eahaddix
06-18-2006, 08:39 PM
Roman Catholicism's "[historical] line of Apostolic succession" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm) is unreliable. For instance, consider the following:
1. Was Peter the first Bishop of Rome?
While there is sufficient historical evidence to prove that Peter visited Rome for crucifixion, there is no historical evidence that Peter became "Bishop of Rome." Moreover, John 21:18-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021:18-19%20;&version=49;) implies that Peter would journey to Rome as a prisoner, not as a "Papal prince."
It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.
Source: "St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles," from The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 9, by K. Knight @ New Advent.org (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm)
Moreover, in 2 Timothy 4:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%204:21%20;&version=31;), Paul mentions a companion named Linus, near the end of his residence in Rome (ref. 2 Timothy 4:6-7, 16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%204:6-7,%2016-17;&version=31;), 2 Timothy 1:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=1&verse=17&version=31&context=verse)). If Linus is the individual that early historical sources identify as a bishop of Rome, then could Paul have appointed Linus as a successor overseer elder without Peter?
While Roman Catholic apologists agree that Paul could have appointed the Linus of 2 Timothy 4:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%204:21%20;&version=31;), Roman Catholic apologists cannot demonstrate that these historical sources are referencing the same Linus, since "Linus" was a popular Greek name. This observation undermines the only link between Biblical and extra-Biblical sources about "Linus." As a result, Roman Catholic apologists must emphasize Irenaeus's writings over other writings.
All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, 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 Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, "De vir. ill.", xv). 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 Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads:
After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) [U]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.We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in II Timothy 4:21, goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name.[...]
[Underlining by LuckyStrike]
Source: "Pope St. Linus," from The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 9, by K. Hnight, @ NewAdvent.org (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm)
2. First Successor: Cletus, Anacletus, or Clement?
When one moves forward in time, the available historical data becomes more confusing. Different historical sources list different lines of succession, thereby creating a collection of contradictions. Non-Roman Catholic apologists and Roman Catholic apologists agree that this problem is real, as demonstrated by the following juxtapositioned quotations.
2A. A Non-Catholic perspective:
CLEMENS ROMANUS, one of the most celebrated names of Christian antiquity, but so overgrown with myths, that it has become next to impossible to lay bare the historical facts which it represents, occurs in all lists of the first Roman bishops, but not always in the same place. Thus Irenæus (Hær., III. 3, 3) puts it in the third place from Peter (Petrus, Linus, Anencletus, Clemens); and so do Eusebius (both in his Church History, III. 13, 15, and in his Chronicle), Epiphanius (Hær., XXVII. 6), and Jerome (De Vir. Ill., 15); only that, with the two last mentioned, the name of the second bishop after Peter is Cletus, and not Anencletus. But another succession meets us in the Chronicle of Hippolyte, in which Clement is placed before Cletus, - Petrus, Linus, Clemens, Cletus; and this succession was adopted by the Liberian Catalogue, by Augustine, Optatus, and others, as also by the Apostolical Constitutions; while at the same time the double tradition made two different persons out of the two names of Anencletus and Cletus, thus producing the following list, - Petrus, Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anencletus. The Leonian Catalogue, however, returns once more to the old succession, according to which Clement occupies the third place after Peter; and thus the Felician Catalogue, which is merely a combination of the Liberian and Leonian Catalogues, arrives at the following succession, - Petrus, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Anencletus. The pseudo-Tertullian Carmen adv. Marcionem finally places both Cletus and Anencletus before Clement; while the epistle said to have been written by Clement to the apostle James narrates that Peter himself appointed Clement his successor; but the former found no advocates at all, and - the latter only one, — the author of the pseudo-Clementine romance. See Lipsius: chronologie der römischien Bishöfe, Kiel, 1869. There is, indeed, no reason to abandon the oldest tradition of the Church, according to which, Clement was the third bishop of Rome after Peter; only it must be remembered that he was not a bishop in that sense of the word which the monarchical tendency of a later period developed. He was simply one of the most prominent presbyters of the Roman [493] congregation immediately alter the post-apostolical age.[...]
