What happened with the papacy after St Peter died?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LoveGod102
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LoveGod102

Guest
My protestant history book says that the bishop of Rome basically just took over as pope until people accepted him as pope. It also said that the (presumably office of the)] pope’s leadership was analogous with the emperor of Rome’s leadership.
What really happened with the papacy after St Peter’s death? Is there any truth to the aforementioned statements? I am wary of them.
 
I know Clement was the next pope of the Latin rite—but I understand that there were other bishops up for the office too–followers of St. Paul, etc. I’ve been searching on this subject too–I know Peter was imprisoned. I wonder how exactly the keys were passed on? Just as sidebar, do you know that their are records of Pope Clement’s writings, letters etc and they are available on the internet? I found them within the last few days and they are awesome–you are reading words from like 80 a.d. from a man who walked the streets alongside St. Peter!!
 
Starrsmother said:
I know Clement was the next pope of the Latin rite—but I understand that there were other bishops up for the office too–followers of St. Paul, etc. I’ve been searching on this subject too–I know Peter was imprisoned. I wonder how exactly the keys were passed on? Just as sidebar, do you know that their are records of Pope Clement’s writings, letters etc and they are available on the internet? I found them within the last few days and they are awesome–you are reading words from like 80 a.d. from a man who walked the streets alongside St. Peter!!
Click to expand...
Pope Linus was the direct successor of Peter. He was pope from c67-c76 AD. Pope Anacletus (normally known as Cletus) was the 3rd pope from c79-c92. Pope Clement was the 4th pope and reigned from c92-c99 AD. He was the first Apostolic Father of the Church.
 
LoveGod102 said:
My protestant history book says that the bishop of Rome basically just took over as pope until people accepted him as pope. It also said that the (presumably office of the)] pope’s leadership was analogous with the emperor of Rome’s leadership.
What really happened with the papacy after St Peter’s death? Is there any truth to the aforementioned statements? I am wary of them.
Click to expand...
OK so St. Peter had the Keys, he also WAS the Bishop of Rome.
The pre-eminent Apostle would be given the see where he would exercise his pastoral duties.
St. Peter had decided he would travel to Rome and establish himself there. It is recorded as such in the Bible.
We must conclude he decided to establish his see there.
The keys are passed by trasfering the see to a Bishop, whomsoever is the Bishop of Rome automatically becomes Pope.
This is found it the Bible where it speaks of the seat (see) of Moses - Old Covenant.
The seat of Moses was in the Temple at Jerusalem.
The Papacy is the seat (see) of Jesus - New Covenant.
Peter decided to transfer the seat to Rome. Also remember there was NO Church there when he arrived, he brought it (the Church) with him.
 
The Church in Rome was traditionally co-founded by both Peter and Paul (hence why the Papacy often invokes those two saints in curial documents). Peter was originally bishop of Antioch, but the NT testifies that he went to “Babylon”, which was widely used as a codeword for Rome by early Christians. Linus was his apostolic successor after Peter was crucified, and 2 Timothy mentions that he was ordained by Paul.

Now, many Protestants and Mormons find it wholly objectionable that Rome, the seat of the empire that crucified Our Lord, would become the primal episcopal seat of the whole Church. But let us keep in mind that Salem was a pagan trade hub before God ordered David to make it the capital of Israel.
 
I tried to research this a little tonight after I learned from one our smart posters that the succession was: Peter, Linus, Cletus and Clement. (Thank you “Spudbynight”!) Frankly the church apparently went through 4 popes in the first 100 years—wow, a lot of popes! Anyway, there are tons of records of Clement’s writings–letters to various Christians etc. I found absolutely zilch on the earlier popes though other than a listing of their order of succession. What I have always wondered is exactly what transpired when Peter gave the mystical “keys” to the 2nd pope–ie Linus. I mean, in my mind, Peter had to have the understanding that Jesus put him (Peter) in place as the initial head of the church, right? And, I would assume that Peter understood the importance of his position, right? So, at a point, Peter was imprisoned for the last time and ultimately crucified, right? So, I try to put my mind in the mind of Peter (always a mistake, I know! LOL!) and I think: So now here’s Peter setting in a jail waiting for his final fate, and admittedly the first Christians assumed that the parousia was imminent and would possibly happen in their own lives and didn’t make plans for a successor to Peter—but faced with his own upcoming death, Peter must have had the epiphany that the church must have a new leader (pope) if he were dead. So, why Linus? I mean, why did Peter believe that he was the man for the job? I’ve never seen him mentioned in a stand out kind of way in the NT. How did he come into the picture period and above all, why would he have been chosen as pope#2? Was Peter who chose Linus based on divine inspiration or whatever and that was that?

