Who succeeded St Peter as Pope?

Question

Jesus was the cornerstone, St Peter was the rock, the apostles a part of the foundation..What the heck was Jesus building if not Apostolic succession. So, up until the Restoration, most people in Europe were Catholic, and shared in that succession. Protestants should know at least part of their heritage...so...who was the second Pope? (Sorry if it seems I'm being smug, but, well, I am. I really like the second Pope's name and I'm wondering who else knows it.)

Answer 1

St. Linus....

Answer 2

John didn't succeed Peter, because there was no Pope then and because Peter was not a Pope.The Pope is a man made Catholic concept and is blasphemous.The Bible has no reference to a Pope, besides the Catholic church was founded 300 years later so how could a Pope exist 300 years before the invention of Catholicism then?

Answer 3

The Catholic Church believes the Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.

The Pope is the senior pastor of 1.1 billion Catholics, the direct successor of Simon Peter

The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17.
In Matthew 16:17-19, the office is solemnly promised to the Apostle. In response to his profession of faith in the Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him:

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Jesus [ 0 - 32 ]
1 St. Peter (32-67)
2 St. Linus (67-76)
3 St. Anacletus (76-88)
4 St. Clement I (88-97)
5 St. Evaristus (97-105)
6 St. Alexander I (105-115)
7 St. Sixtus I (115-125)
8 St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9 St. Hyginus (136-140)
10 St. Pius I (140-155)
& so on to John Paul II (1978-2005)
Benedict XVI (2005—) 266 pope

From a historical viewpoint, for the first 900 years, if you were a Christian in Europe, you were a Catholic. With the exception of certain heresies that flared up and were stamped out, there was only one Christian religion and it was headed by the Pope. All the sovereign kings of Europe owed feudal allegiance to the Pope. The Holy Spirit did not convert to Lutheranism in 1517 or Calvinism later in the 1540s.

Answer 4

St. Linus from 67-76 A.D.

I also like the 4th....Clement....who happens to also be mentioned in the Bible. See his name at Philippians 4:3. And there is an uncanny connection between Clement 6 and 7 even though they were popes nearly 200 years apart.

Answer 5

St. Linus
Reigned as Pope from 67 A.D. to 76 A.D.
his reign was 11years 3months 12days long
was born in Volterra
died on November 23, 76 A.D.(of course)
and is currently burried in St. Peter's Basillica....

Answer 6

Pastor Billy says: St. Linus, yet the moral of story here is... when you have no apostolic authority argue against it's validity like kait.

Baptists kait have no history beyond the last 500 years and that is being generous.

Answer 7

Linus, 67-76 AD

Then Anacletus, Clement I, Evaristus, Alexander I, etc.

Answer 8

The doctrine of apostolic succession is the belief that the 12 apostles passed on their authority to successors, who then passed the apostolic authority on to their successors, continuing throughout the centuries, even unto today. The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the leader of the apostles, with the greatest authority, and therefore his successors carry on the greatest authority. The Roman Catholic Church combines this belief with the concept that Peter later became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishops that followed Peter were accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. Apostolic succession, combined with Peter’s supremacy among the apostles, results in the Roman bishop being the supreme authority of the Catholic Church – the Pope.

However, nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any other New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Further, neither is Peter presented as “supreme” over the other apostles. The Apostle Paul, in fact, rebukes Peter when Peter was leading others astray (Galatians 2:11-14). Yes, the Apostle Peter had a prominent role. Yes, perhaps the Apostle Peter was the leader of the apostles (although the Book of Acts records the Apostle Paul and Jesus’ brother James as also having prominent leadership roles). Whatever the case, Peter was not the “commander” or supreme authority over the other apostles. Even if apostolic succession could be demonstrated from Scripture, which it cannot, apostolic succession would not result in Peter’s successors being absolutely supreme over the other apostles’ successors.

Catholics point to Matthias being chosen to replace Judas as the 12th apostle in Acts chapter 1 as an example of apostolic succession. While Matthias did indeed “suceed” Judas as an apostle, this is in no sense an argument for continuing apostolic succession. Matthias being chosen to replace Judas is only an argument for the church replacing ungodly and unfaithful leaders (such as Judas), with godly and faithful leaders (such as Matthias). Nowhere in the New Testament are any of the twelve apostles recorded as passing on their apostolic authority to successors. Nowhere do any of the apostles predict that they will pass on their apostolic authority. No, Jesus ordained the apostles to build the foundation of the church (Ephesians 2:20). What is the foundation of the church that the apostles built? The New Testament – the record of the deeds and teachings of the apostles. The church does not need apostolic successors. The church needs the teachings of the apostles accurately recorded and preserved. And that is exactly what God has provided in His Word (Ephesians 1:13; Colossians 1:5; 2 Timothy 2:15; 4:2).

In short, apostolic succession is not biblical. The concept of apostolic succession is never found in Scripture. What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right. The Roman Catholic Church claims that a lack of ongoing apostolic authority results in doctrinal confusion and chaos. It is an unfortunate truth (that the apostles acknowledged) that false teachers would arise (2 Peter 2:1). Admittedly, the lack of “supreme authority” amongst non-Catholic churches results in many different interpretations. However, these differences in interpretation are not the result of Scripture being unclear. Rather, they are the result of even non-Catholic Christians carrying on the Catholic tradition of interpreting Scripture in accordance with their own traditions. If Scripture is studied in its entirety and in its proper context, the truth can be easily determined. Doctrinal differences and denominational conflicts are a result of some Christians refusing to agree with what Scripture says – not a result of there being no “supreme authority” to interpret Scripture.

Alignment with Scriptural teaching, not apostolic succession, is the determining factor of the trueness of a church. What is mentioned in Scripture is the idea that the Word of God was to be the guide that the church was to follow (Acts 20:32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17). It is the Scriptures that teachings are to be compared with (Acts 17:10-12). Apostolic authority was passed on through the writings of the apostles, not through apostolic succession.

Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy.

Answer 9

Hello and there is a large misunderstanding reference to wording, in the bible when Peter is called a rock the term used is pebble or rolling stone it is JESUS that the chruch is build on, Jesus is THE ROCK OF AGES, not peter He was told by Jesus just a few verses later to get behind Him [Jesus] as satan was using peter to try to stop Jesus mission, find out more www.amazingfacts.org God bless.

Answer 10

Peter not only was not Pope,but probably never was in Rome.
He said about Jesus "Thou art Christ,the Son of the living God"
That was the rock,the foundation of the Church ,that Jesus is the Son of God.Not Peter himself.Paul we know was in Rome.Paul never preached where others had gone before.
Peter was an Orthodox Jew ,a believer in Jesus as his Messiah.He was a married man as we know from the Gospels and a letter from Paul.How could he be Pope?