So you're saying before 1506 the church wasn't founded on the rock?

Sorry, it's hard to tell when Latins are serious about their proof-texts and when they're joking.

No worries. I try offer lots of charity to others on this board as a lot of context gets lost in the text. It would be much better to have these kinds of discussions enjoying each others fellowship in person. It would be a lot easier to understand if a comment was a friendly "ribbing" versus a personal attack. I do my best to keep to the former. I like to think most people on here seem to be offering points in good faith and as I stated in an earlier post, I have learned a lot from members of many denominations here.

Additionally, I admit I sometimes don't choose my words well. While I like to keep things more lighthearted, I've looked back at times at things I have written and subsequently realized how easy it was for someone to misconstrue what I wrote/meant.

BTW, for anyone wanting a "deep dive" from both sides on this matter:



What impressed me was the mutual respect the two men showed each other despite having differing views. Both made very good arguments for their claim yet remained charitable. The comments were filled with many who felt the same from both sides of this issue. I think the challenging of each other like these two men demonstrate can make us all stronger in our faith. However, all that knowledge of little or no use if it only leads to anger in our hearts towards our brother.

The problem is it's an unwinnable argument. Even if a person makes the most iron clad, amazing case against the papacy with proof and unassailable receipts latins can literally not accept it without fracturing the structure of their faith claims. So my initial reaction was the right one - avoid the discussion. It's fruitless.

Zobel said:

---

The problem is it's an unwinnable argument. Even if a person makes the most iron clad, amazing case against the papacy with proof and unassailable receipts latins can literally not accept it without fracturing the structure of their faith claims. So my initial reaction was the right one - avoid the discussion. It's fruitless.

---

Lol. Isn't that true about almost every discussion on this board?

kind of? i think there are some differences... you can go from being a baptist to being orthodox without your actual faith being questioned, because your faith has less rigidity about it. for me it was challenging concepts around the faith but not mandatory to it...how to understand salvation, how to understand baptism. that kind of thing.

this is different, because their structure is rooted in the teaching of the latin church. it would be like an orthodox having to recant on one of the ecumenical councils. it is definitional to your faith. if the latin church is wrong about vatican I, or really the papacy, it ceases to be what it is.

Zobel said:

---

kind of? i think there are some differences... you can go from being a baptist to being orthodox without your actual faith being questioned, because your faith has less rigidity about it. for me it was challenging concepts around the faith but not mandatory to it...how to understand salvation, how to understand baptism. that kind of thing.

this is different, because their structure is rooted in the teaching of the latin church. it would be like an orthodox having to recant on one of the ecumenical councils. it is definitional to your faith. if the latin church is wrong about vatican I, or really the papacy, it ceases to be what it is.

---

So challenging the papacy = challenging an ecumenical council but challenging sola scriptura is OK?

Are you Devin? We met in Georgetown many years ago. Discussed the Catholic/Protestant issue. You were very helpful.

TRD-Ferguson said:

---

Are you Devin? We met in Georgetown many years ago. Discussed the Catholic/Protestant issue. You were very helpful.

---

I am not but Devin sounds like a pretty cool guy.

Maybe this was answered and I missed it, but what happened to the Petrine See after the schism from the Eastern Church's perspective? Can the Eastern Church hold ecumenical councils outside of communion with Rome? If not, how can Eastern ecclesiology resemble the 1st century conciliar model of ecclesiology as you see it?

Separately, have there been any ecumenical councils since the schism that have the same authority as they did before then?

Yeah, those are different to me because if you ditch sola scriptura you still can have a coherent basis of the faith. If you lose the infallibility of the pope, as a Latin, you lose the infallibility of the church councils, which means your entire faith is questionable. All of it. Does that make sense?

Is this the American Orthodox Church weighing in here? Cards on the table please.

The primacy of the Pope (chair of St. Peter) makes sense to me even if I was not a Catholic. The basis being the words of Jesus to Peter giving him the keys (Mt 16:19) then later asking him to feed his lambs and tend his sheep (Jn 21:15-17). This was not given to any of the other Apostles. Maybe that is not the issue?

Hopefully it is not the infallibility of the Pope (chair of St. Peter) when teaching on matters of the faith. We know that Jesus said, "I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail." (Lk 22:32) and that, "the gates of hell will not prevail against it." (Mt 16:18) when talking about the Church. If Jesus is praying for this, how then cannot it come to pass? This (infallibility) follows reason.

