Who was the 2nd Pope?


#1

I’ve often heard that Peter was the first Pope. How long did he serve as Pope and who was his successor?


#2

That would be St. Linus. Peter served from a.d. 32 until a.d. 67.

Here is a list of all of them.

newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm


#3

Very helpful, thank you! CM


#4

Peter’s tenure began when Jesus in Matt: 16:17-19 called him Peter in place of Simon, as the rock uon which He will build His Church, and gave Peter the power to bind and loose, and the keys of the Kingdom. It ended when he was martyred, along with St. Paul, in Rome around 67 A.D. The previous poster was correct in saying that St. Linus was the second Pope (67-79 A.D).

Gerry :slight_smile:


#5

[quote=WBB]That would be St. Linus. Peter served from a.d. 32 until a.d. 67.
[/quote]

Not really.

Peter was Pope in Antioch until 39 to 41 AD, and even later.

Peter founded the Church of Antioch in 34 AD and remained there as Pope Peter for another 5-7 years, possibly even longer.

Peter’s First See

The evolution of the Patriarchate of Antioch

cnewa.org/cw29-2-pp12-17.htm
and
melkitecathedral.org/melkite/history3.htm

The article features a fascinating photograph of three bishops with the apostolic succession of Saint Peter, photographed all together in Damascus in 2001.

Three successors of Peter:

  • Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I,
  • Pope John Paul II,
  • Greek Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius IV

They are gathered in the Syriac Orthodox Cathedral of St. George in Damascus, May 2001. (photo: L’Osservatore Romano)

The oldest lineage of bishops which comes down to us in the 21st century who is a successor to St Peter is not actually the bishop (Pope) of the Church of Rome, but the bishop (Patriarch) of the Church of Antioch.

Peter founded the Church of Antioch in 34 AD, and he remained there for 5-7 years. Paul (and Barnabas) came to Antioch to see Peter there and it was in Antioch that the dispute between Peter and Paul flared up about whether converts had to be circumcised. In order to resolve this Peter and Paul took the dispute to James in Jerusalem and James called all the Apostles to a Council in Jerusalem to make a determination.

Early than this, Antioch had received a large number of Christian refugees who fled Jerusalem after the martyrdom of Saint Stephen the deacon, a period of martyrdom in Jerusalem which Paul himself had initiated while he was still the uncoverted Saul!

To succeed him in Antioch Saint Peter consecrated Euodius (Evodius) as bishop of that city. Euodius was succeeded as bishop in Antioch by the great Saint and holy martyr Ignatius who was himself consecrated by either Saint Peter or Saint Paul. The Patriarch of Antioch is the 170th successor of Saint Peter.

Here is a complete list of his apostolic succession from the holy Apostle Peter
web.archive.org/web/20040209…/patriarchs.htm
Tinyurl: tinyurl.com/6s6q2

So the Church of Antioch founded by Saint Peter is a little bit older than Rome, and like Rome it has an unbroken apostolic succession going back to Saint Peter.


#6

[quote=Fr Ambrose]Not really.

Peter was Pope in Antioch until 39 to 41 AD, and even later.

Peter founded the Church of Antioch in 34 AD and remained there as Pope Peter for another 5-7 years, possibly even longer.

Peter’s First See

The evolution of the Patriarchate of Antioch

cnewa.org/cw29-2-pp12-17.htm
and
melkitecathedral.org/melkite/history3.htm

The article features a fascinating photograph of three bishops with the apostolic succession of Saint Peter, photographed all together in Damascus in 2001.

Three successors of Peter:

  • Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I,
  • Pope John Paul II,
  • Greek Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius IV

They are gathered in the Syriac Orthodox Cathedral of St. George in Damascus, May 2001. (photo: L’Osservatore Romano)

The oldest lineage of bishops which comes down to us in the 21st century who is a successor to St Peter is not actually the bishop (Pope) of the Church of Rome, but the bishop (Patriarch) of the Church of Antioch.

Peter founded the Church of Antioch in 34 AD, and he remained there for 5-7 years. Paul (and Barnabas) came to Antioch to see Peter there and it was in Antioch that the dispute between Peter and Paul flared up about whether converts had to be circumcised. In order to resolve this Peter and Paul took the dispute to James in Jerusalem and James called all the Apostles to a Council in Jerusalem to make a determination.

