How did Linus qualify to be the second pope?

Answer 1

A:

We can not really be sure there was ever a Pope Linus. Francis Aloysius Sullivan (From Apostles to Bishops: The Development of the Episcopacy in the Early Church) says that the consensus of scholars is that on the available evidence, the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century. The tradition of a Pope Linus belongs to a later era, and there are even conflicting traditions as to who followed Peter as bishop of Rome.

It is widely assumed that Pope Linus was the same person called Linus that we find mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21, and therefore a companion of St. Paul. This would no doubt be a good qualification for Linus to be pope. However, even the Catholic Encyclopedia says, : "We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21 goes back to an ancient and reliable source." Moreover, almost all scholars now consider Second Timothy to have been written, using Paul's name, in the second century - long after any Pope Linus would have died. Therefore, there is no good reason to believe that Paul ever knew anyone called Linus.

The available evidence therefore shows that there was no bishop of Rome, or pope, until well into the second century, but even if a leading presbyter called Linus did exist in Rome, he was not the person mentioned in 2 Timothy.

Answer 2

The Liber Pontificalis listed St. Linus as the second Pope, and gives a brief biography, but that is all we know about him. Certainly details of his ascension to the Bishopric of Rome are not extant.

Answer 3

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 4

Francis A. Sullivan SJ (From Apostles to Bishops) says that most scholars are of the opinion that, in spite of Church tradition, the early church of Rome was led by a group of presbyters, and that bishops were not appointed to the church in Rome until later in the second century. In other words, Linus could not have been either elected or appointed as bishop of Rome and therefore pope. It is conceivable there was a presbyter named Linus, but if so he only became regarded as a former pope much later and by tradition alone.

For more information on the early popes, please visit:

http://christianity.answers.com/catholicism/a-brief-history-of-the-early-popes