James wasn't one of the Apostles.

Zobel said:

---

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.

---

Christ rebukes Peter in the gospels. I don't think that Jesus was caught between a rock (not trying to be punny) and a hard place here. Mark 8:33, he is fine telling Peter "You do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns." I see no reason why he couldn't have done this in the upper room in Acts if this was truly of Peter personal concern.

I will try to research your iconographic basis for Paul being the 12th versus a distinct 13th with a new role. Off the top of my head, Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp have Mathias as a part of the 12. Without fully knowing your view, my initial reaction is shoehorning Paul into the role in order to diminish what Paul did in Acts 1. *I am not saying you are diminishing scripture itself and want to be clear on that*

How does it not? "God, we have picked these two guys, we're fixing to throw lots, whatever comes up will be the guy. Your will be done".

I'm also not saying St Matthias was not the replacement for Judas. To do that would diminish the actual authority God gives people. They really did appoint him to replace Judas. But I think it's pretty clear that was not the end of the matter, and St Paul IS an Apostle, no asterisk by his name.

What about Barnabas? Is there an asterisk by his name?

Acts 14:14 said:

---

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude, crying, "Men, why are you doing this?

---

I'll try to contribute a more thoughtful response this evening….my day has gotten away from me. I appreciate the dialog and contributions

In the orthodox tradition the epithet or honorific "apostle" is applied to the twelve and the seventy. Barnabas is one of the seventy.

Zobel said:

---

How does it not? "God, we have picked these two guys, we're fixing to throw lots, whatever comes up will be the guy. Your will be done".

I'm also not saying St Matthias was not the replacement for Judas. To do that would diminish the actual authority God gives people. They really did appoint him to replace Judas. But I think it's pretty clear that was not the end of the matter, and St Paul IS an Apostle, no asterisk by his name.

---

You said Paul was the 12th apostle. You also say that Mathias replaced Judas, and Judas's role was to be one of the 12 apostles. So if he replaced one of the 12, how is he not one of the 12? How was Paul the real 12th man here? Or do we just have two #12s?

I will push back heavily on the idea that God couldn't have corrected them in the upper room. It says they all went back and prayed together constantly. When it came time to put the 2 up to a vote, the 2 chosen were chosen by the whole of the group. St John Chrysostom is clear on Peter both being leader and Peter showing humility during the process. Throughout this entire prayerful process, God couldn't have led them in a different direction? Not only was Peter misguided, but the entire room was.

But even if we take that out of it, I think your depiction of Acts 1 is saying that God is essentially beholden to what Peter decided to do. I would say that puts Peter in a position of even greater authority that Catholics assign to him.

No, it doesn't. This is a common trope in the scriptures. People do things, God condescends. That doesn't give people authority over God. Read Solomon's prayer at the temple and God's response, great example.

The point remains. In the tradition of the church as is made clear in iconography St Paul is celebrated as the twelfth apostle, chosen by God. That's part of our deposit of faith.

But I'm not fussed about it. If you don't agree, that's fine. It doesn't matter. Peter and Paul are the two pillars of the church, one the foundation of orthodoxy, the other the gatherer of the nations.

The Banned said:

---

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.

---

I reject the framing of the questions outright.

1. Why would I assume there's a pope, so that I can explain something that isn't?

2. There is no paradigm for pope in the church outside of the RCC. It's not an episcopal office found in the scriptures or practiced. The bishops in our churches function as bishops, as they should. You have reversed the entire situation, as zobel pointed out, and rolled up to pope the authority of bishops.

Again, we had councils before y'all had a pope, many of them, and important decisions were made without this focal point of power.

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

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.

---

I reject the framing of the questions outright.

1. Why would I assume there's a pope, so that I can explain something that isn't?

2. There is no paradigm for pope in the church outside of the RCC. It's not an episcopal office found in the scriptures or practiced. The bishops in our churches function as bishops, as they should. You have reversed the entire situation, as zobel pointed out, and rolled up to pope the authority of bishops.

Again, we had councils before y'all had a pope, many of them, and important decisions were made without this focal point of power.

---

Just to make sure I understand you: you believe that the bishop of Rome had no significance in the early church? And that the term "pope" wasn't applied to that bishop in the first 1000 years?

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

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.

---

I reject the framing of the questions outright.

1. Why would I assume there's a pope, so that I can explain something that isn't?

2. There is no paradigm for pope in the church outside of the RCC. It's not an episcopal office found in the scriptures or practiced. The bishops in our churches function as bishops, as they should. You have reversed the entire situation, as zobel pointed out, and rolled up to pope the authority of bishops.