So I do agree with Zobel's assertion that these two matters of dogma for Catholics present a fork in the road from which there is no connection afterwards to other walks of faith once you start down this path.

For those taking the other path, I can only say- see you at the top. I do pray for unity, because Jesus prayed for this as well- that we become one. That too, reinforces my understanding of the primacy of the chair of St. Peter. This was evident recently with the global audience that tuned in and the number of faithful present at the conclave.

I don't think anyone can convince a Catholic that has given this some thought otherwise. We regularly pray for the Holy Father at every mass, every day. The Pope to many Catholics is not just another Bishop as some suggest - he is for us, the Vicar of Christ on earth. I have not personally seen the Pope, but a close friend of mine, who is a priest, encountered Pope John Paul II in San Antonio and tells me that he felt the power of the Holy Spirit over come him like never before or since. It may seem like a small witness, but a lot of people have had a similar experience, just google it for some insight.

I bring this up because it all makes sense, there is no "gotcha" or silver bullet in this belief.

Zobel said:

---

Yeah, those are different to me because if you ditch sola scriptura you still can have a coherent basis of the faith. If you lose the infallibility of the pope, as a Latin, you lose the infallibility of the church councils, which means your entire faith is questionable. All of it. Does that make sense?

---

Not really. If a Protestant were to ditch sola scriptura, why wouldn't that call into question their entire faith as well? What source of authority or truth would be left to them?

What would be the Latin take on how Peter is described as a rock in which the church is built on in 16:18 and then in v23 labels Peter a "hindrance" (Greek = stumbling block) as Jesus rebukes him?

Edit - meant to reply to Pablo's comment

the alternative to sola scriptura is not "the scriptures are not true". you don't even lose the scriptures in this hypothetical

Zobel said:

---

the alternative to sola scriptura is not "the scriptures are not true". you don't even lose the scriptures in this hypothetical

---

True, but you lose the source of authority. Just like if the RCC lost papal authority or the EO lost ecclesiastical authority.

I suspect that we're talking past each other because I'm completely missing your point.

KingofHazor said:

---

Zobel said:

---

the alternative to sola scriptura is not "the scriptures are not true". you don't even lose the scriptures in this hypothetical

---

True, but you lose the source of authority. Just like if the RCC lost papal authority or the EO lost ecclesiastical authority.

I suspect that we're talking past each other because I'm completely missing your point.

---

Sola scriptura is scripture as the sole infallible rule of faith. So not Sola scriptura doesn't mean no infallible rules of faith. I think that would undermine their faith claims. But they could just agree with us that scripture isn't formally sufficient. That wouldn't do away with scripture as materially sufficient.

I think the difference is you're thinking you go from sola scriptura to nothing. Yeah, that's a problem. I'm thinking you go from sola scriptura to scripture and tradition, to example.

The problem is they have bound up ALL authority with the same thread as their understanding of the papacy. If you pull on the thread, the whole thing unravels… including the canon, including the councils, etc etc. Put another way, if the magisterium can formally err, then all claims of the magisterium are potentially unreliable.

It would be more like no longer believing in the scripture as reliable.

Zobel said:

---

I think the difference is you're thinking you go from sola scriptura to nothing. Yeah, that's a problem. I'm thinking you go from sola scriptura to scripture and tradition, to example.

The problem is they have bound up ALL authority with the same thread as their understanding of the papacy. If you pull on the thread, the whole thing unravels… including the canon, including the councils, etc etc. Put another way, if the magisterium can formally err, then all claims of the magisterium are potentially unreliable.

It would be more like no longer believing in the scripture as reliable.

---

The RCC and the EO could revert back to sola scriptura. It's all the same; it's the basis of each sect's source of authority. You don't want to attack the RCC's source of authority, but seem to feel comfortable attacking the Protestant's source of authority.

And BTW, no thinking Protestant will deny looking to tradition. But tradition is rarely if ever authoritative. Rather, Protestants utilize it to aid in understanding and as historical evidence for the earliest beliefs of the Church and for the truth of Christianity itself.

How could you revert back to something you never had?

In what world am I not comfortable challenging the Latin view of the papacy?

Zobel said:

---

How could you revert back to something you never had?

In what world am I not comfortable challenging the Latin view of the papacy?

---

Good point. How could the Protestants "revert" back to church councils and the complete ecclesiastical history of the EO and the RCC? They wouldn't be Protestants anymore. It would completely unravel the faith of Protestants.

