So do you agree then that Simon Peter was clearly designated by Jesus as the leader of the apostles and therefore the church? Do you take issue with Luke 22, John 21, or Matt 16 and their direct application specifically to Peter?

I'm not asking you about Peter's See and/or the successors of St. Peter.

It sounds like you will at least agree that Peter was set apart as the leader of the Apostles?

Of course it is Jesus Christ's church, and He has the ultimate authority to do whatever He chooses. None of this discussion takes the slightest bit of that away from Christ. In fact, my question is simply that. What does Jesus decide to do with His authority? Where does he place it, and what do the Scriptures show us? Does Christ give authority to Peter in a unique way compared to the others or is their authority equally shared with equal weight?

I would love for someone to interact with Luke 22, John 21, and Matt 16 because to me it is clear that these verses are about Peter and the specific role that Christ selected him to have among the apostles.

I would also enjoy looking into the Chiastic structure you mentioned about John. I'm not sure I am familiar with that point. Thanks.

Are those your top five points from the book, or are those points you are trying to make?

KingofHazor said:

---

Are those your top five points from the book, or are those points you are trying to make?

---

You asked me my top five. Those are my top takes from it.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

KingofHazor said:

---

Are those your top five points from the book, or are those points you are trying to make?

---

You asked me my top five. Those are my top takes from it.

---

Thanks. It wasn't clear to me.

Again, this is not going to be a productive conversation because the papacy and the claims associated with it are literally articles of faith for RCC and to deny them would make the RCC incoherent with itself.

Quote:

---

It sounds like you will at least agree that Peter was set apart as the leader of the Apostles?

---

Sure, just as Peter, James, and John were the "inner circle", Peter also has a senior position among all of them.

However, would you say that because Peter, James, and John had a special and closer relationship to Christ as apostles that means they had some unique authority? Did James and John have special authority that other apostles didn't? By your logic there's actually three tiers among the apostles - Peter, followed by Peter, James, and John, followed by everyone else.

If you say, yeah that seems ridiculous... that's because it is. Exactly the same way that saying that because Peter was the one the others looked to that means he was a Leader in some kind of ultra special way.

Quote:

---

Luke 22

---

Proximity in the text is no sure indication. St Matthew and Mark both record the same words spoken in Luke 22 (who is the greatest?) and instead place it immediately after the mother of James and John's request. Again - should we look at this as if it is relevant by proximity? It really seems to me to be a strange argument. As for St Peter (singular) needing prayer - which of the apostles denied Him three times? St John followed to the cross. St John did not need that prayer. This reads as an argument of convenience, motivated reasoning. You're looking for justification for an idea.

Quote:

---

Matt 4:18 Jesus begins his ministry by calling Simon to follow him said:

---

Andrew was first-called, not Simon.

Quote:

---

Matt 16: 13-20 Jesus changes Simon's name and gives Simon the Keys said:

---

We know from the fathers that there is a wide variety - no clear consensus whatever - as what the rock here indicates. Peter himself, Peter's confession, etc. And you know that regardless of you "singular" binding and loosing that shortly after (Matthew 18:18) St Matthew uses the same, only plural.

Quote:

---

Isaiah 22

---

This is motivated reasoning! Would you say that St Eliakim's office is hereditary? Who was deposed (read the context) that we would apply this verse to Peter?

Quote:

---

Acts 1:15: Apostolic Succession said:

---

The irony here is that St Luke is pretty clearly showing that St Peter and the Apostles were incorrect. The Holy Spirit had a plan for replacing Judas, and it wasn't Matthias. Matthias is a saint, but the replacement for Judas is obviously St Paul. This is clear in in the witness of the church, which ALWAYS shows St Paul - and not St Matthias, in the ascension icon in particular and in icons of the twelve in general -- even though St Paul was not there!

Arguing for Peter's preeminance in the early church, among the apostles, the significance of his testimony (because St Mark was his scribe, and St Mark's gospel is the basis for the other two synoptics) is, again, not relevant to the office of the papacy as it exists today.

Always having to bring race into huh? lol.

Let's dispense with trying to convince each other is wrong or right. It doesn't change what is in front of us. Let it go.

"Again, this is not going to be a productive conversation because the papacy and the claims associated with it are literally articles of faith for RCC and to deny them would make the RCC incoherent with itself"

The reverse it just as critical for the Orthodox. I get it too. Let's move on.

Except it isn't. The Orthodox faith has no "anti pope" statement of faith equivalent. Your church made it a deal, and I'm not talking about 1054.

My patriarchate is older than Rome.

Zobel said:

---

Except it isn't. The Orthodox faith has no "anti pope" statement of faith equivalent. Your church made it a deal, and I'm not talking about 1054.

My patriarchate is older than Rome.

---

So, as a current Catholic, if I decided to become Orthodox I would not be required to make a public statement of faith rejecting the Papacy?