Again, we had councils before y'all had a pope, many of them, and important decisions were made without this focal point of power.

---

Just to make sure I understand you: you believe that the bishop of Rome had no significance in the early church? And that the term "pope" wasn't applied to that bishop in the first 1000 years?

---

This is the motte and bailey I don't want to enter into. It is in no way analogous to what is professed by modern day romans.

Zobel said:

---

No, it doesn't. This is a common trope in the scriptures. People do things, God condescends. That doesn't give people authority over God. Read Solomon's prayer at the temple and God's response, great example.

The point remains. In the tradition of the church as is made clear in iconography St Paul is celebrated as the twelfth apostle, chosen by God. That's part of our deposit of faith.

But I'm not fussed about it. If you don't agree, that's fine. It doesn't matter. Peter and Paul are the two pillars of the church, one the foundation of orthodoxy, the other the gatherer of the nations.

---

I don't see how Solomon is an example of God condescending to his plans. Solomon building the temple was God's plan all along. He tells David this. Unless there is something specific in the prayer that i'm missing...

I do see a number of examples of plans/requests being thwarted/denied. Best example is the one that you've brought up: David says that he wanted to build a temple for God, getting Nathan the prophet's approval, only for God to tell him no. That will be Solomon's job. David was ready to do it and God stopped him. Couldn't God have said, "Thanks for trying to fill the 12th spot, Peter, but I have that reserved for another"?

I don't even really see the point of trying to argue the point outside of intentionally trying to reduce the role of Peter

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

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.

---

I reject the framing of the questions outright.

1. Why would I assume there's a pope, so that I can explain something that isn't?

2. There is no paradigm for pope in the church outside of the RCC. It's not an episcopal office found in the scriptures or practiced. The bishops in our churches function as bishops, as they should. You have reversed the entire situation, as zobel pointed out, and rolled up to pope the authority of bishops.

Again, we had councils before y'all had a pope, many of them, and important decisions were made without this focal point of power.

---

Just to make sure I understand you: you believe that the bishop of Rome had no significance in the early church? And that the term "pope" wasn't applied to that bishop in the first 1000 years?

---

This is the motte and bailey I don't want to enter into. It is in no way analogous to what is professed by modern day romans.

---

Then why don't you offer an explanation for what you do think? You're more than happy to tell Catholics we're wrong about the early role of the bishop of Rome, but won't offer any sort of explanation about what it is that you believe.

Throw the term pope out of it. I don't care what you call it. But don't run from conversation entirely. If you're willing to say we have our view of the primacy of Rome all wrong, it's common decency to explain what the correct view is so that we can test it.

ETA to see if you find this line of open ended questioning better: how would you describe the role of the bishop of Rome?

Zobel said:

---

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.

---

I find this perspective so interesting. How do you define episcopal authority, generally speaking?

Isn't Eliakim a type of Christ? Isaiah 22 seems to mesh much better with Rev 3 than Matthew.

God didn't ask for a temple, and I believe He didn't want one. The narrative surrounding David and Solomon's temple is entirely different than the one surrounding the building of the tabernacle. We're told explicitly that the tabernacle is a copy of the heavenly one, and there are specific instructions given in its construction revealed to Moses by God. There are chapters and chapters of its building, how the priest serve, and so on. David's temple is a stark contrast to the tabernacle in every way - and even contradicts the spirit of the Torah where elaborate altars are actually forbidden. The prophets routinely caution the people against reliance on the temple, saying things like "do not say, 'the temple of the lord, the temple of the lord, the temple of the lord' and referring to the temple as a fallen condition (Amos 9:11). The second temple certainly had a tenuous relationship with both God and the priesthood. St Stephen echoes this kind of skepticism in his speech to the Sanhedrin. I think in general the desire or idea that David had for the temple meant well, and so God condescends toward it, but very conditionally.

There is a whole arc of the OT between wandering nomadic lifestyle and fixed city lifestyle, and the trend from one to the other corresponding with a decay of righteousness and trust / reliance upon God. The temple is an example of this. The prayer of Solomon is person praying something, and God condescending to do what the prayer asks, without accepting the conditions. Solomon says hey I built you a temple, come and dwell here so that x y and z can happen. God comes to Solomon and says more or less "I'm going to dwell in your temple, but all of that stuff you asked? not how it works" and reiterates something along the lines of the blessings / curses from Deuteronomy - lots of "IF". In essence, Solomon wants a god he can control like the other nations have, and God says no. Another very common OT theme.

