Nobody seems to have an answer for this one...

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

I've been looking for an article or recorded document which specifically details the transition from Saint Peter the Apostle to Linus. Does anyone have any information about this? Even the vaguest traditional "hand-me-down" synopsis would do! Thanks!

Yours in Christ, Christina

-- Christina Triana (RomeChurch@aol.com), April 03, 2000

Answers

Hello, Christina.
This is what the old Catholic Encyclopedia (pre-1920) has to say:

Pope St. Linus [reigned about A.D. 64-67 to 76-79].
All the ancient records of the Roman bishops that have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, the historian Eusebius, and also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the "Prince of the Apostles," St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses." As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable [the heretic] Tertullian's assertion, which ... places St. Clement ... [immediately] after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars .... The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his II Timothy 4:21. The passage by [bishop/martyr] Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads:

"After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus [also known as Cletus]."

... Linus's term of office, according to the papal lists handed down to us, lasted only twelve years. The Liberian Catalogue shows that it lasted twelve years, four months, and twelve days. ...

It cannot be doubted that according to the accounts of Irenaeus concerning the Roman church in the second century, Linus was chosen to be head of the community of Christians in Rome, after the death of the Apostle. For this reason his pontificate dates from the year of the death of the Apostles Peter and Paul ...

The "Liber Pontificalis" asserts that Linus's home was in Tuscany [northwest coast of Italy], and that his father's name was Herculanus ...

The feast of St. Linus is now celebrated on 23 September. ... J.P. KIRSCH

[It's not much, and there is not the kind of historic certainty about the details that we have about much later events and persons, but I hope that this is better than nothing, Christina.] John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 03, 2000.

I have a related question. Why was Peter and Paul both in Rome? Why do you say when they died, Linus took over. This kinda sounds like Paul was a Bishop of Rome. Can you clarify? Why 2 in Rome? Thanks, Pamela

-- Pamela (Rosylace@aol.com), April 03, 2000.

John,

Just what did Tertullian believe that earns him the title heretic and was he considered a heretic at the time?

Dave

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), April 03, 2000.


[Posted by J. F. Gecik, April 4, 2000 a.m.]

Hello, Pamela.
Both saints died within a short time of each other [some even thought on the same day] during the persecution by Nero. While St. Peter spent the final years of his life as the first Bishop of Rome, St. Paul came there for his final months for a different reason. During one of his missionary journies, he was arrested and, being a Roman citizen, was taken to Rome where he was imprisoned for a period of time before being martyred. Thus, Pope St. Linus succeeded St. Peter as Bishop of Rome.

Dave, you surprised me by asking this: "Just what did Tertullian believe that earns him the title heretic and was he considered a heretic at the time?" I am answering you below, but I can't help but be puzzled about why you asked, since he is not a focal point of this thread. (The wording of your question "Just what ..." rather than "What ..." also has me puzzled.) I'm tempted to think that you have been under the impression that Tertullian was not a heretic. (If so, I hope that you'll change your mind in a few minutes!) I did not use the word "heretic" as a "title," but as a descriptive word intended to warn Christina to be careful in reading his works. In fact, Tertullian had a brief but great "Catholic" period, and I have read excerpts of his orthodox writings in the Liturgy of the Hours -- the official daily prayer of the Church.

When you asked if he was "considered a heretic at the time," I can't tell what is the "time" to which you refer. If you mean, "during his lifetime" -- then the answer is "yes." If you mean, "when he wrote that St. Clement, rather than St. Linus, succeeded St. Peter" -- then the answer is "no," because he had not yet revealed any attraction to heresy. I believe that the writer of the encyclopedia article rejected Tertullian's claim, not because he was later a heretic, but because of the cumulative weight of other writers' accounts that contradict him.

Here are a few tidbits about Tertullian from some encyclopedic sources:
Tertullian was born about 160 in Carthage (modern day Tunisia) and was an anti-Catholic pagan until his conversion around 195. He became a priest and wrote great works defending the faith until he began to fall for the heresy of Montanism somewhere between 200 and 206, leaving the Church formally around 212. (Thus, he was a Catholic for less than 20 of his 60 years.) "After writing more virulently against the Church than even against heathen and persecutors, he separated from the Montanists and founded a sect of his own," dying around 220. The Montanists believed "themselves to be oracles of the Holy Spirit [who allegedly 'was supplementing the revelation of Christ']". They also believed themselves to be "sole possessors of true charismatic qualities." They expected an early Second Coming ("predicted" to them by the Holy Spirit), believed that certain post-baptismal sins could not be forgiven, and practiced a severe asceticism. The heresy was rejected by Pope St. Zephyrinus in 202, near the time that Tertullian began to dabble in it.

The heresy's founder, "Montanus, and the prophetesses Priscilla and Maximilla had been long dead when Tertullian was converted to belief in their inspiration. He held the words of Montanus to be really those of the Paraclete, and he characteristically exaggerated their import. We find him henceforth lapsing into rigorism, and condemning absolutely second marriage [i.e., of widow(ers)] and forgiveness of certain sins [e.g., idolatry, blasphemy, homicide, adultery, fornication, false witness, fraud], and insisting on new fasts. His teaching had always been excessive in its severity; now he positively reveled in harshness," as he even condemned Christians who fled from persecution.

More could be said, but this seems sufficient to show that Tertullian broke with Christianity and that no Christian today would want to be a disciple of the beliefs he held late in life.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 04, 2000.