Zobel said:

---

Again, this is not going to be a productive conversation because the papacy and the claims associated with it are literally articles of faith for RCC and to deny them would make the RCC incoherent with itself.

---

I always learn new things from these dialogs which for me are productive. I don't expect either of our minds/beliefs to be changed. The Papacy is an article of faith for me in the same way that rejecting the Papacy is an article of faith for the Orthodox. It doesn't mean we cannot have a fruitful discussion.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

It sounds like you will at least agree that Peter was set apart as the leader of the Apostles?

---

Sure, just as Peter, James, and John were the "inner circle", Peter also has a senior position among all of them.

However, would you say that because Peter, James, and John had a special and closer relationship to Christ as apostles that means they had some unique authority? Did James and John have special authority that other apostles didn't? By your logic there's actually three tiers among the apostles - Peter, followed by Peter, James, and John, followed by everyone else.

If you say, yeah that seems ridiculous... that's because it is. Exactly the same way that saying that because Peter was the one the others looked to that means he was a Leader in some kind of ultra special way.

---

Authority is not about proximity or closeness. I think it is evident that Peter, James, and John were the "inner circle". However, there is no indication that their being in the inner circle conveyed anything about authority whatever. John was entrusted with the care of the Blessed Mother.

As far as the Scriptures are concerned, all apostles were given a share in the ministry and general apostolic authority to bind and loose. Only Simon Peter is singled out by Jesus and given authority individually and on multiple occasions. I am not making the case that Peter was a leader because he was the one other looked to, but rather Peter was the leader because Christ chose him to be the leader and made his choice known.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Luke 22

---

Proximity in the text is no sure indication. St Matthew and Mark both record the same words spoken in Luke 22 (who is the greatest?) and instead place it immediately after the mother of James and John's request. Again - should we look at this as if it is relevant by proximity? It really seems to me to be a strange argument. As for St Peter (singular) needing prayer - which of the apostles denied Him three times? St John followed to the cross. St John did not need that prayer. This reads as an argument of convenience, motivated reasoning. You're looking for justification for an idea.

---

My argument has nothing to do with proximity in the text. However, I'm glad you mentioned Matthew here because I forgot about the temple tax. Why does Jesus only pay the temple tax for Jesus and for Peter, but not James or John or the other disciples?

With regard to Peter (singular) needing prayer…did not all the apostles scatter and abandon Christ with the exception of John? Was Peter the only one of them that needed or would benefit from the prayer of Jesus? Are we to believe that Jesus stopped praying for the other disciples or that John had no need? Jesus foretold that Satan would sift all of them like wheat, but that He will pray specifically for Simon, that his faith will not fail and when he has turned back for Simon to strengthen the others. Why is Simon clearly and intentionally singled out here?

I don't follow your point about the mother of James & John's request as being in proximity to the question of who is the greatest. What I do see is that this argument or dispute seems to happen immediately after Jesus tells them he will be killed.

With all do respect, my argument is not one of convenience or motivated reasoning anymore than your case to avoid admitting what is written.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Matt 4:18 Jesus begins his ministry by calling Simon to follow him said:

---

Andrew was first-called, not Simon.

---

You are splitting hairs here. Both Matthew and Mark have Jesus calling Simon and his brother, Andrew, together. Andrew and another disciple found Jesus in John, Andrew was identified as Simon Peter's brother, and first found his own brother and brought him to Jesus. Why is Andrew always identified as Simon Peter's brother?

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Matt 16: 13-20 Jesus changes Simon's name and gives Simon the Keys said:

---

We know from the fathers that there is a wide variety - no clear consensus whatever - as what the rock here indicates. Peter himself, Peter's confession, etc. And you know that regardless of you "singular" binding and loosing that shortly after (Matthew 18:18) St Matthew uses the same, only plural.

---

My point on this verse in this context has more to do with the keys than the meaning of rock. The keys signify authority and only Simon Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven in Matt 16:18 - and with the keys the power to bind and loose on heaven and on earth. In Matt 16:18 Jesus is only speaking to Peter which makes this another example of Jesus setting Simon apart from the other eleven. Peter, with the keys, shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open.

In Matt 18:18 the eleven together are also given the power to bind and loose, however they are not given the Keys to the Kingdom. They share in the power of the keys, but the Keys are placed on the shoulder of Peter. It is an important point that tends to get glossed over or dismissed. They are all given authority, but only one is given the keys which signify something more.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Isaiah 22

---

This is motivated reasoning! Would you say that St Eliakim's office is hereditary? Who was deposed (read the context) that we would apply this verse to Peter?