And as far as the point to argue to reduce the role of Peter, I don't see this as impinging on St Peter. He suggested it, but the whole group picked it. I don't think it diminishes St Peter, I think it is as I said on brand for him - brash, passionate, heart in the right place, but not always directionally correct - prior to the descent of the Holy Spirit. St John notes as much, that the use of the casting of lots is specifically because they had not received the Spirit. It's placement in the Acts narrative immediately before Pentecost seems to me also to support it as a kind of foil.

I'm not sure I understand your question. The authority is that of the top level of the hierarchy, which essentially is unlimited. Really the only thing they can't do is make more bishops (alone).

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

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.

---

I reject the framing of the questions outright.

1. Why would I assume there's a pope, so that I can explain something that isn't?

2. There is no paradigm for pope in the church outside of the RCC. It's not an episcopal office found in the scriptures or practiced. The bishops in our churches function as bishops, as they should. You have reversed the entire situation, as zobel pointed out, and rolled up to pope the authority of bishops.

Again, we had councils before y'all had a pope, many of them, and important decisions were made without this focal point of power.

---

Just to make sure I understand you: you believe that the bishop of Rome had no significance in the early church? And that the term "pope" wasn't applied to that bishop in the first 1000 years?

---

This is the motte and bailey I don't want to enter into. It is in no way analogous to what is professed by modern day romans.

---

Then why don't you offer an explanation for what you do think? You're more than happy to tell Catholics we're wrong about the early role of the bishop of Rome, but won't offer any sort of explanation about what it is that you believe.

Throw the term pope out of it. I don't care what you call it. But don't run from conversation entirely. If you're willing to say we have our view of the primacy of Rome all wrong, it's common decency to explain what the correct view is so that we can test it.

ETA to see if you find this line of open ended questioning better: how would you describe the role of the bishop of Rome?

---

How would I describe something not described by scripture, outside of what the role of bishop is? Again, that's an odd question to me and illustrates the entire point: I keep saying the role of bishop is defined, and you keep asking what I think, like it's really unclear what a bishop does in scripture or how it's practiced in the early church. There's nothing confusing or hidden here.

Zobel said:

---

God didn't ask for a temple, and I believe He didn't want one. The narrative surrounding David and Solomon's temple is entirely different than the one surrounding the building of the tabernacle. We're told explicitly that the tabernacle is a copy of the heavenly one, and there are specific instructions given in its construction revealed to Moses by God. There are chapters and chapters of its building, how the priest serve, and so on. David's temple is a stark contrast to the tabernacle in every way - and even contradicts the spirit of the Torah where elaborate altars are actually forbidden. The prophets routinely caution the people against reliance on the temple, saying things like "do not say, 'the temple of the lord, the temple of the lord, the temple of the lord' and referring to the temple as a fallen condition (Amos 9:11). The second temple certainly had a tenuous relationship with both God and the priesthood. St Stephen echoes this kind of skepticism in his speech to the Sanhedrin. I think in general the desire or idea that David had for the temple meant well, and so God condescends toward it, but very conditionally.

There is a whole arc of the OT between wandering nomadic lifestyle and fixed city lifestyle, and the trend from one to the other corresponding with a decay of righteousness and trust / reliance upon God. The temple is an example of this. The prayer of Solomon is person praying something, and God condescending to do what the prayer asks, without accepting the conditions. Solomon says hey I built you a temple, come and dwell here so that x y and z can happen. God comes to Solomon and says more or less "I'm going to dwell in your temple, but all of that stuff you asked? not how it works" and reiterates something along the lines of the blessings / curses from Deuteronomy - lots of "IF". In essence, Solomon wants a god he can control like the other nations have, and God says no. Another very common OT theme.

And as far as the point to argue to reduce the role of Peter, I don't see this as impinging on St Peter. He suggested it, but the whole group picked it. I don't think it diminishes St Peter, I think it is as I said on brand for him - brash, passionate, heart in the right place, but not always directionally correct - prior to the descent of the Holy Spirit. St John notes as much, that the use of the casting of lots is specifically because they had not received the Spirit. It's placement in the Acts narrative immediately before Pentecost seems to me also to support it as a kind of foil.

