Who appointed Linus pope?

[Montalban]

Who appointed Linus pope?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Technically, nobody is appointed Pope - they are appointed Bishop of Rome (the Pope thing comes along for the ride).

Like most Church Fathers, we do not know who ordained him. We don’t even know if he was already a Bishop when Peter died. I think we can safely rule out the possibility that he was appointed by the Emperor of Rome (that didn’t start happening for a couple of centuries). And, since being a Christian was dangerous, it is unlikely that anybody would want to purchase the Office (which has also been done). Maybe Peter designated him to be his successor (this has also been done). Maybe he just happened to be the only other Bishop in Rome when Peter died, and the position just kinda defaulted to him. Or maybe people took a vote (this was also done for a long time).

The manner of his appointment is irrelevant. As long as the Church recognizes him as Bishop of Rome, he is also the Pope.

 

[Montalban]

Technically, nobody is appointed Pope - they are appointed Bishop of Rome (the Pope thing comes along for the ride).

Like most Church Fathers, we do not know who ordained him. We don’t even know if he was already a Bishop when Peter died. I think we can safely rule out the possibility that he was appointed by the Emperor of Rome (that didn’t start happening for a couple of centuries). And, since being a Christian was dangerous, it is unlikely that anybody would want to purchase the Office (which has also been done). Maybe Peter designated him to be his successor (this has also been done). Maybe he just happened to be the only other Bishop in Rome when Peter died, and the position just kinda defaulted to him. Or maybe people took a vote (this was also done for a long time).

Thanks.

Sometimes I hear someone is bishop “by popular accalim”

The manner of his appointment is irrelevant. As long as the Church recognizes him as Bishop of Rome, he is also the Pope.

This has me intrigue now was it seems to suggest that the church makes the pope.

Does this mean that Peter’s special charism passes temporarily to the church in the absence of a pope, until the next pope is made?

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

Does this mean that Peter’s special charism passes temporarily to the church in the absence of a pope, until the next pope is made?

I assume when the Chair of Peter is vacant, the highest level of Magisterial infallibly rests with the bishops collectively until the seat is filled and that the Bishop of Rome becomes the highest level of Magisterial infallibility followed by the bishops. Just an assumption.

 

[Montalban]

I assume when the Chair of Peter is vacant, the highest level of Magisterial infallibly rests with the bishops collectively until the seat is filled and that the Bishop of Rome becomes the highest level of Magisterial infallibility followed by the bishops. Just an assumption.

Is Antioch a Chair of Peter?

 

[AlexPetrosPio]

Is Antioch a Chair of Peter?

Yes! And is still celebrated as a Feast Day on 22 February along side of the Feast of the Roman Chair of Peter.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Like most Church Fathers, we do not know who ordained him.

Of course we do. The Apostolic Constitutions say that St. Paul appointed him newadvent.org/fathers/07157.htm

 

[Mystophilus]

Who appointed Linus pope?

According to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul made Linus bishop of Rome (Adversus Haereses 3.3.3), the position later designated “Pope”.

 

[kepha1]

Antioch is a city. The Chair of Peter is a metaphor for “office”. Pope Benedict XVI sits in the “Chair” of Peter. If an office has no successors, its not an office.

Each of the Apostles had a “chair”. Their local jurisdiction was equal. Pope Benedict XVI is the bishop of Rome where he has local jurisdiction in the diocese of Rome, the same as Bishop Crosby has local jurisdiction in Hamilton, Ontario. But only one bishop has universal jurisdiction, the one who succeeded directly from St.Peter, who has universal jurisdiction. The Pope has a dual office, which can be very confusing for Protestants.

Pope Clement 1, the 4rth Pope, had the Chair of Peter when the Apostle John was still alive. Why wasn’t John the Pope? Because he had his own office, and it wasn’t the Chair of Peter.

 

[Montalban]

Yes! And is still celebrated as a Feast Day on 22 February along side of the Feast of the Roman Chair of Peter.