---

Isaiah 22 and Matt 16:18 are clearly connected…

In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. (Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah) I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. (And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it). He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to people of Judah. (for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven) I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. (I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven). I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father. All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshootsall its lesser vessels, from the cups to all the flagons.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Acts 1:15: Apostolic Succession said:

---

The irony here is that St Luke is pretty clearly showing that St Peter and the Apostles were incorrect. The Holy Spirit had a plan for replacing Judas, and it wasn't Matthias. Matthias is a saint, but the replacement for Judas is obviously St Paul. This is clear in in the witness of the church, which ALWAYS shows St Paul - and not St Matthias, in the ascension icon in particular and in icons of the twelve in general -- even though St Paul was not there!

Arguing for Peter's preeminance in the early church, among the apostles, the significance of his testimony (because St Mark was his scribe, and St Mark's gospel is the basis for the other two synoptics) is, again, not relevant to the office of the papacy as it exists today.

---

So are you claiming that the first action/decision of the apostles/church recorded in the Scriptures shows the church falling into immediate error?

Zobel said:

---

No. We've received many Catholics at my parish and I've never seen this or heard of it.

---

Interesting. I thought I read somewhere that this was explicitly required. I stand corrected on that point I guess. Good to know. Thanks.

Zobel said:

---

"The leader" has limits as well, as St John Chrysostom aptly points out both in the council of Jerusalem where he says St James spoke in his authority as bishop, and was "invested with the chief rule", and in St Paul's writings.

One interesting example from St John's two sermons on Priscilla and Aquila:

First to be mentioned is Paul's virtue - how he had taken in hand the whole world, both land and sea; and all the cities under the sun, both barbarian and Greek, and all the people moving about in them; and yet he had such solicitude for this one man and one woman (Priscilla and Aquila)
…
And Paul was not ashamed, neither did he consider it a matter of reproach, to command the imperial city and its haughty people to greet those two artisans.
…
This man (St Paul), who commanded demons, who was the teacher of the civilized world, who was entrusted with all those dwelling upon the earth and with all the Churches under the sun, who ministered with great solicitude to peoples and nations and cities: this man worked night and day with his hands, and did not have even a bit of rest from those labors.

---

Admittedly, I'm quote mining Chrysostom here. I don't submit any of these quotes as "proof" of Peter's authority, as I really do detest proof texting. At the end of the day, no matter where we fall on the role of the pope, or bishops, or priest or the bible alone, or (insert authority here), the position will not be completely and utterly immune to refutation. I submit these quotes from Chrysostom as helpful, but at the end of the day, any conclusions will require a capital T Tradition to help clarify. This true for Catholics, as it is for EO and Protestants. All bolded quotes are from his 3rd homily on Acts 1

Quote:

---

Both as being ardent, and as having been put in trust by Christ with the flock, and as having precedence in honor, he always begins the discourse

---

Peter, according to Chrysostom, was entrusted with the flock (not his own personal segment of the flock) AND has precedence in honor. Honor, during this time, was reserved for parents, exceptionally wise men and men in authority positions. To have precedence in honor is a big deal.

Quote:

---

Why did he not ask Christ to give him some one in the room of Judas? It is better as it is. For in the first place, they were engaged in other things; secondly, of Christ's presence with them, the greatest proof that could be given was this: as He had chosen when He was among them, so did He now being absent. Now this was no small matter for their consolation. But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing imperiously. And he does not speak thus without a meaning. But observe how he consoles them concerning what had passed. In fact, what had happened had caused them no small consternation. For if there are many now who canvass this circumstance, what may we suppose they had to say then?

---

This is another great example of how interpreting the text is far more important than the text itself. I clearly read this as Peter having the ability to act "imperiously" if he wanted to. Instead he chose to act otherwise. I assume most EO's would read this as Peter being incapable of acting without the consent of the others.

Quote:

---

"Wherefore it behooves of these men which have companied with us all the time". Acts 1:21 Why does he make it their business too? That the matter might not become an object of strife, and they might not fall into contention about it. For if the Apostles themselves once did this, much more might those. This he ever avoids. Wherefore at the beginning he said, Men and brethren. It behooves to choose from among you. He defers the decision to the whole body, thereby both making the elected objects of reverence and himself keeping clear of all invidiousness with regard to the rest

---

One cannot "defer" a decision unless the capacity to make the decision resides with that person. And Chrysostom seems to believe he is bringing others in precisely to avoid the power struggle and butt hurt that men are prone to falling into. Here it sounds like it's Peter's decision to make and he, very wisely, loops the others in so as to not hurt feelings. But the power and authority to do it where his.

Quote:

---

Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself: what was the motive? This; that he might not seem to bestow it of favor

---

Again, Peter seems to have the capacity to make the decision, but does not want the appearance of impropriety. He chooses to share the decision that is rightfully his to make

Quote:

---

[Men and brethren, etc.] Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He did not say, 'We are sufficient.' So far was he beyond all vain-glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and because prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed

---

Again, could be read different ways. This suggests to me that the prelacy of the church was his. He didn't need their say to ordain another. He alone had the power of the rest combined. He governed this body of people and chose the way he did as to set an example for how the office should work.