1) the eo never had sola scriptura
2) mainline Protestantism never rejected the councils, that's ok something that happened later

This feels like a stupid argument, so I will bow out

10andBOUNCE said:

---

What would be the Latin take on how Peter is described as a rock in which the church is built on in 16:18 and then in v23 labels Peter a "hindrance" (Greek = stumbling block) as Jesus rebukes him?

Edit - meant to reply to Pablo's comment

---

Peter, like all men, still need Holy Spirit to do the will of God. This is especially true when the 2 or 3 times the Pope has invoked "ex cathedra" or papal infallibility. So it follows that there can be only one result - that those interpretations guided by the Holy Spirit are indeed infallible. It could be no other way, which is why I cannot understand any challenge to this line of reasoning.

Maybe it is as you point out, Peter thinking like a man without counsel of the Holy Spirit- trying to prevent Christ from fulfilling his mission. That is when Jesus rebuked Peter.

I would bet the house that the Orthodox believe that when they come together and make a decision it carries the same level of authority as the Holy Spirit saying it- they just haven't said those decisions are infallible- but they should be- less the will of God is lacking?

KingofHazor said:

---

Zobel said:

---

How could you revert back to something you never had?

In what world am I not comfortable challenging the Latin view of the papacy?

---

Good point. How could the Protestants "revert" back to church councils and the complete ecclesiastical history of the EO and the RCC? They wouldn't be Protestants anymore. It would completely unravel the faith of Protestants.

---

Perhaps your response is not landing because you're addressing the who part of Sola scriptura, rather than scripture itself. Yes, as a Protestant if you reject the premise that each and every believer can interpret scripture for themselves, yes, it does unravel.

There are chuches in between papal infallibility and individual inerrancy that have no problem living scripturally consistent lives and integrating tradition from those that handed on the faith.

10andBOUNCE said:

---

What would be the Latin take on how Peter is described as a rock in which the church is built on in 16:18 and then in v23 labels Peter a "hindrance" (Greek = stumbling block) as Jesus rebukes him?

Edit - meant to reply to Pablo's comment

---

"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." Matt 5:3

Despite our weaknesses, God has great plans for us. It goes to the saying, "Every saint has a past, every sinner has a future". It really is not debatable that Peter is special among the twelve. Peter is called out when Jesus first meets him and throughout the Gospels. Jesus selects him even though he knew Peter would deny him 3 times. It is why Jesus asks him 3 times, "do you love me?". Peter is a sinner like everyone else yet he is given authority by Christ. This doesn't mean he will no longer sin. It means he has the authority to build the church led by the Holy Spirit and to distribute that authority (Apostolic authority).

The discussion here is more about the chair that Peter left. Catholics will point out historical evidence dating back the Pope Clement (4th pope) acting with the authority of the bishop of Rome to deal with heresy in distant churches and countless other examples prior to the schism. Orthodox will point to examples where this wasn't the case. As I mentioned in my "6v9" meme, your opinion on those historical facts is going to be colored by your position, East versus West, of the "number on the ground".

I think I am going to go back to using the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" because Pope Nicholas I used it in 864. I think we can safely rule out protestant time travel and scratch this one off the list of slurs.

you can find it here on p877 in his letter to Ansgar, newly appointed archbishop of Hamburg and Bremen
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5494443t#

Quote:

---

If you carefully observe these things, what you will have shown to have received outwardly, you will possess inwardly. Nevertheless, know that all these things annexed above have been granted to your beatitude by the apostolic see, provided that you have not deviated in any way from the faith and decrees of the holy Roman Catholic Church. If you presume to deviate from the faith and institutions of the apostolic see, you will forfeit these benefits. Furthermore, we grant that you may use the pallium only according to the custom of the apostolic see, namely, that you and your successors, either in person or through their legates, should maintain faith with us and receive the holy six synods, and also reverently observe and fulfill all the decrees of the prelates of the Roman see and the letters which have been brought to them, and that they should profess this in writing and by oath for all the days of their life. Written by the hand of Zacharias, notary of the holy Roman Church, in the month of May, Indiction 12, in the reign of Emperor Louis in his fifth year."

---

Verumtamen ista omnia superius annexa, ab apostolica sede beautitudini tuae indulta cognosce, si a fide et decretis sanctae Ecclesia Catholicae Romanae in nullo deviaveris.