Okay, I think I'm actually learning something here! For as long as I can remember, other faiths have been questioning me about the early succession of Peter (which makes me wonder if shaking a protestant silly is considered a mortal or venial sin)...oh, just kidding! Forgive me!

But in all seriousness, can someone clarify something for me? It reads above:

"After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus [also known as Cletus]."

Linus was also known as "Cletus/Anacletus"? Why don't they use those forms of the name Linus in the official succession list if Linus was not his given name? Is one Hebrew form and the other Greek? If I show this verse of Paul's to someone with doubt, how can I justify that these two names reconcile as the same person? And secondly when it states above, "The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy," does the mentioning refer to the enactment of Linus as Bishop of Rome or does it speak of another unrelated telling?

Yours in Christ,

-- Christina Triana (RomeChurch@aol.com), April 04, 2000.



Ooops...I meant to add this...

I couldn't find the terms Cletus or Anacletus anywhere in the bible?! Help!...where is that?!

Yours in Christ,

-- Christina Triana (RomeChurch@aol.com), April 04, 2000.


John,

Don't read too much into the way I phrased my question. I knew that Tertullian was considered by the Catholic Church as one of the early church fathers and had read his works in Jurgens "Faith of the Early Fathers". I also read where he began to disagree with the Church at one point, but had not seen the specifics of his disagreement. I was simply curious. Thanks for the response.

Dave

-- David Bowerman (dbowerman@blazenet.net), April 04, 2000.


Dear Christina,
Please re-read my previous post carefully. You have misunderstood something. The following quotation, which seems to have confused you, is not from St. Paul, but from St. Irenaeus:
"After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus [also known as Cletus]."
I added the final words in brackets, because I thought you might recognize the name "Cletus" from the Mass's First Eucharistic Prayer. His name is in an optional section of the Prayer, so you may not have heard it often. The priest can read as follows, mentioning the earliest popes after St. Peter: "We honor Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, ..."

There is one more point of confusion I can clear up. The passage from St. Irenaeus does NOT say that Linus is also known as Anacletus/Cletus. He states that when Linus died, he was succeeded by Anacletus, the third pope.

Here is the Bible passage that mentions Linus (2 Tim 4:21) ...
"Do your best to come before winter. Eubulus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and Linus and Claudia and all the brethren."

(Ana)cletus is not mentioned in the Bible.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 04, 2000.

OK, Dave. Thanks. Sorry if I got "carried away."
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), April 04, 2000.

Let us consider the beginning.

Imagine endless empty space that goes on into infinity non-existence no awareness EVIL.

If we consider the old saying life finds away. GOD came into being by his own will to be, the awareness. Born out of the non-existence the EVIL.

Imagine an awareness hovering in endless space or Darkness as HE would see it.

After a time his thoughts become collective and he begins to think. He is aware of himself and begins to wonder if there were another. After searching for countless billions of years, the loneliness consumes him into obsession with finding another. But there is no other but him. He splits into two separate entities (schizoid only for real) that are equal and opposite in nature. Light - that which creates (Life - the future). Darkness(SHE : Spirit that inhabits the Darkness- The past) - Destroys makes desolate. Each has the same goal to end the loneliness only they have diametrically opposite positions on how to go about it. Chaos vs. Order, Light vs. Darkness, Life vs. Death, Existence vs. non-existence or Good vs. Evil. GOD is the awareness of being before the Darkness. We stand between the Darkness and the Light. Our true purpose is to Be. For that is the will of GOD - to be because HE is. Ja'El they said. When GOD comes again if he comes into Darkness the Earth will be cleansed with the fire of GOD (His true form). If GOD comes into the Light he will make the Earth a new with the Tree and the River of Life. All things are possible if we believe. The power of the Holy Spirit is promised to us by Jesus Christ.

That is why no one has seen GOD because he became separate from himself. The two have to be united into their new form. They want to come and live us,their children and the Angles of Light and Darkness. We are the key to setting them Free from the loneliness forever. Revelation chap 17 Behold the Beast that was (EVIL or non-existence reined in the beginning there was no awareness) and is not (Evil- the tendency towards non-existence cannot exist in pure form) and yet is (If we lose our sense of awareness the EVIL will return and nothing will exist)

The River of Life is man's final salvation. The fruit of Tree of Life is for the Fallen Angles Consummation, Turn from Darkness back to the awareness of GOD. The Leaves are for the Healing of the Nations. The sword of Power blocks our way to it and blinds us from The one who was (The True GOD, the past) The one who is (Man the children of GOD, the present) The one who will be (Christ - the son of man, the future). We will become like the others and they will become like us. The evolution.

The way is through Awareness - GOD's will to be. Understanding is Knowing the Truth Understanding is Accepting the Truth The Truth leads to Understanding which leads to Awareness which strengthens our will to Be.

The Truth is put before us but, they do everything they can to keep us from Understanding it.

We have to show them that we are not children anymore. That we have learned to Understand the Truth. And the Truth shall set us all Free. They are counting on us and we can't let them down. But it is ultimately up to them to change - Free will.

Mystery? Who are you? Man who stands between the Darkness and the Light. What do you want? Freedom Why are you here? To bring order to chaos. Where are you going? The Future

The End of Time - The New Beginning

-- Darian Borne (shadows@vmbc.net), December 01, 2000.



Friends,

If you wish to converse with Mr. Borne, please go to the thread he started (and to which I responded). It is called, "I'm looking for intelligent opinions not blind lashings Thank you." He posted the same message to start that thread. Please do not respond to him here.

SN

-- (free@long.last), December 02, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