St. Paul picks the first bishop of Rome


#1

Church history is not my strong point, so can somebody help me address the following:[LIST=1]
*]

Chapter II.—The First Ruler of the Church of Rome.

  1. After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus576576

The actual order of the first three so-called bishops of Rome is a greatly disputed matter. The oldest tradition is that given by Irenæus (Adv. Hær. III. 3. 3) and followed here by Eusebius, according to which the order was Linus, Anencletus, Clement. Hippolytus gives a different order, in which he is followed by many Fathers; and in addition to these two chief arrangements all possible combinations of the three names, and all sorts of theories to account for the difficulties and to reconcile the discrepancies in the earlier lists, have been proposed. In the second chapter of the so-called Epistle of Clement to James (a part of the Pseudo-Clementine Literature prefixed to the Homilies) it is said that Clement was ordained by Peter, and Salmon thinks that this caused Hippolytus to change the order, putting Clement first. Gieseler (Eccles. Hist., Eng. Trans., I. p. 107, note 10) explains the disagreements in the various traditions by supposing that the three were presbyters together at Rome, and that later, in the endeavor to make out a complete list of bishops, they were each successively elevated by tradition to the episcopal chair.

It is at least certain that Rome at that early date had no monarchical bishop, and therefore the question as to the order of these first three so-called bishops is not a question as to a fact, but simply as to which is the oldest of various unfounded traditions.

The Roman Church gives the following order:
Linus, Clement, Cletus, Anacletus, following Hippolytus in making Cletus and Anacletus out of the single Anencletus of the original tradition. The apocryphal martyrdoms of Peter and Paul are falsely ascribed to Linus (see Tischendorf, Acta Apost. Apocr. p. xix. sq.). Eusebius (chap. 13, below) says that Linus was bishop for twelve years. In his Chron. (Armen.) he says fourteen years, while Jerome says eleven.

These dates are about as reliable as the episcopal succession itself. We have no trustworthy information as to the personal character and history of Linus. Upon the subjects discussed in this note see especially Salmon’s articles, Clemens Romanus, and Linus, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. 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.577577 2 Tim. iv. 21. The same identification is made by Irenæus, Adv. Hær. III. 3. 3, and by Pseudo-Ignatius in the Epistle to the Trallians (longer version), chap. 7.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.viii.ii.html?highlight=linus#highlight

*]

From Jesus’ Words Only p.295

Why No Other Ebionite Writings Survived preventing Paul from being discredited?

Was it to protect a true prophet or for political reasons? Eusebius was associated closely with Emperor Constantine. Eusebius was a promoter of the new-found powers of the bishop of Rome granted by Constantine’s decrees.

How would this potentially impact Eusebius’ treatment of the Ebionites who attacked Paul?

The answer is obvious. After Peter founded the church of Rome and left, Paul arrived and appointed the first bishop of the church of Rome (Linus), according to Constitution of the Apostles (ca. 180-200 A.D.) at 7:46. That means Paul appointed the very first pope of Rome—
although the name pope for the bishop of Rome was not yet in use. (Peter never apparently used the label bishop to identify his status at Rome.) Thus, the validity of the lineage of the Roman church depended crucially upon Paul.
If Paul were discredited, it
would discredit the Roman Catholic church virtually from inception.

This is an incredible book that all should read. He offers the chapters free online.
jesuswordsonly.com/freechapters.html

[/LIST]


#2

You seem to be reading some very strange stuff.

Peter the Apostle (and fisherman) was the first bishop of Rome.

Case closed.


#3

So if you believe in a monarchial bishop…who was bishop prior to his arrival in Rome?


#4

I haven’t the time to argue semantics with you or Sir Knight.

However, I will pray for both of you.


#5

And how do I prove that to the person who presented the supporting references that I posted in the opening quote which disagree with that statement?


#6

Scripture commands us to be ready, willing and able to defend our faith. I am attempting to do so but I am lacking the knowledge to refute the claims which I quoted in my opening post and am therefore asking for assistance from those who might be more knowledgeable than I in this particular area.


#7

Actually, he was an Apostle not a bishop. The bishops themselves are the successor of the Apostles. Peter is the first among the Apostles and the first Bishop is Linus who succeeded Peter.


#8

I believe that Catholic tradition holds that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome which is why all Popes, who are the Bishop of Rome, are said to rule from Peter’s Chair.