Early than this, Antioch had received a large number of Christian refugees who fled Jerusalem after the martyrdom of Saint Stephen the deacon, a period of martyrdom in Jerusalem which Paul himself had initiated while he was still the uncoverted Saul!

To succeed him in Antioch Saint Peter consecrated Euodius (Evodius) as bishop of that city. Euodius was succeeded as bishop in Antioch by the great Saint and holy martyr Ignatius who was himself consecrated by either Saint Peter or Saint Paul. The Patriarch of Antioch is the 170th successor of Saint Peter.

Here is a complete list of his apostolic succession from the holy Apostle Peter
web.archive.org/web/20040209…/patriarchs.htm
Tinyurl: tinyurl.com/6s6q2

So the Church of Antioch founded by Saint Peter is a little bit older than Rome, and like Rome it has an unbroken apostolic succession going back to Saint Peter.
[/quote]

Thanks for the clarification.


#7

Of course, from the Catholic perspective, a schismatic cannot succeed an Apostle (maybe Judas? ;))

Seriously, though, the lawful Petrine sucessors of Antioch are those Patriarchs who belong to the Maronite Catholic, Syrian Catholic, and Melkite Catholic Churches.


#8

Yes it was St. Linus,

Peter served at first in Jerusalem, in Antioch for about 10 years or so, 24 of which he spent in Rome. As in regards to Matthew 16:17-19 which is Peter’s profession of faith, Jesus says to him “Upon this rock I will build my church, I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is saying to Peter I will apoint you Pope but not now. Because what does Peter do? He turns around and rebukes Jesus. Peter’s understanding of the messiah was imperfect. Therefore Peter’s primacy really began after the resurrection. Jesus even says to Peter before the passion “I’ve prayed for you that your faith may not fail, when you’ve returned turn around and strengthen your brethren.” Jesus after the resurrection says to Peter “do you love me?” Peter replies yes for the three times he denied Christ in the courtyard. That’s when the Papacy of Peter really started. Hope this helps.

Padre Pio “Don’t worry, work and pray.”


#9

What do we know about St. Linus?


#10

He is mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21.


#11

[quote=bones_IV]Yes it was St. Linus,

Peter served at first in Jerusalem, in Antioch for about 10 years or so, 24 of which he spent in Rome. As in regards to Matthew 16:17-19 which is Peter’s profession of faith, Jesus says to him “Upon this rock I will build my church, I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Jesus is saying to Peter I will apoint you Pope but not now. Because what does Peter do? He turns around and rebukes Jesus. Peter’s understanding of the messiah was imperfect. Therefore Peter’s primacy really began after the resurrection. Jesus even says to Peter before the passion “I’ve prayed for you that your faith may not fail, when you’ve returned turn around and strengthen your brethren.” Jesus after the resurrection says to Peter “do you love me?” Peter replies yes for the three times he denied Christ in the courtyard. That’s when the Papacy of Peter really started. Hope this helps.

Padre Pio “Don’t worry, work and pray.”

[/quote]

Hi Bones,
I just wanted to point out the lines in Fr Ambrose post where he tells us that Peter and Paul disagreed on the place of the jewish laws and circumcision within the teaching of Jesus. As Paul was against circumcision I guess Peter must have been for circumcision. Is this a question of faith and morals?
Christ be with you
walk in love
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon7.gif


#12

Edwin G, you pointed out that circumcision is a practice and not a matter of faith and morals,therefore, the meeting in Jerusalem was not in the category as when the Pope calls all the world’s Bishops together as the Magestirium. Thanks.

Father Ambrose, here is a line from the second source that you gave. “Peter himself went to Antioch around A.D. 44 and directed the life of the church in Antioch for seven years before going to Rome (Galatians 2:11).” It says that Peter did go to Rome about the year 51. Peter’s death is estimated to be between 64 and 67. So Peter was preaching, working and advising in Rome for about 14 to 15 years.

From your post it seemed that you were trying to intimate that Peter was not a Bishop of Rome. I noticed that you say you are a Priest/monk of the Orthodox Church. Are you wanting to tell us that the entire Roman Catholic Church has been wrong? Are you saying that Linus was not the succesor to Peter? Please explain.