---

1. I guess I don't see it. David says he wants to build a temple. Nathan agrees. God says don't. Then we see Solomon say:

Quote:

---

My father David had it in mind to build a house for the name of the Lord, the God of Israel. 8 But the Lord said to my father David, 'You did well to consider building a house for my name; 9 nevertheless you shall not build the house, but your son who shall be born to you shall build the house for my name.

---

I have a tough time seeing this as God tentatively agreeing with David. He told David no, but Solomon will and that's exactly what happened. To parallel this with Acts 1 would be more like what I said before. "I love the thought, Peter, but I've got a different plan" would fit that model well.

Moreover, Peter in Acts 1 is not coming to his own conclusion, but interpreting scripture itself. He cites scripture as commanding the replacement. So we either have biblical record of all the apostles (since they agreed) wrongfully interpreting scripture enshrined in scripture, or we have an instance of the apostles doing what scripture commanded of them. This is more than directionally incorrect. Its a pretty massive error the second Jesus leaves them. And an error which God kind of got stuck with, since it was of the apostles own doing.

I've had limited time to study this, but a quick review shows a handful of church fathers referring to Matthias as the 12th apostle. prior to the descent of the spirit or not, no one critiques Peter or the rest of the apostles for their interpretation of scripture. The farthest back I can find claims to the contrary begins in the 1800s

I don't see how it's an error unless you're attaching some kind of massive import to the hierarchy. "guy elevated to bishop" doesn't strike me as a kind of fatal error. It also feels like you're making this much more rigid than I am. That St Paul is God's choice doesn't make Matthias not the 12th apostle. I am a little hesitant to make the comparison but it's kind of like Saul vs David, with the massive caveat that Saul did not do what was right, but Matthias did and is a saint. The people chose Saul, but he failed because he wasn't righteous (that's the difference here). God chose David, the runt. That doesn't make Saul not king, or even say that Saul was against God's will.

As for the temple, read the rest. The condescension is to have a temple at all. God told David no, he basically does it anyway - even starts construction, plans every single detail, and charges Solomon with building it. God doesn't ask him to do it and tells him he can't. Solomon prays a big prayer saying God we built this and here's the deal and God says lol no that's not the deal. Then the whole thing is dubious the whole time - repeatedly sacked, etc. like most things in the OT it has a tenuous relationship with righteousness. Not insignificant that the Temple is also playing highly relevant in the Jewish accusations against Jesus. Anyway it's just an example to show that sometimes well meaning stuff, if misguided, is permitted or even tacitly sanctioned by God.

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

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.

---

I reject the framing of the questions outright.

1. Why would I assume there's a pope, so that I can explain something that isn't?

2. There is no paradigm for pope in the church outside of the RCC. It's not an episcopal office found in the scriptures or practiced. The bishops in our churches function as bishops, as they should. You have reversed the entire situation, as zobel pointed out, and rolled up to pope the authority of bishops.

Again, we had councils before y'all had a pope, many of them, and important decisions were made without this focal point of power.

---

Just to make sure I understand you: you believe that the bishop of Rome had no significance in the early church? And that the term "pope" wasn't applied to that bishop in the first 1000 years?

---

This is the motte and bailey I don't want to enter into. It is in no way analogous to what is professed by modern day romans.

---

Then why don't you offer an explanation for what you do think? You're more than happy to tell Catholics we're wrong about the early role of the bishop of Rome, but won't offer any sort of explanation about what it is that you believe.

Throw the term pope out of it. I don't care what you call it. But don't run from conversation entirely. If you're willing to say we have our view of the primacy of Rome all wrong, it's common decency to explain what the correct view is so that we can test it.

ETA to see if you find this line of open ended questioning better: how would you describe the role of the bishop of Rome?

---

How would I describe something not described by scripture, outside of what the role of bishop is? Again, that's an odd question to me and illustrates the entire point: I keep saying the role of bishop is defined, and you keep asking what I think, like it's really unclear what a bishop does in scripture or how it's practiced in the early church. There's nothing confusing or hidden here.

---

Anglicans describe plenty of things about their faith using church history. I'm not sure why this would be any different. You have been very adamant about what the bishop of Rome was not, but silent on what the bishop of Rome was.

This post makes it sound like you believe the bishop of Rome was just another bishop. If that is your view, that's fine. I would clearly disagree with it and, if I thought this was an open minded conversation, would provide evidence to the contrary. But up to this point you've been unwilling to even state that the italicized is your view.

