Linus, When?

Image via Wikipedia

While the majority agree that Linus was second in line, what they can’t seem to agree on is when he actually reigned.

The Liberian Catalogue and Liber Pontificalis both date his Episopate to AD 56-67, Jerome dates it at 67-78, Eusebuis dates the end of his Episcopate at AD 80, while the Catholic Encyclopedia lists his dates as 67-76.

But such details from those who should know is like asking, “well, was the light red or green?” Who cares, right?

Dates aside, there are some who dispute line of succession altogether. Tertullian claims that Linus and Cletus were never a part of the pope’s official lineage. Rather Peter was directly succeeded by Clement I.

“For in this way Apostolic Churches declare their origin : as, for instance, the Church of the Smyrnaeans records that Polycarp was placed there by John; and the Roman Church that Clement was ordained thereto by Peter. And exactly in the same way the rest of the Churches can produce persons who, ordained to the episcopate by Apostles, became transmitters of the Apostolic seed.” (1)

— Tertullian, On the “Prescriptions” of Heretics

Yet another differing opinion is offered by the Apostolic Constitution, (2) which says that Linus (first bishop of Rome, ordained by Paul) was succeeded by Clement (second bishop of Rome, ordained by Peter).

Oh my head hurts. So which is it?

Irenaeus, Jerome, Eusebius, John Chrysostom, the Liberian Catalogue, and the Liber Pontificalis all claim:

1. St. Peter
2. St. Linus
3. St. Anacletus (aka Anacletus, Anencletus, or Cletus)
4. St. Clement I (Clement of Rome)

Tertullian claims:

1. St. Peter
2. Clement of Rome

The Apostalic Constitutions (purportedly the work of the Twelve Apostles and “complied” by Clement) claims:

1. St. Peter
2. Linus (ordained by Paul)
3. Clement of Rome (ordained by Peter)

Our real problem appears to stem from Clement’s claim to second chair in Rome, for he seems to be at variance with a large body of other witnesses, namely, those already mentioned (save Tertullian).

Today it is commonly believed (and officially recognized by the Roman Catholic Church) that Clement was the fourth bishop in succession in Rome. And the only real witness we have to the contrary is Tertullian and the Apostolic Constitution, which Clement is said to have “compiled.”

Add to this the evolving terminology of bishop to pope, and we arrive at the darkest of all possible secrets: that Clement simply made the whole thing up.
___________________________

Next up: Clement of Rome
If new to this blog, begin here to read subject sequentially.

.
.

___________________________________________________________
Footnote References:

(1) Tertullian, On the “Prescriptions” of Heretics, Chapter 32

(2) The Apostolic Constitution is a collection of eight books (from the late fourth century) of independent, though closely related writings on Early Christian discipline, worship and doctrine. Purported as the work of the Twelve Apostles, and said to have been gathered and compiled by Clement of Rome, it was intended to serve as a manual of guidance for the clergy and to some extent the laity. It now is comprised as a part of the ANF (Ante-Nicene Fathers) collection and has ranged in estimation from such extremes as ‘the sacred Christian laws or constitutions delivered from Christ Himself to the eleven apostles” — to “canonical” — to “documents that contained heretical interpolations.” For more information visit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Constitutions

.
.
.
.
.
.
.