Quote:

---

For observe, they were an hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body: with good right, as having been put in charge of them: for to him had Christ said, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren. Luke 22:32

---

[url=https://www.newadvent.org/bible/luk022.htm#verse32][/url]

Peter is placed in charge. To me, this does not read as first among equals.

I know that there is too much wrapped up in the papacy for most people to get on board with. I don't expect this to move the needle, but I think it is informative writing from a prominent Eastern saint.

Faithful Ag said:

---

Zobel said:

---

No. We've received many Catholics at my parish and I've never seen this or heard of it.

---

Interesting. I thought I read somewhere that this was explicitly required. I stand corrected on that point I guess. Good to know. Thanks.

---

Depending on which EO church you referenced, it might have been required for them. I've seen some EO priests online that plainly state Catholics (or any other Christian convert) MUST get baptized again, while others don't see it as mandatory at all. It seems to vary

Zobel said:

---

I don't really care to argue since the RCC cannot back down on this without losing all coherence as a religion, but you're arguing the wrong point. Even if we grant that St Peter was the leader of the apostles in a unique way, it says nothing whatever about how or why this authority or leadership functions, whether or not it is inherited by any particular person, how that person inherits it (by appointment? by particular See?), or that it goes to the current bishop of Rome (versus any other See established by St Peter), or that it comes with unique and particular charisms eg infallibility (however limited).

---

I agree in principal to this statement. I think it logically follows.

I would say the EO version of this is submitting to the authority of the local bishop, and through him, the patriarch of his particular church. With that in mind, I'd like to ask a hypothetical question: If your patriarch chose to align with Rome, and you local bishop agreed, how do you think you would respond to that?

Quo Vadis? said:

---

I am sympathetic to the Orthodox position and I think there are some fathers who speak on the first among equals honorary nature of the Pope, I just believe they're in the minority and it fails the logic test.

1. Christ is the head of the church. In his earthly absence he clearly gave the keys to one apostle, told him he would be praying for him specifically, and charged him with feeding his sheep.

2. If the keys were truly given to all the apostles, why is Peter depicted as the only one carrying keys in Ancient orthodox iconography?

3. If Christ had only meant Peter to be a symbolic honorary head, why did he use such authoritarian imagery, with the statement on the keys, which all Jews of that age would have connected to Eliakim, who exercised the authority as regent during the absence of the King, and why would he have renamed him Rock? Are there other times where Christ changed someone's name without giving them a special duty or role?

---

For the sake of argument, let's say all the above is accurate - now what? What I mean is, where in scripture do we learn how someone is to succeed Peter? I see clear scripture for overseers and deacons, but not for Popes…

The Banned said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I don't really care to argue since the RCC cannot back down on this without losing all coherence as a religion, but you're arguing the wrong point. Even if we grant that St Peter was the leader of the apostles in a unique way, it says nothing whatever about how or why this authority or leadership functions, whether or not it is inherited by any particular person, how that person inherits it (by appointment? by particular See?), or that it goes to the current bishop of Rome (versus any other See established by St Peter), or that it comes with unique and particular charisms eg infallibility (however limited).

---

I agree in principal to this statement. I think it logically follows.

I would say the EO version of this is submitting to the authority of the local bishop, and through him, the patriarch of his particular church. With that in mind, I'd like to ask a hypothetical question: If your patriarch chose to align with Rome, and you local bishop agreed, how do you think you would respond to that?

---

You're looking for someone else's pope with this post, but correct me if I'm wrong. The episcopal structure exists in Anglicanism too. Yes, we have a bishop ordinary (as in ordinal, first among equals), but his powers are so far from what you conceive of with the pope, as to make it, well, orthodox and consistent with the early church. Not too different from orthodoxy.

When all you have is a pope, everything is a question of authority.

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

I am sympathetic to the Orthodox position and I think there are some fathers who speak on the first among equals honorary nature of the Pope, I just believe they're in the minority and it fails the logic test.

1. Christ is the head of the church. In his earthly absence he clearly gave the keys to one apostle, told him he would be praying for him specifically, and charged him with feeding his sheep.

2. If the keys were truly given to all the apostles, why is Peter depicted as the only one carrying keys in Ancient orthodox iconography?

3. If Christ had only meant Peter to be a symbolic honorary head, why did he use such authoritarian imagery, with the statement on the keys, which all Jews of that age would have connected to Eliakim, who exercised the authority as regent during the absence of the King, and why would he have renamed him Rock? Are there other times where Christ changed someone's name without giving them a special duty or role?

---

For the sake of argument, let's say all the above is accurate - now what? What I mean is, where in scripture do we learn how someone is to succeed Peter? I see clear scripture for overseers and deacons, but not for Popes…

---

We see where there is a successor for Judas. Judas was an apostle. If apostles have successors, and Peter is an apostle, we can conclude Peter has a successor. But we can't see it spelled out in the bible. We have to refer to church fathers on this.