Quote:

---

The irony here is that St Luke is pretty clearly showing that St Peter and the Apostles were incorrect

---

Saying that someone is incorrect is typically synonymous with being in error. You have said the apostles were incorrect here, so it would seem to me they would be in error. Now, you can say that this was just them picking a bishop, so the error is not a big deal, but that's not how Chrysostom reads it, or what the bible itself says. What does the bible say?

Quote:

---

'Friends,[e] the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit through David foretold

---

Peter isn't just saying, "I have an idea". He is claiming that the Holy Spirit, through scripture, demands this to be done. This is a pretty big thing to be wrong about, mere days after Jesus left. Since the Holy Spirit isn't said to give the power to perfectly interpret scripture, the fact that this was done prior to His descending shouldn't have resulted differently than had it been done after.

Chrysostom also wonderfully points out, Peter submitted this to all, so as to do nothing without their consent. Who all is consenting? All the bishops (11 apostles) and all laity (the 120 with them). So here we see the very first action the entire church takes (replacing Judas) with unanimity, with the truth of scripture behind them, and offered to God to ultimately determine after days of praying together…. and they were wrong. What a terrible start.

Quote:

---

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.

God chose St Paul as the twelfth apostle.

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.

---

The early church chose the wrong replacement.. But then you say that you aren't saying Matthias isn't Judas's replacement (which is alignment with the church fathers) and God choosing Paul doesn't make Matthias not the 12th apostle.

Quote:

---

I'm also not saying St Matthias was not the replacement for Judas.

That St Paul is God's choice doesn't make Matthias not the 12th apostle

---

This is confusing to me and seem to be in direct contradiction. I don't mean to be overly rigid about it, but Jesus promises 12 thrones to 12 apostles. If both Matthias and Paul are the 12th, who sits on it? Or does one sit on the other's lap


It's just a weird and modern argument to make, and Peter's character takes a hit as a part of it, intentionally or not. I've only seen this promulgated by a random, rather uneducated, protestant theologian in the 1800s, a protestant pastor from the 1960s-early 2000s and Orthodox priest Steven de Young. Compare this to how Chrysostom lauds Peter as demonstrating perfect leadership at a critical time for the infant Church. It doesn't have the hallmarks of a good argument, and the only reason I can see for it is to cut away at Peter's decision making/leadership role.

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

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.

---

I reject the framing of the questions outright.

1. Why would I assume there's a pope, so that I can explain something that isn't?

2. There is no paradigm for pope in the church outside of the RCC. It's not an episcopal office found in the scriptures or practiced. The bishops in our churches function as bishops, as they should. You have reversed the entire situation, as zobel pointed out, and rolled up to pope the authority of bishops.

Again, we had councils before y'all had a pope, many of them, and important decisions were made without this focal point of power.

---

Just to make sure I understand you: you believe that the bishop of Rome had no significance in the early church? And that the term "pope" wasn't applied to that bishop in the first 1000 years?

---

This is the motte and bailey I don't want to enter into. It is in no way analogous to what is professed by modern day romans.

---

Then why don't you offer an explanation for what you do think? You're more than happy to tell Catholics we're wrong about the early role of the bishop of Rome, but won't offer any sort of explanation about what it is that you believe.

Throw the term pope out of it. I don't care what you call it. But don't run from conversation entirely. If you're willing to say we have our view of the primacy of Rome all wrong, it's common decency to explain what the correct view is so that we can test it.

ETA to see if you find this line of open ended questioning better: how would you describe the role of the bishop of Rome?

---

How would I describe something not described by scripture, outside of what the role of bishop is? Again, that's an odd question to me and illustrates the entire point: I keep saying the role of bishop is defined, and you keep asking what I think, like it's really unclear what a bishop does in scripture or how it's practiced in the early church. There's nothing confusing or hidden here.

---

Anglicans describe plenty of things about their faith using church history. I'm not sure why this would be any different. You have been very adamant about what the bishop of Rome was not, but silent on what the bishop of Rome was.

This post makes it sound like you believe the bishop of Rome was just another bishop. If that is your view, that's fine. I would clearly disagree with it and, if I thought this was an open minded conversation, would provide evidence to the contrary. But up to this point you've been unwilling to even state that the italicized is your view.

---

I'm silent where the Bible is silent, ironically enough. It doesn't say much about a bishop of Rome (though it does talk about bishops and the disciples). I'm not denying there was/is one, so don't put me there, but you have a particularly roman Catholic problem of placing great weight on your system and asking everyone else how they deal with your post-schism reading of history. Pass.