#9

Acts 1:20 For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

In Acts 1:20 the word for bishop’s office is applied to the office of apostle. There are five terms in scripture that describes the office of apostle-bishop-elder ( Elder or presbyter gk Presbureros;
Overseer or bishop gk Episcopos; Shepherd or pastor gk Poimen; Steward gk Oikonomo; Eldership gk Presbuterion ) as you can see form ( Acts 20:17,28; Tit 1:5,7; 1 Pe 5:1,2 ) these words are used to refer to a single office.

Acts 20:17
17And from Miletus he sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church.

Acts 20:28
28Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Titus 1:5
5For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

Titus 1:7
7For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre;

1 Peter 5
1The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:

1 Peter 5:2
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;


#10

As to the term ‘Pope’. It is derived from the latin word pater meaning father. Paul applies it to himself and it was applied to many bishops who where held in high regard. Over time, since the Bishop of Rome was held in highest regard, the term eventually began to be used only when referring to him.

It is quoted above that ‘after Peter left Rome’. He left via crucifixion, so it might be better to state ‘after Peter was martyred in Rome’.

Of course a bishop is always elevated to the fullest form of Orders by another bishop (or apostle as the case may be) so the new bishop of Rome would have to be elevated by his brother bishops, Paul being among them.


#11

Sir Knight,
Here is a short Bio about the author of that book:

*Mr. Del Tondo is a California litigation attorney. He has been in practice for twenty-six years. In school, he studied Classical Greek and Latin. He achieved designation as a Classic Language Scholar. Mr. Del Tondo graduated Southwestern University School of Law cum laude in 1981.

He is fluent in Spanish and Italian. He has been an evangelical Christian since age 15. Mr. Del Tondo was first baptized in a Baptist church. He has spent most of his thirty-one years as a Christian attending a Reformed Calvinist congregation. From 1998-2002, Mr. Del Tondo served as a self-funded missionary with his wife Laura in Costa Rica in an outreach to children of the very poor in the Las Tablas project.

He was motivated to write Jesus’ Words Only by his effort to reconcile Calvinism to Jesus’ words. Unable to do so, Mr. Del Tondo questioned the premises of not only Calvinism, but of the basis to add Paul to canon. *

about the author

Are you going to trust your faith to someone who sets out to disprove Paul just to prove Calvinism?


#12

I don’t understand your question. Your quoted source states:
Chapter II.—The First Ruler of the Church of Rome.

  1. After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter,

That’s like saying that (presuming the Patriots beat the Giants on sunday) after the Patriots, the Giants are the best team in football. It’s true, but that doesn’t mean that “the Giants are the best team in football” does it?


#13

may i ask a related question?

in Acts 15, at the Jeruselam Council, James is mentioned as the leader of the Rome church…was this is Peter’s stead? was Peter still traveling as an evangelist at this time? Or, quite possibly, i am reading his leadership the wrong way

thank you :smiley:


#14

Acts 15:7 has St. Peter authoritatively teaching the rest of the Council.


#15

so what exactly was James’ position? i have always assumed he was the “pastor” of the Rome church…not “founder” mind you, but leader

thanks again! :smiley:


#16

Nope, St. James was the Bishop of the local “diocese” (at Jerusalem) which was where the council was held.


#17

so much for my years of Bible Studies :blush: thanks

OT: Schable, your name is one letter off from my maiden name…it makes me take a second glance every time i see it :smiley:


#18

I’m NOT trusting him – I’m trying to DISPROVE him … and I’m looking for help in doing it.


#19

The answer is obvious. After Peter founded the church of Rome and left, Paul arrived and appointed the first bishop of the church of Rome (Linus), according to Constitution of the Apostles (ca. 180-200 A.D.) at 7:46.

Here is the real problem. First the author claims St. Peter “left” Rome and that St. Paul arrived afterwards.

The problem with that is that they were both martyred by Emperor Nero in 64 A.D. in Rome. While it *might *be said that Peter left Rome, he did so feet first.

Kind of hard for Paul to appoint St. Peter’s successor since he is dead too.

Additionally, the “Constitution of the Apostles” that was cited is a problematic work at best. See this article.


#20

That is like asking who used the first computer before it was invented.

St. Peter *founded *the diocese of Rome.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.