[Underlining by LuckyStrike]
Source: "CLEMENS ROMANUS," from A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, Volume 1, 3rd Edition, by G. Uhlhorn, @ EarlyChurch.org.uk (http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/clemrome.php)
See also: "No Papacy in the Early Church," [2nd and 3rd Quotations Down] by Jason Engwer @ Christian Liberty (http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/nopapacy.htm)
2B. A Catholic perspective:
The second successor of St. Peter. Whether he was the same as Cletus, who is also called Anencletus as well as Anacletus, has been the subject of endless discussion. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, Optatus, use both names indifferently as of one person. Tertullian omits him altogether. To add to the confusion, the order is different. Thus Irenaeus has Linus, Anacletus, Clement; whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus. On the other hand, the "Catalogus Liberianus", the "Carmen contra Marcionem" and the "Liber Pontificalis", all most respectable for their antiquity, make Cletus and Anacletus distinct from each other; while the "Catalogus Felicianus" even sets the latter down as a Greek, the former as a Roman. Among the moderns, Hergenroether (Hist. de l'église, I 542, note) pronounces for their identity. So also the Bollandist De Smedt (Dissert. vii, 1). Dëllinger (Christenth. u K., 315) declares that "they are, without doubt, the same person"and that "the 'Catalogue of Liberius' merits little confidence before 230." Duchesne, " Origines chretiennes ", ranges himself on that side also but Jungmann (Dissert. Hist. Eccl., I, 123) leaves the question in doubt. The chronology is, of course, in consequence of all this, very undetermined, but Duchesne, in his "Origines", says "we are far from the day when the years, months, and days of the Pontifical Catalogue can be given with any guarantee of exactness. But is it necessary to be exact about popes of whom we know so little? We can accept the list of Irenaeus -- Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus. Anicetus reigned certainly in 154. That is all we can say with assurance about primitive pontifical chronology." That he ordained a certain number of priests is nearly all we have of positive record about him, but we know he died a martyr, perhaps about 91.
[Underlining by LuckyStrike]
Source: "Pope St. Anacletus," from The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, by K. Hnight, @ NewAdvent.org (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01446a.htm)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For other examples of disputable succession, see this webage (http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Popes.html).
With all this in mind, I must ask: Apart from dogmatic presuppositions, how do Roman Catholics know which line of succession is correct?
Remember that during the lifetime of the Apostles, many individuals began usurping the Apostles' authority within local churches (ref. 1 John 3:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=3%20John%201:9-10;&version=31;), 2 Corinthians 11:3-6, 12-15, 20, 26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011:3-6,%2012-15,%2020,%2026;&version=31;), Galatians 2:11-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202:11-13;&version=31;), see also 1 Timothy 6:3-5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:3-5;&version=31;), 1 Timothy 1:3-7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:3-7;&version=31;), 2 Peter 2:1-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%202:1-3;&version=31;), 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%203:6-15;&version=31;), etc.). Could this reality help explain the confusion within the available historical data?
1. Was Peter the first Bishop of Rome?
While there is sufficient historical evidence to prove that Peter visited Rome for crucifixion, there is no historical evidence that Peter became "Bishop of Rome." Moreover, John 21:18-19 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2021:18-19%20;&version=49;) implies that Peter would journey to Rome as a prisoner, not as a "Papal prince."
It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.
Source: "St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles," from The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 9, by K. Knight @ New Advent.org (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm)
Moreover, in 2 Timothy 4:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%204:21%20;&version=31;), Paul mentions a companion named Linus, near the end of his residence in Rome (ref. 2 Timothy 4:6-7, 16-17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%204:6-7,%2016-17;&version=31;), 2 Timothy 1:17 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=62&chapter=1&verse=17&version=31&context=verse)). If Linus is the individual that early historical sources identify as a bishop of Rome, then could Paul have appointed Linus as a successor overseer elder without Peter?
While Roman Catholic apologists agree that Paul could have appointed the Linus of 2 Timothy 4:21 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%204:21%20;&version=31;), Roman Catholic apologists cannot demonstrate that these historical sources are referencing the same Linus, since "Linus" was a popular Greek name. This observation undermines the only link between Biblical and extra-Biblical sources about "Linus." As a result, Roman Catholic apologists must emphasize Irenaeus's writings over other writings.
All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, 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 Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, "De vir. ill.", xv). 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 Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads:
After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) [U]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.We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in II Timothy 4:21, goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name.[...]
[Underlining by LuckyStrike]
Source: "Pope St. Linus," from The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 9, by K. Hnight, @ NewAdvent.org (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm)
2. First Successor: Cletus, Anacletus, or Clement?
When one moves forward in time, the available historical data becomes more confusing. Different historical sources list different lines of succession, thereby creating a collection of contradictions. Non-Roman Catholic apologists and Roman Catholic apologists agree that this problem is real, as demonstrated by the following juxtapositioned quotations.
