[Uncle Chip]

For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.

Then Tertullian disagrees with Irenaeus who says that Peter and Paul, not Peter alone, appointed Linus as the first bishop of Rome --- not Clement. So who is right?

And many church historians say that until the middle of the 2nd century, the churches everywhere, even in Rome, were managed not by a single bishop or presbyter, but by a college of presbyters.

Yet modern historians (many of whom have no reason to support mainstream Christianity) seem to have missed this point; very curious indeed.

Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, even Eusebius never missed it. Eusebius even complained that the disciples of Simon Magus, almost 300 years after his death, were pouring into the church of his day bringing their heresies and idolatries with them.

[GCC Catholic]

Point well made; This is what I get for thinking before my coffee kicks in. The Catholic Encyclopedia explains the discrepancy in the ordering: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm. Also, it is entirely possible that this passage refers to ordination to the priesthood, which also can only be done by the Apostles and their successors.

Also, Eusebius' complaints only make it clear that Simon Magus was in Rome and had heretical followers. It does not prove that Simon Peter was NOT in Rome, and it does not prove that the See of Peter, as led by Linus, Clement, and others, were the followers of Simon Magus. Besides, you missed my point, namely that many modern historians would probably love to use your argument to undermine Christianity in general and the Catholic Church specifically, yet they don't.