R
RKO
Guest
When Peter appointed Linus bishop of Rome, would the original Apostles who were still living subordinate to him?
- Status
Z
zz912
Guest
Yes, but I imagine it would be tough to really show much evidence to the question. Unless there was a question about some matter, the bishops and Apostles would have run their diocese. I’m unaware of some large matter coming up during his pontificate.
There is an interesting example for Pope Clement, who was Pope immediately after him though. Some in Corinth had ousted their priests and demanded to be able to install their own priests. They petitioned Clement, and NOT the Apostle John, who was still alive and closer to them (he was in Ephesus, which is closer than Rome). So at least this shows who was in authority for the Church at that time.
There is an interesting example for Pope Clement, who was Pope immediately after him though. Some in Corinth had ousted their priests and demanded to be able to install their own priests. They petitioned Clement, and NOT the Apostle John, who was still alive and closer to them (he was in Ephesus, which is closer than Rome). So at least this shows who was in authority for the Church at that time.
R
RKO
Guest
I’m not necessarily arguing. But if Peter, Paul, James, and John were alive when Peter appointed Linus, it just seems strange that they would take a back seat to Linus. It was just a thought…
I
IrishRush
Guest
Actually, Cletus (or Anacletus) came next, then Clement.
M
Monergistic
Guest
There’s not much definitive evidence either way, however, it seems unlikely that Peter appointed anyone at all. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack, but this seems most likely given the limited evidence there is. It also seems likely that for a period of at least a couple decades, there were multiple bishops in Rome. No one person had final-say authority over all of Rome, far less over all Christians everywhere.
P
pablope
Guest
Probably, most likely not…keep in mind…they had a different mindset then. The Apostles scattered to different places; but it seems Rome is the most talke about because that is where Peter went.
I think by this time, by the time of Peter’s crucifixion, most of the Apostles had been martyred except for John.
I forgot where the link is, but I read one writing (as best as I could recall)…Peter did indeed appoint Clement, but did not take the seat because Linus took over Peter, then Cletus…only when both were martyred did Clement take Peter’s seat.
They had no ego problems like today. You may want to brush up on the story of King Saul and David. David had been annointed by Samuel to be king, even with Saul still the reigning king. But David did not want to take over while Saul was still reigning king, even though david had opportunities to kill Saul. When Saul fell by his own sword, and a soldier reports to David about Saul’s death, David asks the soldier how Saul died. The soldier says he slew Saul…so David had the soldier slain…why you ask…because he dared to touch the Lord’s annointed. Saul was still the Lord’s annointed…even though Saul had sought to kill David…and this David respected. Keep this in mind…I think this is what the Apostles had in mind, and what those whom they appointed to succeed them had as a mindset.
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
Hoo boy, this is a loaded question.
The short answer is that there’s no outright historical evidence either way.
We have perhaps only one clue:
St. Clement I - who was bishop of Rome after St. Anacletus, who was St. Linus’ successor - held the office at the end of the first century, when we think the Apostle John was still alive. We have a surviving epistle of his written to the church of Corinth, which appealed to him concerning the removal of some of their presbyters.
For whatever reason, the Corinthian church didn’t appeal to their metropolitan in Athens.
And they didn’t appeal to the Apostle John, who we think was still alive and living in Asia Minor, closer to them than they were to Rome.
Instead, they appealed to the bishop of Rome.
Now if you’ll excuse me…
F
Fone_Bone_2001
Guest
But remember that these two are right as well. Some of the Apostles were still alive during St. Linus’ pontificate, which means that publicly binding divine revelation was still ongoing. Scripture hadn’t even been finished yet. The Gospels hadn’t even been written yet.
So things are going to work a little differently in this time period. We mustn’t underemphasize the extent to which having an Apostle still living makes a difference here.
B
bzkoss236
Guest
I’ll put it this way. On the job, you likely have a boss (unless you are the boss). If a new boss is appointed who has been at the job or in the field for less time than you have, or even is younger, are you still subordinate to your new boss?
The answer, of course, is yes. Even if you are one of the people who helped start the company. If you have a boss, and get a new one, you still have to answer to the new boss.
The same goes for this situation. Even though the apostles were the ones who were ones who Jesus used to start His Church, Peter was appointed as head in Jesus’ absence. When the time came for Peter to pass on the authority and leadership, all the living apostles, and any other bishops, are to be subject to Peter’s successor, which happened to be Linus.
The answer, of course, is yes. Even if you are one of the people who helped start the company. If you have a boss, and get a new one, you still have to answer to the new boss.
The same goes for this situation. Even though the apostles were the ones who were ones who Jesus used to start His Church, Peter was appointed as head in Jesus’ absence. When the time came for Peter to pass on the authority and leadership, all the living apostles, and any other bishops, are to be subject to Peter’s successor, which happened to be Linus.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Unfortunately there isn’t much historical evidence from the first 50 years even to support your last sentence.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
I think this is an excellent question, but tend to agree with Pablope here, and remember, the apostles were sent, they are witnesses to the Lord and carried authority to found beginning churches.
Apostles are sent, the others are successors. Peter established the Church in Rome, and it became the jurisdiction that eventually materially supported new churches and settled disputes. But considering the apostle Peter sent to Rome to found a Church and his charism of being the head of the apostles as well, for him to also pastorally oversee governing…
I would say…out of faith and not education, – that Peter’s main focus was founding the Church and teaching, and managing at that unique point in time was very intense and fluid.
Apostles are sent, the others are successors. Peter established the Church in Rome, and it became the jurisdiction that eventually materially supported new churches and settled disputes. But considering the apostle Peter sent to Rome to found a Church and his charism of being the head of the apostles as well, for him to also pastorally oversee governing…
I would say…out of faith and not education, – that Peter’s main focus was founding the Church and teaching, and managing at that unique point in time was very intense and fluid.
A
aspirant
Guest
If Peter was still living when Linus was made a bishop, as I think he probably was, Peter was still “Pope” (I put it in quotation marks because the term came later).
Linus wouldn’t become successor until after Peter was executed (according to tradition, the same year Paul was executed), and even then succession may not have happened right away.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Aspirant…reflecting on your (name removed by moderator)ut plus others, this appears most correct and in line with apostolic succession, and the time it would take in succession considering the persecutions and the modes of communication in those times.
- Status