The problem is we also can't see that he was not to be succeeded and that his role was ended. There are no clear passages on this front, and more importantly, this does not seem to be held by the early church at all.

Both sides are going to have to fill in the gaps with their Tradition or their personal, preconceived notions.

---

If the early church isn't bothered by it and functioned well enough to put together scripture and hold councils to defend and define the faith, by what necessity do we need to 'fill' this gap, now or 1000 years ago? Seems more like a solution in search of a problem.

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Zobel said:

---

I don't really care to argue since the RCC cannot back down on this without losing all coherence as a religion, but you're arguing the wrong point. Even if we grant that St Peter was the leader of the apostles in a unique way, it says nothing whatever about how or why this authority or leadership functions, whether or not it is inherited by any particular person, how that person inherits it (by appointment? by particular See?), or that it goes to the current bishop of Rome (versus any other See established by St Peter), or that it comes with unique and particular charisms eg infallibility (however limited).

---

I agree in principal to this statement. I think it logically follows.

I would say the EO version of this is submitting to the authority of the local bishop, and through him, the patriarch of his particular church. With that in mind, I'd like to ask a hypothetical question: If your patriarch chose to align with Rome, and you local bishop agreed, how do you think you would respond to that?

---

You're looking for someone else's pope with this post, but correct me if I'm wrong. The episcopal structure exists in Anglicanism too. Yes, we have a bishop ordinary (as in ordinal, first among equals), but his powers are so far from what you conceive of with the pope, as to make it, well, orthodox and consistent with the early church. Not too different from orthodoxy.

When all you have is a pope, everything is a question of authority.

---

1. would you mind explaining what you think the pope's role was in the first 1000 years?

2. Zobel has said before that each bishop acts as their own "pope" in their own territory. I think the question is a fair one. Certainly he isn't applying infallibility upon his local bishop, but he seemed to agree with a papal level of authority granted to that local bishop.

These came up in some of my recent readings of the age of the apostolic fathers...

Polycarp to the Philippians:

Quote:

---

Polycarp 5:3
In like manner also the younger men must be blameless in all things, caring for purity before everything and curbing themselves from every evil. For it is a good thing to refrain from lusts in the world, for every lust warreth against the Spirit, and neither *****mongers nor effeminate persons nor defilers of themselves with men shall inherit the kingdom of God, neither they that do untoward things. Wherefore it is right to abstain from all these things, submitting yourselves to the presbyters and deacons as to God and Christ. The virgins must walk in a blameless and pure conscience.

---

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/polycarp-lightfoot.html

First Clement:

Quote:

---

1Clem 54:2
Let him say; If by reason of me there be faction and strife and divisions, I retire, I depart, whither ye will, and I do that which is ordered by the people: only let the flock of Christ be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters.

---

https://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-lightfoot.html

Quote:

---

Only Simon Peter is singled out by Jesus and given authority individually and on multiple occasions. I am not making the case that Peter was a leader because he was the one other looked to, but rather Peter was the leader because Christ chose him to be the leader and made his choice known.

---

Yeah, and I think this argument doesn't hold up. You're tying implied "leadership" to capital-A Authority with ecclesiastical import.

Quote:

---

My argument has nothing to do with proximity in the text

---

It is literally your argument. "The disciples asked who is the greatest and Jesus answered them, Simon." This is argument from proximity, that the question from the preceding passage is answered in the next, even though other gospel accounts don't link them in this way, or even put them in this position, and there's no direct connection between the two in the text other than proximity.

Quote:

---

You are splitting hairs here

---

Nah, I'm not. The title of St Andrew is "first called", it is his title in our tradition. You can't say "Jesus begins his ministry by calling Simon" when that's only partially true. If "Simon is first" is ultra-important, we should at least consider that the witness of scripture is that Simon was not, in fact, first. Andrew was.

Quote:

---

Why is Andrew always identified as Simon Peter's brother

---

This seems to me to point to a really important point that is missed. What we have in the synoptic gospels by and large could be identified as the gospel account of St Peter as told by St Mark, or St Matthew, or St Luke. The core of all three is the testimony of St Peter as recorded by St Mark his scribe. St Matthew frames it in a way for a Jewish audience, St Luke adds his historical rigor to it, but all three are primarily using the testimony St Peter as their primary source, via St Mark. He's the main set of eyes the story is told from.

That in and of itself frames much of what you are seeing here. You're saying "that's because Peter was the unequivocal leader". I think we should at least consider that equally plausible is "that's because Peter is the one telling the story." What one on one conversations were had between Andrew, or the other Simon, or the other James, Philip, Bartholomew, Thomas, or Thaddaeus? We don't know, and that's ok, it means we don't need to know. But it also doesn't mean that St Peter's relationship with Christ was uniquely unique in a way that establishes a formal office of leadership.

