Who was the successor of St Peter in Rome?

Answer 1

There is considerable confusion about the line of succession of the leadership of the early Church after Peter. The earliest witness to Linus's status as bishop was Irenaeus, who in about the year 180 wrote, "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate." Linus is presented by Jerome as "the first after Peter to be in charge of the Roman Church" and by Eusebius as "the first to receive the episcopate of the church at Rome, after the martyrdom of Paul and Peter". John Chrysostom wrote, "This Linus, some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter", while the Liberian Catalogue presents Peter as the first Bishop of Rome and Linus as his successor in the same office. One tradition is that Linus was Peter's choice to succeed him and others state that Peter and Paul together chose him.

One must remember that the term pope did not come into general use until a number of years later and the defining of the hierarchy took a considerable time to become established. This was the infant Church that was just beginning to organize itself. There is no doubt, however, that Linus was chosen to lead the Church, and is considered today as the second pope and second bishop of Rome following Peter.

Answer 2

Catholic tradition says that Peter travelled to Rome and led the Church there, appointing Linus to succeed him as bishop of Rome. This tradition comes down to us from Irenaeus, who was keen to prove, against the claims of Gnostic Christians, that the apostles handed down their tradition to the bishops they appointed. He proceeded to provide a list of the first twelve bishops of Rome, without telling us the source of that list.

In spite of a strong tradition, there is no evidence that Peter ever went to Rome, although he appears to have travelled as far west as Corinth and may have spent some time there (1 Corinthians 1:12). Moreover, Francis A. Sullivan SJ (From Apostles to Bishops) says that there is a general agreement among scholars that the church of Rome was led by a council of presbyters until well into the second century, with no evidence of a ruling bishop. Even when Hermas wrote the Shepherd of Hermas to the church in Rome some time in the first half of the second century, there is no indication of a single bishop in the church for which he was writing. If Linus even existed, he would have been a presbyter, and perhaps an influential one.
Regardless of what had actually taken place, Sullivan says that it was generally recognised throughout the Christian Church by the middle of the third century that the bishops of Rome were the successors to St. Peter and that this gave them a special kind of authority.