One of the sites you gave is operated by Catholic Near East Welfare Association. This does not sound like a site to give the true story about Peter and his being Bishop of Rome. For goodness sakes, they made a mistake when they built the great church in Rome called “St. Peters’ Bacillica”, didn’t they?:yup: Ha, ha, I know you will explain.


#13

The article features a fascinating photograph of three bishops with the apostolic succession of Saint Peter, photographed all together in Damascus in 2001.

Three successors of Peter:

  • Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I,
  • Pope John Paul II,
  • Greek Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius IV

They are gathered in the Syriac Orthodox Cathedral of St. George in Damascus, May 2001. (photo: L’Osservatore Romano)

The oldest lineage of bishops which comes down to us in the 21st century who is a successor to St Peter is not actually the bishop (Pope) of the Church of Rome, but the bishop (Patriarch) of the Church of Antioch.

Yes, that’s an issue that I’ve recently been trying to figure out: How the Bishop of Rome’s successors claim to have a special authority. The fact that Peter is the founder of more than one church has implications on the idea of a papacy, and of the idea of papal infallibility.

Presently I see the Bishop of Antioch as an unsuitable papal successor to Peter. Why? Because, from what I understand, numerous bishops of Antioch professed erroneous doctrines, such as Arianism and Nestorianism.

What surprises me most is that so few Bishops of Rome (Popes) have been charged with professing heresy. Now, I know that Orthodox consider that most (if not all) Bishops of Rome advocated heresy after the Schism; but if you look at Rome’s track record prior to the split between East and West, how many Bishops of Rome can rightly be held guilty for promoting heresy? I’d be interested to see if Orthodox label more Bishops of Rome as being heretical in their professions than do the Protestant critics of papal infallibility. Pope Honorius is the only name I’ve heard of so far. From what I understand, all the Bishops of Rome have only taught orthodox beliefs.

It also seems to me that the Bishop of Rome early on had more authority than did the Bishop of Antioch. When the Corinthians removed their leaders and replaced them with new ones, it was Clement, Bishop of Rome, who entreated that the Corinthians reinstall their original leaders. It was, so far as I know, not the Bishop of Antioch nor any other city in Asia Minor. This is important, I think, because Corinth is in between Antioch and Rome. Why didn’t Antioch respond to the problem? Or why not John the Apostle, who supposedly was closer to Corinth than Clement? If so, why are there no letters which would indicate such communications? I’m not being accusative. Just some thoughts. The fact that Peter was martyred in Rome may have some implications on who is seen as the predominant successor of Peter.

In any case, I don’t claim to be anything close to an expert on this matter; although I am continuing to study it. For some reason I usually get answers to my questions–and oftentimes from the Fathers themselves!


#14

Linus best friend was Charlie Brown who went to the monastary after a failed attempt of being a professional athlete namely baseball and football.


#15

[quote=edwinG]Hi Bones,
I just wanted to point out the lines in Fr Ambrose post where he tells us that Peter and Paul disagreed on the place of the jewish laws and circumcision within the teaching of Jesus. As Paul was against circumcision I guess Peter must have been for circumcision. Is this a question of faith and morals?
Christ be with you
walk in love
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
[/quote]

Peter and Paul did not disagree on circumcision. Paul and Barnabas brought the issue to Peter and the Apostles.


#16

[quote=Exporter]**[font=Verdana]Father Ambrose**, here is a line from the second source that you gave. “Peter himself went to Antioch around A.D. 44 and directed the life of the church in Antioch for seven years before going to Rome (Galatians 2:11).” It says that Peter did go to Rome about the year 51. Peter’s death is estimated to be between 64 and 67. So Peter was preaching, working and advising in Rome for about 14 to 15 years.
It is a theory meant to displace the rightful place of the Pope, the bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter.

By saying that Antioch had as much right to be called the successor of Peter and hence claim also the prerogatives of the Pope.

I say it is theory since Antioch from the time of the second generation Christians did not view itself as equal to Rome.
[/quote]


#17

[quote=Madaglan]Yes, that’s an issue that I’ve recently been trying to figure out: How the Bishop of Rome’s successors claim to have a special authority. The fact that Peter is the founder of more than one church has implications on the idea of a papacy, and of the idea of papal infallibility.

[/quote]

The KEY to this understanding is the Keys. Mt 16 :17-18. Isaiah 22:22

There can only be one person holding the Keys to the office at any given time.

so logically only one successor.