Then it makes no sense the previous statement about the “Chair of Peter” being vacant

 

[ConstantineTG]

Then it makes no sense the previous statement about the “Chair of Peter” being vacant

Of course there is this period when the chair is vacant after the death of a Pope. No one holds the authority until the next Pope is elected. This is why the Fisherman’s Ring is destroyed upon confirmation of the death of the Pope. The ring is used to mark seals of decrees by the Pope. It is destroyed so that no one can use the seal to issue a decree and pretend that the Pope issued it prior to death. The carmalengo has the de facto authority after the death of the Pope, but only in as much as executing the Papal protocol of electing the next Pope. The carmalengo can summon the Cardinals to the Conclave, but he cannot define Church teaching.

 

[Montalban]

According to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul made Linus bishop of Rome (Adversus Haereses 3.3.3), the position later designated “Pope”.

That’s what I have read.

So therefore Peter was ‘pope’ bishop of Rome, whilst Linus was too

 

[Montalban]

Of course there is this period when the chair is vacant after the death of a Pope.

Sorry, your post doesn’t ‘get it’

The Chair of Peter isn’t properly vacant if Antioch is also a Chair of Peter

UNLESS both happened to have a vacancy at the same time, of course.

 

[Mystophilus]

That’s what I have read.

So therefore Peter was ‘pope’ bishop of Rome, whilst Linus was too

That conclusion does not necessarily follow.

The titles πρεσβυτερος and επισκοπος seem to have been somewhat fluid in the early decades of the Church: not only do they appear to have overlapped, but there could well have been councils of presbyter-bishops guiding individual churches, such as the church at Rome. Thus, Linus, and quite possibly Cletus and Clement too, could have been in this council alongside Peter.

Nonetheless, it is highly probable that Peter, being one of the original Twelve, would have had more auctoritas than the others, making him the council leader, the ‘pope’ bishop, as you so aptly put it. Certainly, as soon as the lists of the leading bishops of the Roman church appear, in the C2nd, they are serial lists of individuals, which suggests that, from within living memory of some of these original leaders, it was understood that the church had only had one leader at a time.

 

[Montalban]

That conclusion does not necessarily follow.

The titles πρεσβυτερος and επισκοπος seem to have been somewhat fluid in the early decades of the Church: not only do they appear to have overlapped, but there could well have been councils of presbyter-bishops guiding individual churches, such as the church at Rome. Thus, Linus, and quite possibly Cletus and Clement too, could have been in this council alongside Peter.

Nonetheless, it is highly probable that Peter, being one of the original Twelve, would have had more auctoritas than the others, making him the council leader, the ‘pope’ bishop, as you so aptly put it. Certainly, as soon as the lists of the leading bishops of the Roman church appear, in the C2nd, they are serial lists of individuals, which suggests that, from within living memory of some of these original leaders, it was understood that the church had only had one leader at a time.

Are you saying that there was more than one bishop of Rome at the same time?

Who else was bishop of Rome at that time?

 

[Mystophilus]

Are you saying that there was more than one bishop of Rome at the same time?

Who else was bishop of Rome at that time?

It is very important to acknowledge the limits of our information here. Making claims about what “was” the case is rather difficult from a distance of two thousand years.

There may have been a council of presbyter-bishops, “overseeing elders”, in the early churches: we see the collective decision-making of the church in Jerusalem at the beginning of Acts; in Acts 20:17 and 20:28, and Titus 1:5 and 1:7, we see πρεσβυτερος and επισκοπος being used interchangeably; we do not have references to unique bishops in these first decades of the church. Further, we see suggestions of such a council at Rome in the (possibly mid-C2nd) Shepherd of Hermas 6.6 and 8.3. Thus, it is quite plausible that Rome had such a council and that such people as Peter, Paul, Linus, Cletus, and Clement were all members, perhaps all simultaneously.