Zobel said:

---

I think I am going to go back to using the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" because Pope Nicholas I used it in 864. I think we can safely rule out protestant time travel and scratch this one off the list of slurs.

you can find it here on p877 in his letter to Ansgar, newly appointed archbishop of Hamburg and Bremen
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5494443t#

Quote:

---

If you carefully observe these things, what you will have shown to have received outwardly, you will possess inwardly. Nevertheless, know that all these things annexed above have been granted to your beatitude by the apostolic see, provided that you have not deviated in any way from the faith and decrees of the holy Roman Catholic Church. If you presume to deviate from the faith and institutions of the apostolic see, you will forfeit these benefits. Furthermore, we grant that you may use the pallium only according to the custom of the apostolic see, namely, that you and your successors, either in person or through their legates, should maintain faith with us and receive the holy six synods, and also reverently observe and fulfill all the decrees of the prelates of the Roman see and the letters which have been brought to them, and that they should profess this in writing and by oath for all the days of their life. Written by the hand of Zacharias, notary of the holy Roman Church, in the month of May, Indiction 12, in the reign of Emperor Louis in his fifth year."

---

Verumtamen ista omnia superius annexa, ab apostolica sede beautitudini tuae indulta cognosce, si a fide et decretis sanctae Ecclesia Catholicae Romanae in nullo deviaveris.

---

...in saecula saeculorum.

Zobel said:

---

Didn't say St Matthias wasn't the 12th. I said God already had a plan for St Paul for that. You're the one that's disallowing that because of your logic.

Quote:

---

So I seek clarification: do a couple of icons depicting Paul with the other 11 have a greater or lesser role than the clear writings of the fathers

---

and your unspoken premise here is that they can't both be correct, witnessing to different things. They don't contradict. The fathers reflect one thing, the icons another. Just like the Gospels. Just like everything else. When you create these rules, you invite subordination and minimalism. The same exercise you're doing now Protestants do to the rest of traditions. It's the wrong approach.

---

I'm not disallowing anything due to personal logic. It's just a fact that 12 people is 12 people, and 13 people is 13 people. You said very plainly:

Quote:

---

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 tradition of the church as is made clear in iconography St Paul is celebrated as the twelfth apostle

---

You didn't say that Matthias was the 12th but Paul was also the 12th, and likely because it's nonsensical on it's face. Even your reference to Saul and David doesn't work (which I assume is why your hesitant to use it) because Saul had to die first. There weren't two acting kings, working together as our two hypothetical 12th's were doing.

I get you try to back pedal a bit by saying:

Quote:

---

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

---

But the only reason you have to appeal to me being "too rigid" is because the rigidity you introduced first. And the only reason you introduce the rigidity is to undercut Acts 1 as a proof of Peter's role. But when I push back with evidence from church fathers, and evidence that shows you view is a modern protestant invention, somehow I'm the rigid one and you were actually cool with there being two #12s all along despite your clear opening statement to the contrary. The end result is that I'm accused of using the protestant logic despite you introducing protestant apologetics into the chat

I know you like to pit these things as "east vs west", but I think this is just common sense and you got out over your skis. If you really thought there were two #12's all along, you could have just said that, but you took a clear and firm stance to the contrary.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

If an old church does new things is it still an old church?

The biggest indictment against the modern catholic church is its modernism. The centuries immediately after the schism is where you start to see the trademark catholic differences emerge out of catholic leadership. Immaculate conception, purgatory, papal infallibility, etc. Of course these are then backdated by the catholic church as having existed all along in scripture. But its all motte and baileys.

---

Pope Clement was telling churches in other places what to do . Pope Stephen was telling other bishops what to do. Cyprian got real butthurt about it and tried to rally other bishops to his cause, only to end up losing that battle. We get to see a real clear example of Papal primacy working to correct error. An error formally condemned at the Council of Nicea and later at Trullo, but apparently thriving again in some EO circles today.

So I would say our old church with our pope isn't doing anything new.

ETA: Purgatory (in the sense of a post-death cleansing) was accepted in one of your post-schism councils (Jerusalem I think), papal infallibility in the most basic sense had already been claimed, and immaculate conception is a valid personal belief that one can hold in the EO today. These aren't really crazy, post-schism inventions. And I would suggest EO's personally accept the immaculate conception is real because you will be struggling with the condemned heresy of Palagianism if you ever truly consider Mary's sinlessness.

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:

---

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.

---

At yet close to a billion protestant Christians would say your episcopal structure adds to the bible... That's what you aren't seeing. You believe your stance is the neutral one where our adds. The fact of the matter is everyone adds their own framework to the bible. If you want to say the Catholic perspective is incorrect, that is fine. But you can't say that you're just reading the bible for what it is because it's literally impossible, as demonstrated by the past 500 years.