Just to be clear, this isn't a "Roman Catholic" view of church structure. Rather it is a Catholic view. The Roman rite is part of a broader Catholic church. Under that Catholic umbrella, there are other many sects (i.e. Coptic, Armenian, Greek) that have their own bishop, liturgies, and cultural/legal heritage. Nonetheless, they maintain full communion with the Pope.

There are many things both Catholics and Orthodox do that is not "biblical" but rather traditional. Or rather, ways of worship and governance that were accepted practice with significant historical precedent. To disagree with that is to accept solo scriptura which brings with it it's own set of problems. What defines Catholic vs Orthodox is simply where your put more weight based on your own selection bias. As in the meme I posted, I believe we are all talking about the same God.

Asking where "the Pope" is in the Bible is like asking, "Where is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the US Constitution? It's not there yet we believe it to be a foundational principle of our country despite not being enshrined into law by the Constitution. The belief was already any accepted truth in the early life of our country. Likewise, many of the structures/practices in the early church aren't in the Bible. Yet, they were historically present in the early church and accepted as true by a majority of early Christians.

Quote:

---

Peter isn't just saying, "I have an idea". He is claiming that the Holy Spirit, through scripture, demands this to be done.

---

Well, that's not what it says. St Peter says scripture had to be fulfilled. He's talking about Judas' betrayal being necessary. That's why it says "had" to be fulfilled, not "has to" be. It's past tense.

At any rate I would argue that the Church proper has not begun yet, as the Holy Spirit has not descended, which is why St John notes that they resorted to casting lots.

Quote:

---

This is confusing to me and seem to be in direct contradiction. I don't mean to be overly rigid about it..

---

and yet...

Quote:

---

Compare this to how Chrysostom lauds Peter as demonstrating perfect leadership at a critical time for the infant Church....

---

St John always and ever sets the apostles out as exemplars for his flock in his homilies. He always points to their virtues, and usually he "seeds" his homilies with these observations and concludes the homily with an exhortation against those virtues. In Homily 3 on Acts, he concludes with a lengthy discussion on ordination itself, but seemingly also to those who might want to be ordained. His homilies are not "theological treatises" and we shouldn't handle them as such ... speaking of modernist approaches.

I would love to ask him about this point in particular, and how he sees the echo of type for choice in the scripture between St Matthias and St Paul.

Quote:

---

the only reason I can see for it is to cut away at Peter's decision making/leadership role.

---

I mean I'm shocked, shocked, that a person who has to affirm St Peter acting in the same capacity as a modern pope as an article of faith would view this through the lens of evaluating St Peter's ecclesial authority. At this point in time, before the receipt of the Holy Spirit, this is no more an attack on St Peter's eventual character than any other narrative about him in the gospels. He is not yet the saint he would become; this is why ascension icons do not have the apostles crowned with halos, while pentecost does.

On the other hand, the only reason we're discussing this in the context of St Peter's ecclesial authority is because someone put this forward as scriptural evidence of the papacy. I think it's much more interesting as a scriptural motif.

I'm sorry friend, but the papacy is literally the Roman Catholic view of church structure, uniquely so. You're mixing "rite" with "ecclesiology" and those are not the same thing.

The problem is, bishops, presbyters, deacons, laity, the Eucharist, church structure etc etc etc are explicitly a part of scripture and tradition. On the other hand, the office of the pope as is currently an article of faith for the RCC is not. In your example you can point to exactly where "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" comes from. There is no analogue for the four-level hierarchy in church history.

FIDO95 said:

---

Just to be clear, this isn't a "Roman Catholic" view of church structure. Rather it is a Catholic view. The Roman rite is part of a broader Catholic church. Under that Catholic umbrella, there are other many sects (i.e. Coptic, Armenian, Greek) that have their own bishop, liturgies, and cultural/legal heritage. Nonetheless, they maintain full communion with the Pope.

There are many things both Catholics and Orthodox do that is not "biblical" but rather traditional. Or rather, ways of worship and governance that were accepted practice with significant historical precedent. To disagree with that is to accept solo scriptura which brings with it it's own set of problems. What defines Catholic vs Orthodox is simply where your put more weight based on your own selection bias. As in the meme I posted, I believe we are all talking about the same God.

Asking where "the Pope" is in the Bible is like asking, "Where is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" in the US Constitution? It's not there yet we believe it to be a foundational principle of our country despite not being enshrined into law by the Constitution. The belief was already any accepted truth in the early life of our country. Likewise, many of the structures/practices in the early church aren't in the Bible. Yet, they were historically present in the early church and accepted as true by a majority of early Christians.