In terms of individual leadership, we see Irenaeus of Lyons writing to various churches in the early C2nd and telling them each to obey their bishop, singular, which shows that the practice of unique bishops had come into force then. Notably, he does not say the same to Rome, a church which he describes as being a teacher to others (Ignatius to the Romans 3:1). This would make sense if Rome already had an individual leader, and, indeed, the (possibly late C2nd) Muratorian Canon describes Hermas as the brother of the bishop, singular, of Rome (Pius). We then see the papal lists, first appearing in the C2nd, all representing the church in Rome as having had a series of individual leaders from the beginning.

Put all of this first and second century evidence together, and we have the considerable possibility that Peter, Linus, Cletus, and Clement successively held the position of leader of the council, and thus head of the church in Rome, a position subsequently dubbed επισκοπος, and then papa.

 

[Montalban]

It is very important to acknowledge the limits of our information here. Making claims about what “was” the case is rather difficult from a distance of two thousand years.

Then we might as well close this thread.

There may have been a council of presbyter-bishops, “overseeing elders”, in the early churches: we see the collective decision-making of the church in Jerusalem at the beginning of Acts; in Acts 20:17 and 20:28, and Titus 1:5 and 1:7, we see πρεσβυτερος and επισκοπος being used interchangeably; we do not have references to unique bishops in these first decades of the church. Further, we see suggestions of such a council at Rome in the (possibly mid-C2nd) Shepherd of Hermas 6.6 and 8.3. Thus, it is quite plausible that Rome had such a council and that such people as Peter, Paul, Linus, Cletus, and Clement were all members, perhaps all simultaneously.

What about Acts 15?

In terms of individual leadership, we see Irenaeus of Lyons writing to various churches in the early C2nd and telling them each to obey their bishop, singular, which shows that the practice of unique bishops had come into force then. Notably, he does not say the same to Rome, a church which he describes as being a teacher to others (Ignatius to the Romans 3:1). This would make sense if Rome already had an individual leader, and, indeed, the (possibly late C2nd) Muratorian Canon describes Hermas as the brother of the bishop, singular, of Rome (Pius). We then see the papal lists, first appearing in the C2nd, all representing the church in Rome as having had a series of individual leaders from the beginning.

Put all of this first and second century evidence together, and we have the considerable possibility that Peter, Linus, Cletus, and Clement successively held the position of leader of the council, and thus head of the church in Rome, a position subsequently dubbed επισκοπος, and then papa.

What about Paul in Rome? Was he a leader there?

 

[Irishgal49]

Who appointed Linus pope?

Charles Schultz???

 

[ConstantineTG]

Sorry, your post doesn’t ‘get it’

The Chair of Peter isn’t properly vacant if Antioch is also a Chair of Peter

UNLESS both happened to have a vacancy at the same time, of course.

No, a bishop cannot have two chairs. Where the bishop is, there is the Church. If Antioch and Rome the same Church? No. Then they are two separate seats. Assuming the claim that Peter actually occupied the seat in Antioch and Rome, he couldn’t have done so at the same time. Therefore only one really would carry the weight of Peter’s office.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That conclusion does not necessarily follow.

The titles πρεσβυτερος and επισκοπος seem to have been somewhat fluid in the early decades of the Church: not only do they appear to have overlapped, but there could well have been councils of presbyter-bishops guiding individual churches, such as the church at Rome. Thus, Linus, and quite possibly Cletus and Clement too, could have been in this council alongside Peter.

Nonetheless, it is highly probable that Peter, being one of the original Twelve, would have had more auctoritas than the others, making him the council leader, the ‘pope’ bishop, as you so aptly put it. Certainly, as soon as the lists of the leading bishops of the Roman church appear, in the C2nd, they are serial lists of individuals, which suggests that, from within living memory of some of these original leaders, it was understood that the church had only had one leader at a time.

Well, they overlap because every Church was led by a council of elders (presbyters). The head elder is the episcopos (or whatever the proper term is, ie. bishop). Back then only the episcopos had the priestly ministry in the Church.