---

My good faith response would be, lived practice in all our parishes demonstrates what we add or omit. I think we all agree on this. A Protestant's lived experience in my parish would reflect such, because the bishop is a part of parish life and knows about the people there. He comes at least once a year and is in constant contact with the priest. That's only one of the things missing for the pope; he's not at your confirmations or chrismations, he doesn't visit your parish regularly, he doesn't know the people or the issues of your church. His position necessitates your structure in a way that ours and the orthodox don't. You have to add to these things because they're not functional otherwise.

---

I'll rephrase to be less combative: We quite literally have a local bishop that does all of these things. This is not something missing from the life of the church

---

I agree, which is why it's so odd that you need a pope. The church functions without him as it always has. Remember, there was a Christian church in the English isles before Augustine got there. And it wasn't so far gone that we couldn't commune. I think that should be food for thought.

---

The pope helps make sure that what happens on the British isles stays in line with the church at large. If there wasn't early heresy cropping up there, that's great! But clearly heresies were being put down left and right, so the fact that it wasn't happening in your neck of the woods doesn't mean it wasn't happening.

And to also use the Pope Stephen example for you. This saint made very direct claims to papal authority and apparently that wasn't so far gone that we couldn't commune

Zobel said:

---

I think I am going to go back to using the phrase "Roman Catholic Church" because Pope Nicholas I used it in 864. I think we can safely rule out protestant time travel and scratch this one off the list of slurs.

you can find it here on p877 in his letter to Ansgar, newly appointed archbishop of Hamburg and Bremen
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5494443t#

Quote:

---

If you carefully observe these things, what you will have shown to have received outwardly, you will possess inwardly. Nevertheless, know that all these things annexed above have been granted to your beatitude by the apostolic see, provided that you have not deviated in any way from the faith and decrees of the holy Roman Catholic Church. If you presume to deviate from the faith and institutions of the apostolic see, you will forfeit these benefits. Furthermore, we grant that you may use the pallium only according to the custom of the apostolic see, namely, that you and your successors, either in person or through their legates, should maintain faith with us and receive the holy six synods, and also reverently observe and fulfill all the decrees of the prelates of the Roman see and the letters which have been brought to them, and that they should profess this in writing and by oath for all the days of their life. Written by the hand of Zacharias, notary of the holy Roman Church, in the month of May, Indiction 12, in the reign of Emperor Louis in his fifth year."

---

Verumtamen ista omnia superius annexa, ab apostolica sede beautitudini tuae indulta cognosce, si a fide et decretis sanctae Ecclesia Catholicae Romanae in nullo deviaveris.

---

I laughed. Congrats on finding that. Talk about obscure. well done

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:

---

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.

---

At yet close to a billion protestant Christians would say your episcopal structure adds to the bible... That's what you aren't seeing. You believe your stance is the neutral one where our adds. The fact of the matter is everyone adds their own framework to the bible. If you want to say the Catholic perspective is incorrect, that is fine. But you can't say that you're just reading the bible for what it is because it's literally impossible, as demonstrated by the past 500 years.

---

My good faith response would be, lived practice in all our parishes demonstrates what we add or omit. I think we all agree on this. A Protestant's lived experience in my parish would reflect such, because the bishop is a part of parish life and knows about the people there. He comes at least once a year and is in constant contact with the priest. That's only one of the things missing for the pope; he's not at your confirmations or chrismations, he doesn't visit your parish regularly, he doesn't know the people or the issues of your church. His position necessitates your structure in a way that ours and the orthodox don't. You have to add to these things because they're not functional otherwise.

---

I'll rephrase to be less combative: We quite literally have a local bishop that does all of these things. This is not something missing from the life of the church

---

I agree, which is why it's so odd that you need a pope. The church functions without him as it always has. Remember, there was a Christian church in the English isles before Augustine got there. And it wasn't so far gone that we couldn't commune. I think that should be food for thought.

---

The pope helps make sure that what happens on the British isles stays in line with the church at large. If there wasn't early heresy cropping up there, that's great! But clearly heresies were being put down left and right, so the fact that it wasn't happening in your neck of the woods doesn't mean it wasn't happening.

And to also use the Pope Stephen example for you. This saint made very direct claims to papal authority and apparently that wasn't so far gone that we couldn't commune

---

No heresies were ever addressed without the bishop of Rome enforcing orthodoxy? Not sure that foots with history given the ecumenical councils, but it's why anachronism is necessary for the Roman view. Modern claims must be supported with historical evidence, even if it doesn't exist.