Quote:

---

Isaiah 22 and Matt 16:18 are clearly connected…

---

I am sorry man, but the italics and bold are not linked clearly to me. Likewise, you can say that well the keys point to opening and shutting, but the Lord doesn't say that. He says binding and loosing, and that is exactly what He also says to the other apostles.

The problem here is that you're implying that when Jesus says to Peter you can bind and loose that He is saying "and what you bind, no one else can loose; and what you loose, no one else can bind" because that is what is said about Eliakim. But Jesus does not say that, and in fact the literal opposite of your implication is true, because others too are given the authority to bind and loose, with the same formula word for word as given to St Peter.

Quote:

---

So are you claiming that the first action/decision of the apostles/church recorded in the Scriptures shows the church falling into immediate error?

---

Haha -- so now appointing a bishop in a fashion that is perhaps misguided is "the Church falling into error"? Because that is what it says, "let another take his episcopacy". If appointing a saint to an episcopacy falls into that category, how much more appointing a non-saint to your papacy?

Note also how St Peter understands the role of the apostles. He does not say "must become a leader" or "must become part of the council" or "must become part of the ecclesiastical structure of the church". But "must become with us a witness to the resurrection." That is the role.

This was before the descent of the Spirit. That is important.

Scripture often records events without comment - but observe that there is no endorsement of the Spirit noted by St Luke. They prayed that God choose between the two "He" had chosen, but it isn't said that's the case. Nor are they commanded to do this, or do this by casting lots. We don't do that today, that is not part of the tradition we have inherited. Nor is there any comment that this was good or pleasing. It doesn't say "filled with the Spirit Peter stood and said..." etc. Jesus didn't tell them to do this - He told them to wait for the Holy Spirit.

St Matthias is a saint, and he is also called an apostle (as are all of the seventy, which he was a part of). But he isn't depicted in our iconography of the twelve... not at the ascension, not at pentecost, not in the icon showing holy communion, etc. St Luke here is carefully showing that though the apostles went ahead and did this, even though God already had someone in mind to be the twelfth apostle - St Paul, called by Christ. A person that the eleven would never have picked or even imagined....without saying anything negative whatsoever about St Matthias. And I mean... what about this is remotely unlike St Peter's character? This is totally on-brand for him.

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

I am sympathetic to the Orthodox position and I think there are some fathers who speak on the first among equals honorary nature of the Pope, I just believe they're in the minority and it fails the logic test.

1. Christ is the head of the church. In his earthly absence he clearly gave the keys to one apostle, told him he would be praying for him specifically, and charged him with feeding his sheep.

2. If the keys were truly given to all the apostles, why is Peter depicted as the only one carrying keys in Ancient orthodox iconography?

3. If Christ had only meant Peter to be a symbolic honorary head, why did he use such authoritarian imagery, with the statement on the keys, which all Jews of that age would have connected to Eliakim, who exercised the authority as regent during the absence of the King, and why would he have renamed him Rock? Are there other times where Christ changed someone's name without giving them a special duty or role?

---

For the sake of argument, let's say all the above is accurate - now what? What I mean is, where in scripture do we learn how someone is to succeed Peter? I see clear scripture for overseers and deacons, but not for Popes…

---

We see where there is a successor for Judas. Judas was an apostle. If apostles have successors, and Peter is an apostle, we can conclude Peter has a successor. But we can't see it spelled out in the bible. We have to refer to church fathers on this.

The problem is we also can't see that he was not to be succeeded and that his role was ended. There are no clear passages on this front, and more importantly, this does not seem to be held by the early church at all.

Both sides are going to have to fill in the gaps with their Tradition or their personal, preconceived notions.

---

If the early church isn't bothered by it and functioned well enough to put together scripture and hold councils to defend and define the faith, by what necessity do we need to 'fill' this gap, now or 1000 years ago? Seems more like a solution in search of a problem.

---

From St. Clement's letter to the Corinthians

Quote:

---

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:45, 44:13 A.D. 80).

---

According to him (and others), the early church and even the apostles themselves were quite bothered by the power struggle they knew was to come. I would suggest that your view that this wasn't a big deal in the early church is incorrect. Again, I don't want to proof text, so I would highly recommend looking up the entire Letter of Clement as well as the context in which Irenaeus wrote this in the late 100s. Succession was the key to rooting out heresy. There are plenty of others who wrote similar:

Quote:

---

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 A.D. 189).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paulthat church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).

"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4).

"It is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Churchthose who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the certain gift of truthaccording to the good pleasure of the Father. But (it is also incumbent]) to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2).

"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).

---

Quote:

---

Peter is placed in charge. To me, this does not read as first among equals.

---

That's because you already believe, as an article of faith, that Peter is in charge. So then why does St John explicitly say that St James had chief rule in Jerusalem?

