how do we know?

Question

pope Linus succeeded StPeter as the Head of the Catholic church in 66ce. Why wasn't St Paul chosen as the new Pontiff if he was still preaching at this time? the dates surrounding St Peters death are ambiguous at best, for the chronicles of the time were not precise. some referrences have Peter dying in 68, or 67, so why would Linus be officially ordained in 66ce?

can anyone actually prove that Peter lived and was a real person, without referrencing the bible?

Answer 1

its a long time ago.

You have three schools of thought (sic) Some (RC) who recognise his office as Bishop of Antioch and, later, as Bishop of Rome or Pope, hold that his episcopacy held a primacy only of honour, as a first among equals.

Some propose that his primacy was not intended to pass to his successors.

Others view Peter as not having held the office of bishop or overseer, on the grounds that this office was a development of later Christianity.

Some Protestants do not use the title of "saint" in reference to him.

Clement of Rome, in his Letter to the Corinthians (Chapter 5), written c. 80-98, speaks of Peter's martyrdom at the time of the Great Fire of Rome of the year 64, for which the Emperor Nero blamed the Christians.

There is a lack of contemporary evidence, and though the quotations from writers like Clement, Ignatius and Tertullian show that by the end of the first century the tradition that Peter went to Rome and was martyred there was already well established, there is no mention of Peter founding the church in Rome or holding office there.

Answer 2

Linus would not have been called a "pope". That word wasn't used until after the Roman Empire fell. And his "ordination" was likely a simple laying on of hands. The dates are all courtesy of Eusebius, who wrote the official Church history a couple of centuries later. We can't do much about that because no one else was keeping records.

Paul supposedly was executed about the same time as Peter. He wasn't the administrative type anyway.

Answer 3

We have no record of a super or exalted apostle above any other. Therefore we have no record that Peter was ever a Pope and records show it was the 3rd century before the first pope. Did Peter live into the 3rd century?

Answer 4

The problem is that we know little or nothing with certainty about many events during those particular times. Even less with regard to religion. Early in the organization, it is likely that there was more emphasis on survival than on record-keeping.

In any case, there is debate over who exactly was the second Pope. It is unlikely that the true story will be known exactly.

Answer 5

Well St. Peter passed down his keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Linus...

But John didn't pass on his keys to Linus...soo the Catholic church's authority isn't complete....whoops for them.

Answer 6

Because after his invovlment with Yoko Ono, the whole group fell apart amidst personnal squabbles--oh wait! That was the Beatles! We're talking about Peter, Paul and Mary, right?....

Answer 7

perhaps because leading the church was never Paul's calling. He was called to be a missionary, as evidenced by his life. He never stayed more than a few years in any one city. Just because he was probably the greatest theologan of the time does not mean he would have been the best leader. Different skill sets.

Answer 8

Another interesting question I am wondering is why, if Peter truly WAS the first pope, then why was he the ONLY pope who had a mother-in-law (ie he was married)?

Mat 8:14 (KJV): "And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever."

Answer 9

Politics.

Answer 10

That is an interesting question since the catholic chuch in any form did not exist for another 300 years.