---

Like I said, anachronism. What you mean by 'pope' post papal-revolution and schism is the issue. It's motte and bailey to claim it was always there. Tradition is not on your side for him calling councils, which is a big deal considering what all you've decided since then. I don't appeal to Sola scriptura, hence calling it ironic, but asking someone to substantiate their belief about something of far less materiality outside of your own world is a weird thing, like when I'm told my beliefs hinge on there not being a pope as some counterpoint to saying yours do. It's nonsensical.

I appreciate you expounding upon your view. I will conclude with this:

Option 1: A belief centered around the plain meaning of the text, that was not disputed anywhere for 1800 years, and at least somewhat jives with the one church father who wrote extensively on it, and the other church fathers who mention Matthias as replacement

Option 2: A theory promulgated in the 1800s by a low level protestant theologian, gained no popularity among serious bible scholars and leads to the ultimate conclusion that there are two 12th apostles that may or may not be sharing the 12th throne in Heaven.

It should cause no faux shock that a Catholic would see this as a way of evaluating Peter. When you parrot Father de Young, you parrot his evaluation and judgement of Peter's character. It's quite literally part of the argument. Consider the sources, as minimal as they are, that promulgate this theory. Each and every one has/had great disdain for the Catholic Church's ecclesiology. It would honestly be more surprising to see the theory arise without throwing Peter and the apostles under the bus

Your two options are totally objective and unbiased descriptions and are in no way a false dichotomy.

It's not part of an "argument" unless you make it one about the papacy.

i also love how you're carefully ignoring the witness of the iconographic tradition. it's just a coincidence that icons of the twelve, icons of pentecost, icons of ascension, all include st paul and not st matthias, right?

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

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.

---

I reject the framing of the questions outright.

1. Why would I assume there's a pope, so that I can explain something that isn't?

2. There is no paradigm for pope in the church outside of the RCC. It's not an episcopal office found in the scriptures or practiced. The bishops in our churches function as bishops, as they should. You have reversed the entire situation, as zobel pointed out, and rolled up to pope the authority of bishops.

Again, we had councils before y'all had a pope, many of them, and important decisions were made without this focal point of power.

---

Just to make sure I understand you: you believe that the bishop of Rome had no significance in the early church? And that the term "pope" wasn't applied to that bishop in the first 1000 years?

---

This is the motte and bailey I don't want to enter into. It is in no way analogous to what is professed by modern day romans.

---

Then why don't you offer an explanation for what you do think? You're more than happy to tell Catholics we're wrong about the early role of the bishop of Rome, but won't offer any sort of explanation about what it is that you believe.

Throw the term pope out of it. I don't care what you call it. But don't run from conversation entirely. If you're willing to say we have our view of the primacy of Rome all wrong, it's common decency to explain what the correct view is so that we can test it.

ETA to see if you find this line of open ended questioning better: how would you describe the role of the bishop of Rome?

---

How would I describe something not described by scripture, outside of what the role of bishop is? Again, that's an odd question to me and illustrates the entire point: I keep saying the role of bishop is defined, and you keep asking what I think, like it's really unclear what a bishop does in scripture or how it's practiced in the early church. There's nothing confusing or hidden here.

---

Anglicans describe plenty of things about their faith using church history. I'm not sure why this would be any different. You have been very adamant about what the bishop of Rome was not, but silent on what the bishop of Rome was.

This post makes it sound like you believe the bishop of Rome was just another bishop. If that is your view, that's fine. I would clearly disagree with it and, if I thought this was an open minded conversation, would provide evidence to the contrary. But up to this point you've been unwilling to even state that the italicized is your view.

---

I'm silent where the Bible is silent, ironically enough. It doesn't say much about a bishop of Rome (though it does talk about bishops and the disciples). I'm not denying there was/is one, so don't put me there, but you have a particularly roman Catholic problem of placing great weight on your system and asking everyone else how they deal with your post-schism reading of history. Pass.

---

I didn't expect you to go all evangelical on me. This is blatantly untrue for literally ALL denominations. Hypostatic union, two will of Jesus, fully God and fully man, sola scriptura, trinity, you name it. All of these have roots in the bible. But if you want to say you stay silent where the bible is silent, you're going to have to start trimming a bunch of essential anglican doctrines down to their bare bones. And you can include the way you view the role of bishop as successors the apostles as something nearly a billion protestants would would say is adding to the bible where it is silent.