Quote:

---

There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.

---

There's plenty of quotes to be had from St John, for example he clearly taught that the keys were given to all apostles.

Quote:

---

How then does He say elsewhere, "Reprove, rebuke, exhort" and, "Them that sin rebuke before all?" And Christ too to Peter, "Go and tell him his fault between you and him alone, and if he neglect to hear, add to yourself another also; and if not even so does he yield, declare it to the church likewise?" And how has He set over us so many to reprove; and not only to reprove, but also to punish? For him that hearkens to none of these, He has commanded to be "as a heathen man and a publican." And how gave He them the keys also? Since if they are not to judge, they will be without authority in any matter, and in vain have they received the power to bind and to loose.

---

But this is a teaching of the RCC, of course - for example, the fourth Lateran council says:

Quote:

---

Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church's keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors

---

And Pope Leo says: "the right of [the power of the keys] indeed passed to other apostles also, but it is not in vain that it is commended to one that it should be intimated to all. For this is why this is entrusted to Peter in particular, because the form of Peter is proposed to all the rulers of the Church."

St Jerome: "The Church is founded upon Peter, although in another place, the same thing is done upon all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the strength of the Church is established equally upon them all."

The witness of the church - including the Roman church! - is not that St Peter received the keys and kept them to himself, or to his office, but that he received the keys and communicated them to the rest. St Peter is an icon of the Christian.

This is why St Augustine says "After all, it isn't just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity" and in another place "this name of Peter was bestowed on him by the Lord, and that with the symbolic intention of his representing the Church. Because Christ, you see, is the petra or rock; Peter, or Rocky, is the Christian people."

This is why St Ambrose says "Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you...He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him."

Plenty to read here:
https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2022/08/28/the-early-church-fathers-on-the-papacy-an-orthodox-quote-mine/

And a good article about the problems with quote mining here:
https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/03/27/the-problem-with-papal-quote-mines/

I don't know. My bishop once told me something along the lines that hypotheticals are the vanity of imagination.

Quote:

---

2. Zobel has said before that each bishop acts as their own "pope" in their own territory. I think the question is a fair one. Certainly he isn't applying infallibility upon his local bishop, but he seemed to agree with a papal level of authority granted to that local bishop.

---

I wasn't saying "we have many popes" but more that "you don't really have any bishops".

It isn't that there is papal authority granted to the bishop, it is that in the RCC episcopal authority has been denied to all but one.

Zobel said:

---

This was before the descent of the Spirit. That is important.

Scripture often records events without comment - but observe that there is no endorsement of the Spirit noted by St Luke. They prayed that God choose between the two "He" had chosen, but it isn't said that's the case. Nor are they commanded to do this, or do this by casting lots. We don't do that today, that is not part of the tradition we have inherited. Nor is there any comment that this was good or pleasing. It doesn't say "filled with the Spirit Peter stood and said..." etc. Jesus didn't tell them to do this - He told them to wait for the Holy Spirit.

St Matthias is a saint, and he is also called an apostle (as are all of the seventy, which he was a part of). But he isn't depicted in our iconography of the twelve... not at the ascension, not at pentecost, not in the icon showing holy communion, etc. St Luke here is carefully showing that though the apostles went ahead and did this, even though God already had someone in mind to be the twelfth apostle - St Paul, called by Christ. A person that the eleven would never have picked or even imagined....without saying anything negative whatsoever about St Matthias. And I mean... what about this is remotely unlike St Peter's character? This is totally on-brand for him.

---

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210103.htm

I think Chrysostom would disagree with Fr Stephen de Young, John MacArthur et al on this one. I didn't emphasize this quote on my prior post, but I will here:

Quote:

---

Why did he not ask Christ to give him some one in the room of Judas? It is better as it is. For in the first place, they were engaged in other things; secondly, of Christ's presence with them, the greatest proof that could be given was this: as He had chosen when He was among them, so did He now being absent

---

Chrysostom appeals to the lots as Christ picking, not Peter.

Howdy, it is me! said:

---

Quo Vadis? said:

---

I am sympathetic to the Orthodox position and I think there are some fathers who speak on the first among equals honorary nature of the Pope, I just believe they're in the minority and it fails the logic test.

1. Christ is the head of the church. In his earthly absence he clearly gave the keys to one apostle, told him he would be praying for him specifically, and charged him with feeding his sheep.

2. If the keys were truly given to all the apostles, why is Peter depicted as the only one carrying keys in Ancient orthodox iconography?

3. If Christ had only meant Peter to be a symbolic honorary head, why did he use such authoritarian imagery, with the statement on the keys, which all Jews of that age would have connected to Eliakim, who exercised the authority as regent during the absence of the King, and why would he have renamed him Rock? Are there other times where Christ changed someone's name without giving them a special duty or role?

