “hypothesis” if you will.

Kind of hard to do when hanging upside down on a cross.

I can’t think of any pope chosen - let alone consecrated - by his predecessor.

 

[Jack007]

The Roman Martyrology does not list Linus as a martyr. The entry about him is as follows: "At Rome, commemoration of Saint Linus, Pope, who, according to Irenaeus, was the person to whom** the blessed Apostles entrusted the episcopal care of the Church** founded in the City, and whom blessed Paul the Apostle mentions as associated with him.

 

[Bonnie]

Jack007:
If are replying to my post, I was referring to St. Peter being martyred, not Linus.