Question from Mormons: Saint Linus vs. Saint John?

[Sacramentalist]

Pax tecvm, gang!

This afternoon, Mormon missionaries came over to my house, and we got into an interesting discussion.

One question they asked was whether Saint Linue, the supposed successor to Peter, had authority over the Apostle John. If not, then wouldn't Peter's leadership of the Church have devolved unto John after his death, since John was the last Apostle?

And so wouldn't John's successors be the true Popes?

What say you all?

[RobNY]

Originally Posted by Sacramentalist

Pax tecvm, gang!

This afternoon, Mormon missionaries came over to my house, and we got into an interesting discussion.

One question they asked was whether Saint Linue, the supposed successor to Peter, had authority over the Apostle John. If not, then wouldn't Peter's leadership of the Church have devolved unto John after his death, since John was the last Apostle?

And so wouldn't John's successors be the true Popes?

What say you all?

In about 80AD it was Clement of Rome who exercised extra-jurisdictional authority in Corinth, not John the apostle (my confirmation saint!).

There seems to be some confusion here. The successors of John could never be the pope, because the pope is from the successors of Peter, because Peter was given a primacy among the apostles. Only Peter's successors have the primacy because only Peter possessed a primacy to pass on.

Since Peter passed his primacy on to the Bishops of Rome, the Bishop of Rome retains the primacy.

[JimG]

Jesus passed the leadership of the Church to Peter, one of the Twelve Apostles. To answer the Mormon's question, yes, Linus (and Clement) would have held the leadership of the Church while John was still alive.

Both Peter and John, as bishops, likely ordained many other bishops. But Peter ordained only one successor to his post, and that was Linus.

[Sacramentalist]

Isn't an Apostle higher than a mere bishop?

[Nicene]

The bishop of Rome is an apostle. Successors to apostles are apostles.

Acts 1: 23: And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab'bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi'as.
24: And they prayed and said, "Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen
25: to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place."
26: And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi'as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

The Pope is an apostle, as well as for example Patriarch Bartholomew.

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

[Mijoy2]

Not too distract from the thread but...

In what manner did Peter ordain his successor Linus? Was it a formal ceremony? A few spoken words? Peter, it is believed died a martyr,, did he have time to ordain a successor?

Any info would be appreciated.

[JimG]

Originally Posted by Mijoy2

Not too distract from the thread but...

In what manner did Peter ordain his successor Linus? Was it a formal ceremony? A few spoken words? Peter, it is believed died a martyr,, did he have time to ordain a successor?

Any info would be appreciated.

I don't think anyone knows for certain in what manner Linus was named. Judging from the comments of Irenaeus, it sounds as though he may have been selected directly by Peter prior to his death, or even by Peter and Paul jointly--(the smallest known conclave.)

The manner of papal selection has varied over the centuries; no matter how the person is selected, the office is handed on.

It's quite probable that as the last living Apostle, St. John did indeed enjoy particular honor. But remember, by the time John died, it is likely that every Apostle including John, and Peter, had ordained many bishops to head various local churches. The Church had its birth on Pentecost Sunday, with Peter as it's head. By the time John died, there was already a magisterium in place consisting of Peter and his successors, along with the various bishops.

[Daniel Marsh]

As I remember, John was exhiled to an island, so even if an apostle out ranks a bishop, John was simply not avilable.

[Todd Easton]

Originally Posted by JimG

I don't think anyone knows for certain in what manner Linus was named. Judging from the comments of Irenaeus, it sounds as though he may have been selected directly by Peter prior to his death, or even by Peter and Paul jointly--(the smallest known conclave.)

St. Irenaeus of Lyons, writing about A.D. 189, said:

The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], then, having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. (Against Heresies, book 3, chap. 3, paragraph 3.)

[frnate]

This question displays a fundamental misunderstanding of Apostolic Succession on the part of the Mormons. Now, whether it is an honest mistake or an attempt at misdirection for the sake of "winning" an argument is another question unto itself. However, following the Mormon argument to it's logical end would result in a leaderless Church since the only person qualified to replace an original Apostle would be another original Apostle, they have to die eventually. Of course this would dovetail perfectly into the Mormon assertion that the LDS is the "true" Church. Hmmm...what a coincidence For more great ways to witness to Mormons, especially missionaries, you should get a copy of a book entitled "Speaking the Truth in Love to Mormons". While written by a Lutheran pastor, it still has a lot of great information about reaching the Mormons in the context of their own culture. It is one of the most caring and least critical (in the negative sense) assessments of any belief system that I have ever read.


Pax

+Nate

[Sacramentalist]

The problem, frnate, is that John was still living when Linus was around.

Did Saint Linus, Cletus, and Clement have primacy of honor and jurisdiction over the Apostle John?

[Marysann]

Yes, as RobNY said the primacy belonged to Peter and his successors not to John, even though John was still living. St. Linus was not the only Bishop of Rome to follow St. Peter while St. John was still alive. St. Linus was followed by St. Cletus in 76. St. Clement became Bishop of Rome in 88. (The early popes were all martryed). In 96 the Church in Corinth was experiencing serious problems and wrote to St. Clement, for his advice. He responded with the famous letter to the Corinthians. The fact that the Bishop of Rome was consulted in these matters, and not St. John, is used as an early example of the primacy of the See of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. St. John was the beloved disciple, but to Peter and to his successors was the power of the keys.

[TheDoctor]

Originally Posted by Sacramentalist

The problem, frnate, is that John was still living when Linus was around.

Did Saint Linus, Cletus, and Clement have primacy of honor and jurisdiction over the Apostle John?

In discussing these ideas one of the stumbling blocks that comes up is we forget what kind of system rules the Church. She is not a parlimentary assembly where different groups band together to elect a compromise leader while still holding power within the group (i.e. Linus is Pope but we all "know" John is really in charge....hey, Linus said this but we don't like it so let's go ask John...)

The Church is an absolute monarchy and Christ is the King. When Jesus gives Peter the keys to the kingdom, it is not a symbolic sharing of Christ's power among the Apostles, it is the giving to Peter the absolute authority to run the kingdom in the name of and with the full authority of Christ. Even when all of the other Apostles were alive, it was still Peter in charge. Period.

So as Peter passes the keys along to his successor so he too passes along the authority of Christ the King. John, as the last apostle who physically walked and talked to Christ would still have a place of honor and would I assume still be consulted but the Church would be in the hands of Linus. Period.

[Randy Carson]

Folks, this thread is four years old. Let's move on.

[SPH1]

This may be an old thread, but I'm glad it caught my eye, in case I run in to Mormon Missionaries or others who may use this tactic.