Surely you’re not trying to tell me that Christ started the church in Rome are you? Actually wasn’t the RCC started in 1054 when they broke with the previous universal Church, sometimes known today as the Catholic-Orthodox Church?
Not only that, but there seems to be a problem with the line of succession espoused by the RCC.
From the Anti Nicene Fathers.
"Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:--James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Caesarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchaeus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul [Anti Nicene Fathers, Volume VII, Book VI, Sec. IV, XLVI)Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume VII:]
Papal succession occurrs after a pope's death right? Also, if Linus ordained by Paul, not Peter was bishop of Rome while Peter was alive, that would mean that Linus, not even an Apostle, had Papal supremacy over both Peter and Paul - two living Apostles.
Somethings not right with what the RCC is teaching you.
“Surely you’re not trying to tell me that Christ started the church in Rome are you?”
Did the Catholic church begin in Rome?
“Actually wasn’t the RCC started in 1054 when they broke with the previous universal Church, sometimes known today as the Catholic-Orthodox Church?”
Depends on who you talk to. This is the present Orthodox position, but both Catholics and Orthodox have at present, existing bishops with apostolic succession going back to the earliest days of the Church. This is why it’s better to just refer to it as the Church, because back then that’s how people understood it.
So your choice is one or the other. Or, hopefully as the case will be, one, when we come together again.
“Not only that, but there seems to be a problem with the line of succession espoused by the RCC.”
Oh? Then you might want to inform the Orthodox. Because their line of succession is exactly the same until the schism.
“Papal succession occurrs after a pope’s death right? Also, if Linus ordained by Paul, not Peter was bishop of Rome while Peter was alive, that would mean that Linus, not even an Apostle, had Papal supremacy over both Peter and Paul - two living Apostles.”
You’re mixing up two, very different concepts. One, it is unusual for one pope to have ordained a priest who becomes a future pope. For one, most popes don’t do that many ordinations (usually ordinations are done by the presiding bishops).
Two, in the early days of the Church, we would expect the Apostles to ordain people as they came into the Church. That Paul ordained Linus isn’t surprising, nor does it mean that Linus became Pope while Peter was living. All it means is that Linus became a priest (that’s what ordination means), when Paul baptized him.
What is important is that Linus, who eventually became Bishop of Rome, on the death of Peter, was ordained by Paul, that is Apostolic succession. It goes from Apostle to pope, not from Pope to pope.