You then have to discount the claims of the other churches since they themselves proclaimed the Primacy of the Pope, the bishop of Rome.


#18

I think you are a little mixed up. Peter had no problem with uncircumcised Gentile Chrisitian converts. It was James and the circumcision party who wanted to circumcise the Gentile converts. In Gal 2:12, St. Paul says, “For before certain men came from James, he [Peter] ate with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.”

It was Peter who baptized the first uncircumcised Gentile Christian converts in Acts 10.

Paul and Barnabas didn’t dispute with Peter over circumcision but with “some men [who] came down from Judea.” And, they went to the apostles in Jerusalem about this question. Acts 15:1-2 says, “But some men came down from Judea and were teaching the brethren, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.’ And when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and the elders about this question.”

It was Peter’s speech against circumcision that ended the debate at the Council of Jerusalem. Acts 15:6-12 says, [size=2]
[size=2][/size]“The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, ‘Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God who knows the heart bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us; and he made no distinction between us and them, but cleansed their hearts by faith. Now therefore why do you make trial of God by putting a yoke upon the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.’ And all the assembly kept silence”

[/size]


#19

[quote=Fr Ambrose]To succeed him in Antioch Saint Peter consecrated Euodius (Evodius) as bishop of that city. Euodius was succeeded as bishop in Antioch by the great Saint and holy martyr Ignatius who was himself consecrated by either Saint Peter or Saint Paul. The Patriarch of Antioch is the 170th successor of Saint Peter.
. . .
So the Church of Antioch founded by Saint Peter is a little bit older than Rome, and like Rome it has an unbroken apostolic succession going back to Saint Peter.
[/quote]

While he lived, Peter was the Rock, the steward over the household, the earthly head of the universal Church. In the beginning when the Church of Jerusalem was the only Church, Peter was its head, as is clear from Peter’s prominent role in the first chapters of the Acts of the Apostles. When local Churches were established elsewhere, the headship of the local Church of Jerusalem was given to James but Peter was still the Rock, the head of the universal Church, as is clear in Acts 10 and Acts 15. While Peter was in Antioch, he was both the head of the universal Church and the head of the local Church of Antioch. When Peter moved from Antioch to Rome, Peter passed on the headship of the local Church of Antioch to Euodius but Peter was still the head of the universal Church. While Peter was in Rome, he was both the head of the universal Church and the head of the local Church of Rome. When Peter died in Rome, he left a single vacancy with a dual authority, the headship of the universal Church and the headship of the local Church of Rome. Linus filled that vacancy when he succeeded Peter and became both the head of the universal Church and the head of the local Church of Rome. Although a local Church, like the Church of Antioch, may have a successor to Peter as the head of their local Church, only the Church of Rome has a successor to Peter who is both the head the universal Church and the head of its local Church.


#20

[quote=edwinG]Hi Bones,
I just wanted to point out the lines in Fr Ambrose post where he tells us that Peter and Paul disagreed on the place of the jewish laws and circumcision within the teaching of Jesus. As Paul was against circumcision I guess Peter must have been for circumcision. Is this a question of faith and morals?
Christ be with you
walk in love
edwinGhttp://forums.catholic.com/images/icons/icon7.gif
[/quote]

EdwinG,
There are three conditions for infallability. One it has to be a matter of faith and moral issues. Another it has to be in the conference of bishops. I think the other it has to be officially proclaimed to the church. Paul was simply pointing out Peter’s hypocrypsy. Paul’s point in Galations was that we should support the Pope, and oppose when they induce scandal. Therefore Peter’s true nature was revealed. This situation is very complicated. Maybe Peter didn’t want to scandalize his Jewish-Christian friends. When Peter was rebuked by Paul was the infallability in use officially? The answer to that question is no. As far as circumsicion and Jewish Laws go, Paul turned around and did it himself. See Paul’s letter to Timothy if you don’t believe me. Does Paul’s rebuking of Peter disprove the fact about Peter’s infallability? Nope. Not by any stretch of the imagination. Was Paul rebuking the Pope? Yes. Popes have actually had a history of being rebuked. Take Gregory XI for example when St. Catherine of Siena told him to be a man and to go back to Rome. This goes to show you that things aren’t always as they seem.

Padre Pio “Don’t worry, work and pray.”


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.