If you don't want to expound upon the bishop of Rome, that's fine. But when you are more than willing to say that the way we view the papacy is absolutely untrue, you are again leaving the bolded and cease being silent where the bible is silent. His particulars are not enumerated in the bible, but the bible doesn't say those particulars don't exist either.

Zobel said:

---

i also love how you're carefully ignoring the witness of the iconographic tradition. it's just a coincidence that icons of the twelve, icons of pentecost, icons of ascension, all include st paul and not st matthias, right?

---

In your tradition, do icons transcend the words written by the fathers? That's a genuine question and not a gotcha.

you love these hypotheticals dont you?

iconography, hymnography, patristic writings, scripture, are all parts of holy tradition.

show me where they contradict, and we can discuss.

(note this is the same route of inquiry protestants take when challenging your tradition)

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

AGC said:

---

The Banned said:

---

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.

---

I reject the framing of the questions outright.

1. Why would I assume there's a pope, so that I can explain something that isn't?

2. There is no paradigm for pope in the church outside of the RCC. It's not an episcopal office found in the scriptures or practiced. The bishops in our churches function as bishops, as they should. You have reversed the entire situation, as zobel pointed out, and rolled up to pope the authority of bishops.

Again, we had councils before y'all had a pope, many of them, and important decisions were made without this focal point of power.

---

Just to make sure I understand you: you believe that the bishop of Rome had no significance in the early church? And that the term "pope" wasn't applied to that bishop in the first 1000 years?

---

This is the motte and bailey I don't want to enter into. It is in no way analogous to what is professed by modern day romans.

---

Then why don't you offer an explanation for what you do think? You're more than happy to tell Catholics we're wrong about the early role of the bishop of Rome, but won't offer any sort of explanation about what it is that you believe.

Throw the term pope out of it. I don't care what you call it. But don't run from conversation entirely. If you're willing to say we have our view of the primacy of Rome all wrong, it's common decency to explain what the correct view is so that we can test it.

ETA to see if you find this line of open ended questioning better: how would you describe the role of the bishop of Rome?

---

How would I describe something not described by scripture, outside of what the role of bishop is? Again, that's an odd question to me and illustrates the entire point: I keep saying the role of bishop is defined, and you keep asking what I think, like it's really unclear what a bishop does in scripture or how it's practiced in the early church. There's nothing confusing or hidden here.

---

Anglicans describe plenty of things about their faith using church history. I'm not sure why this would be any different. You have been very adamant about what the bishop of Rome was not, but silent on what the bishop of Rome was.

This post makes it sound like you believe the bishop of Rome was just another bishop. If that is your view, that's fine. I would clearly disagree with it and, if I thought this was an open minded conversation, would provide evidence to the contrary. But up to this point you've been unwilling to even state that the italicized is your view.

---

I'm silent where the Bible is silent, ironically enough. It doesn't say much about a bishop of Rome (though it does talk about bishops and the disciples). I'm not denying there was/is one, so don't put me there, but you have a particularly roman Catholic problem of placing great weight on your system and asking everyone else how they deal with your post-schism reading of history. Pass.

---

I didn't expect you to go all evangelical on me. This is blatantly untrue for literally ALL denominations. Hypostatic union, two will of Jesus, fully God and fully man, sola scriptura, trinity, you name it. All of these have roots in the bible. But if you want to say you stay silent where the bible is silent, you're going to have to start trimming a bunch of essential anglican doctrines down to their bare bones. And you can include the way you view the role of bishop as successors the apostles as something nearly a billion protestants would would say is adding to the bible where it is silent.

If you don't want to expound upon the bishop of Rome, that's fine. But when you are more than willing to say that the way we view the papacy is absolutely untrue, you are again leaving the bolded and cease being silent where the bible is silent. His particulars are not enumerated in the bible, but the bible doesn't say those particulars don't exist either.

---

Why did you ignore the next two words and following sentence? You can't point to the papacy as it is, as you have practiced for centuries, or even the title of bishop of Rome in scripture or shared tradition (edit: with such authority) while you interrogate me over what I believe about it. Why would I add to scriptural episcopal structure and ecclesiology? We haven't done that as Anglicans despite how much we write because we don't see a need to; it is romish to do so.

Interestingly enough, it seems that western depictions of pentecost are more rigid / legalistic / literal and depict the eleven plus St Matthias and not St Paul, while eastern ones frequently depict St Mark and St Luke as well.

imagine that, life imitates art.