---

For the sake of argument, let's say all the above is accurate - now what? What I mean is, where in scripture do we learn how someone is to succeed Peter? I see clear scripture for overseers and deacons, but not for Popes…

---

The Pope is just the Bishop of Rome, the successor to Peter. Peter passes down his authority like every other bishop/overseer.

I don't disagree. But this kind of reminds me of St Peter on the boat. He says - if you are the Lord, tell me to come to you. What was Jesus supposed to say? Between the two, it was God's will that St Matthias was selected. God chose St Paul as the twelfth apostle. I don't see these in conflict.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

Peter is placed in charge. To me, this does not read as first among equals.

---

That's because you already believe, as an article of faith, that Peter is in charge. So then why does St John explicitly say that St James had chief rule in Jerusalem?

Quote:

---

There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.

---

There's plenty of quotes to be had from St John, for example he clearly taught that the keys were given to all apostles.

Quote:

---

How then does He say elsewhere, "Reprove, rebuke, exhort" and, "Them that sin rebuke before all?" And Christ too to Peter, "Go and tell him his fault between you and him alone, and if he neglect to hear, add to yourself another also; and if not even so does he yield, declare it to the church likewise?" And how has He set over us so many to reprove; and not only to reprove, but also to punish? For him that hearkens to none of these, He has commanded to be "as a heathen man and a publican." And how gave He them the keys also? Since if they are not to judge, they will be without authority in any matter, and in vain have they received the power to bind and to loose.

---

But this is a teaching of the RCC, of course - for example, the fourth Lateran council says:

Quote:

---

Nobody can effect this sacrament except a priest who has been properly ordained according to the church's keys, which Jesus Christ himself gave to the apostles and their successors

---

And Pope Leo says: "the right of [the power of the keys] indeed passed to other apostles also, but it is not in vain that it is commended to one that it should be intimated to all. For this is why this is entrusted to Peter in particular, because the form of Peter is proposed to all the rulers of the Church."

St Jerome: "The Church is founded upon Peter, although in another place, the same thing is done upon all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the strength of the Church is established equally upon them all."

The witness of the church - including the Roman church! - is not that St Peter received the keys and kept them to himself, or to his office, but that he received the keys and communicated them to the rest. St Peter is an icon of the Christian.

This is why St Augustine says "After all, it isn't just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity" and in another place "this name of Peter was bestowed on him by the Lord, and that with the symbolic intention of his representing the Church. Because Christ, you see, is the petra or rock; Peter, or Rocky, is the Christian people."

This is why St Ambrose says "Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you...He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church; and if he cannot equal Peter, he can imitate him."

Plenty to read here:
https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2022/08/28/the-early-church-fathers-on-the-papacy-an-orthodox-quote-mine/

And a good article about the problems with quote mining here:
https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2021/03/27/the-problem-with-papal-quote-mines/

---

I'm not arguing that the other apostles did not receive they keys, although an argument could be made that they received the keys through Peter.

Again, i would like to point out i'm not trying to proof text, and I don't believe you are either. Nothing i quote should be taken as me attempting to claim victory. Only to add more context to the duscussion. Also from John Chrysostom in Homily 33 on Acts 15:

Quote:

---

For he had no acts of his own to declare, as Peter had and Paul. And indeed it is wisely ordered that this (the active) part is assigned to those, as not intended to be locally fixed in Jerusalem, whereas (James) here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion

And observe, that which was needful to be enacted as a rule, that it is not necessary to keep the Law, this Peter introduced: but the milder part, the truth which was received of old, this James says, and dwells upon that concerning which nothing is written, in order that having soothed their minds by that which is acknowledged, he may opportunely introduce this likewise

---

I would suggest the Chrysostom acknowledges James as the chief ruler of Jerusalem, but in that role, he's backing Peter up. He is staying in union with Peter's teaching

Or his homily 88 on gospel of John:

Quote:

---

And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.

Wherefore has he reminded us of that reclining? Not without cause or in a chance way, but to show us what boldness Peter had after the denial. For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren, and not only does not commit to another what relates to himself, but himself now puts a question to his Master concerning another. John is silent, but Peter speaks. He shows also here the love which he bare towards him; for Peter greatly loved John, as is clear from what followed, and their close union is shown through the whole Gospel, and in the Acts. When therefore Christ had foretold great things to him, and committed the world to him, and spoke beforehand of his martyrdom, and testified that his love was greater than that of the others, desiring to have John also to share with him, he said, And what shall this man do? Shall he not come the same way with us? And as at that other time not being able himself to ask, he puts John forward, so now desiring to make him a return, and supposing that he would desire to ask about the matters pertaining to himself, but had not courage, he himself undertook the questioning. What then says Christ?

---

Again, I know this doesn't prove papal infallibility of papal succession, and I'm not trying to. But I do not think John Chrysostom helps the case of "first among equals".