OR did all the first century Christian “Bishops” of the various Christian communities gather in an early version of a conclave, and Linus was chosen to follow Peter? OR did the Christian peoples of the time choose Linus in kind of a general election? Or what? I mean, I assume (and maybe wrongly) that the early Christians must have been made to realize that Jesus Himself chose Peter and upon this rock built His church. With that in mind, it seems like it would have had to have been somewhat of a big deal to choose a successor. It doesn’t seem to me that it would have been a “last man standing” kind of thing to pick Peter’s successor. Or perhaps it was.

Were any other of the original 12 still alive—besides John who was imprisoned on an island about the time of Peter’s death if my dating is correct —(and again, I might be wrong) and if so, wouldn’t the natural thing be for one of them to take Peter’s place? I suspect that there are no records to enlighten me as there is so little left of 1st century Christian history and records—but if any brilliant church historian is out there who could spread a little light on the subject, I’d sure love to learn something her!👍
 
Eusebius is also very brief about this in his Church History;
After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle.
Click to expand...
I think it’s quite possible that, following the death of Peter, the church at Rome elected a new bishop from among its own local clergy. I don’t think there is a need for Linus having been handpicked by Peter himself; later popes were not selected by their predecessors either.
 
Starrsmother said:
I tried to research this a little tonight after I learned from one our smart posters that the succession was: Peter, Linus, Cletus and Clement. (Thank you “Spudbynight”!) Frankly the church apparently went through 4 popes in the first 100 years—wow, a lot of popes!
Click to expand...
We had 3 popes in a single year in the 20th century.

🙂
 
Keep in mind that all of Peter’s and Paul’s epistles that have survived were probably written a handful of years before their martyrdom, so it’s not concerning that Linus and Clement are no more than a passing mention in their letters. It’s possible that they were designated as protodeacons by Peter and Paul, but even if they weren’t, that’s also not distressing: plenty of conclaves in history feature a story where the preferred successor of the previous Pope was not chosen, but some other cardinal was.
 
LoveGod102 said:
No we had three people CLAIMING to be pope. There can only be one pope at a time.
Click to expand...
Pope Paul VI died in 1978. Pope John Paul I was elevated in the same year, but died only 33 days later. Then Pope John Paul II was elevated the same year as well.

So there were three legitimate reigning Popes in the same year, not at the same time. Hence why it’s called the “Year of Three Popes”.

Though you could engage in some sophism and say that there are usually three Popes reigning: the Bishop of Rome, the Chalcedonian Greek Orthodox Pope of Alexandria, and the Coptic Orthodox Pope of Alexandria. You could even say less accurately that there’s four Pope if you include Pope emeritus Benedict XVI.
 
LoveGod102 said:
No we had three people CLAIMING to be pope. There can only be one pope at a time.
Click to expand...
:confused:

Pope Paul VI
Pope John Paul I
Pope John Paul II

All served in 1978.

Three popes in one year. 🤷

(Sorry, EphelDuath, you got to it first.)
 
maryjk said:
:confused:

Pope Paul VI
Pope John Paul I
Pope John Paul II

All served in 1978.

Three popes in one year. 🤷

(Sorry, EphelDuath, you got to it first.)
Click to expand...
sorry, I thought that he/she was referring to a different matter, when there WERE three men all claiming to be pope at once. My mistake.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top