2A. A Non-Catholic perspective:
CLEMENS ROMANUS, one of the most celebrated names of Christian antiquity, but so overgrown with myths, that it has become next to impossible to lay bare the historical facts which it represents, occurs in all lists of the first Roman bishops, but not always in the same place. Thus Irenæus (Hær., III. 3, 3) puts it in the third place from Peter (Petrus, Linus, Anencletus, Clemens); and so do Eusebius (both in his Church History, III. 13, 15, and in his Chronicle), Epiphanius (Hær., XXVII. 6), and Jerome (De Vir. Ill., 15); only that, with the two last mentioned, the name of the second bishop after Peter is Cletus, and not Anencletus. But another succession meets us in the Chronicle of Hippolyte, in which Clement is placed before Cletus, - Petrus, Linus, Clemens, Cletus; and this succession was adopted by the Liberian Catalogue, by Augustine, Optatus, and others, as also by the Apostolical Constitutions; while at the same time the double tradition made two different persons out of the two names of Anencletus and Cletus, thus producing the following list, - Petrus, Linus, Clemens, Cletus, Anencletus. The Leonian Catalogue, however, returns once more to the old succession, according to which Clement occupies the third place after Peter; and thus the Felician Catalogue, which is merely a combination of the Liberian and Leonian Catalogues, arrives at the following succession, - Petrus, Linus, Cletus, Clemens, Anencletus. The pseudo-Tertullian Carmen adv. Marcionem finally places both Cletus and Anencletus before Clement; while the epistle said to have been written by Clement to the apostle James narrates that Peter himself appointed Clement his successor; but the former found no advocates at all, and - the latter only one, — the author of the pseudo-Clementine romance. See Lipsius: chronologie der römischien Bishöfe, Kiel, 1869. There is, indeed, no reason to abandon the oldest tradition of the Church, according to which, Clement was the third bishop of Rome after Peter; only it must be remembered that he was not a bishop in that sense of the word which the monarchical tendency of a later period developed. He was simply one of the most prominent presbyters of the Roman [493] congregation immediately alter the post-apostolical age.[...]
[Underlining by LuckyStrike]
Source: "CLEMENS ROMANUS," from A Religious Encyclopaedia or Dictionary of Biblical, Historical, Doctrinal, and Practical Theology, Volume 1, 3rd Edition, by G. Uhlhorn, @ EarlyChurch.org.uk (http://www.earlychurch.org.uk/clemrome.php)
See also: "No Papacy in the Early Church," [2nd and 3rd Quotations Down] by Jason Engwer @ Christian Liberty (http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/nopapacy.htm)
2B. A Catholic perspective:
The second successor of St. Peter. Whether he was the same as Cletus, who is also called Anencletus as well as Anacletus, has been the subject of endless discussion. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, Optatus, use both names indifferently as of one person. Tertullian omits him altogether. To add to the confusion, the order is different. Thus Irenaeus has Linus, Anacletus, Clement; whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus. On the other hand, the "Catalogus Liberianus", the "Carmen contra Marcionem" and the "Liber Pontificalis", all most respectable for their antiquity, make Cletus and Anacletus distinct from each other; while the "Catalogus Felicianus" even sets the latter down as a Greek, the former as a Roman. Among the moderns, Hergenroether (Hist. de l'église, I 542, note) pronounces for their identity. So also the Bollandist De Smedt (Dissert. vii, 1). Dëllinger (Christenth. u K., 315) declares that "they are, without doubt, the same person"and that "the 'Catalogue of Liberius' merits little confidence before 230." Duchesne, " Origines chretiennes ", ranges himself on that side also but Jungmann (Dissert. Hist. Eccl., I, 123) leaves the question in doubt. The chronology is, of course, in consequence of all this, very undetermined, but Duchesne, in his "Origines", says "we are far from the day when the years, months, and days of the Pontifical Catalogue can be given with any guarantee of exactness. But is it necessary to be exact about popes of whom we know so little? We can accept the list of Irenaeus -- Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus. Anicetus reigned certainly in 154. That is all we can say with assurance about primitive pontifical chronology." That he ordained a certain number of priests is nearly all we have of positive record about him, but we know he died a martyr, perhaps about 91.
[Underlining by LuckyStrike]
Source: "Pope St. Anacletus," from The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume 1, by K. Hnight, @ NewAdvent.org (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01446a.htm)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
For other examples of disputable succession, see this webage (http://www.catholicconcerns.com/Popes.html).
With all this in mind, I must ask: Apart from dogmatic presuppositions, how do Roman Catholics know which line of succession is correct?
Remember that during the lifetime of the Apostles, many individuals began usurping the Apostles' authority within local churches (ref. 1 John 3:9-10 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=3%20John%201:9-10;&version=31;), 2 Corinthians 11:3-6, 12-15, 20, 26 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Corinthians%2011:3-6,%2012-15,%2020,%2026;&version=31;), Galatians 2:11-13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%202:11-13;&version=31;), see also 1 Timothy 6:3-5 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%206:3-5;&version=31;), 1 Timothy 1:3-7 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%201:3-7;&version=31;), 2 Peter 2:1-3 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Peter%202:1-3;&version=31;), 2 Thessalonians 3:6-15 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonians%203:6-15;&version=31;), etc.). Could this reality help explain the confusion within the available historical data?