Zobel said:

---

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've quoted a number of your own posts. You have quite literally said that both men are the 12th apostle. And historically speaking, the only place we see these theories outlined are with the men i mentioned. I am open to correction on that if you can find any writings to the contrary.

You came in hot saying it was clear that Paul was the real replacement. Even if this wasn't about the papacy, the idea that Peter and the rest of the church bungled their very first unanimous action is going to bring in his character and that of the apostles. Why? Because the gifts of the Holy Spirit don't include "now you can interpret scripture correctly when before you could not".

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.

FIDO95 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

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.

---

Zobel, I always appreciate your contributions to these threads. But do yourself a favor and do a simple google search on the historical origin of the term "Roman Catholic". Then ask yourself, based on that history, if perhaps your insistence on using that term might be more a symptom of inherent bias as opposed to actual fact.

I try, although I do fail at times, to avoid the tribal battles that develop on these threads. I have learned a lot from a smart, well-meaning people of a variety of religious backgrounds on this site. Unfortunately, as is evident by AGCs response, a lot can be lost in the text and by not sitting across a table having a good faith conversion over a beer. When people are responding with bullet points that had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, there is an obvious breakdown in my communication or another's ability to listen. At that point, the conversation becomes moot.

---

Not that I take offense to it, but it was clearly created as a religious slur. Thank you for making this point

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.

Zobel said:

---

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)

---

Everyone takes the same route when challenging tradition precisely because it relies on an authority outside of the bible. The difference is most protestants don't see that. Thankfully EO christians do.

This isn't really a hypothetical. You are offering iconography. I am offering you written words of the fathers. What you are claiming puts them in contradiction. The problem you present is either one of these guys isn't the 12th or they both are, which makes no sense. If you hadn't come in saying that it was just so obvious the apostles were incorrect when they picked Matthias, and the paul was CLEARLY the true replacement, I would have dropped it long ago. But as such, the situation arises where we trust the early writings or we rely on the earliest evidence of your theory, which would be icons that popped up later.

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

FIDO95 said:

---

Zobel said:

---

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.

---

Zobel, I always appreciate your contributions to these threads. But do yourself a favor and do a simple google search on the historical origin of the term "Roman Catholic". Then ask yourself, based on that history, if perhaps your insistence on using that term might be more a symptom of inherent bias as opposed to actual fact.

I try, although I do fail at times, to avoid the tribal battles that develop on these threads. I have learned a lot from a smart, well-meaning people of a variety of religious backgrounds on this site. Unfortunately, as is evident by AGCs response, a lot can be lost in the text and by not sitting across a table having a good faith conversion over a beer. When people are responding with bullet points that had nothing to do with the point I was trying to make, there is an obvious breakdown in my communication or another's ability to listen. At that point, the conversation becomes moot.

---

You're talking past me, but I don't view it as bad faith. I view it as part of your tradition: the roman church is the ark and I'm not in it. Anyone who isn't in communion with the papacy isn't in it. You've been born into a tradition of a thousand years and lived and inhabited it to the point that you know it and express it in all you do. Fine, it's not personal. There was a Christian church prior to 1054 though, and it was a very different lived experience where they didn't think or act like you, and we're all trying to live that out in the present.

I'm stuck with relics of the Roman faith, like the filioque, and I live in a space where I omit it, at odds with local fellowship but no condemnation from my priest. I understand and appreciate veneration and praying to saints, though I don't encourage others in my parish to do so out of submission. I have to give up some of what I think for a shared table for all Christians, and I let my priests handle the Eucharist because in our small parish and you know who's a guest and who isn't and ask at the rail.

When your starting point is the papacy and pope (for governance, communion, etc.), which it has to be whether one likes it or not, these are unavoidable discussions and one must ultimately rely on evolved ecclesiology and structure, which is why scripture is so important to work with 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:

---

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.

Brother, I didn't start a thread about Acts 1 and St Matthias' selection. It was brought up as support for the papacy.

I think you're being far too rigid with these numbers - again, modernistic. What do you think it means to have a 12th? We don't maintain this number in the church - there is no longer an office of "Apostle". Why 12? You may say 12 tribes, and that's true, but even the scriptures themselves don't fuss too much about that number. In Revelation, St John omits the tribe of Dan altogether from his list of tribes (for a good reason) instead replacing them with Joseph (not a tribe) and Manassah (not a tribe). Are there 12? Are there 13? Are there eleven and a half?

We could argue about the 70 or 72 apostles. Maybe two of them don't actually exist?

You say - well the Lord says "you will sit on 12 thrones" - but we can't take this as woodenly literal, because Judas will not. Maybe St Matthias was there, but that seems kind of confusing.

We have a tradition with saints with the honorific as "equal to the apostles". Some of those are women! Perhaps they also get thrones?

Go back and look at all the assumptions you're making here to arrive at the point to have this rigidity. And for what? Is it untrue that God chose St Paul as an Apostle? Is it untrue that St Peter and the others would never have done this? Are the analogies and parallels drawn between the many times in scripture where God chooses the weak, the ugly, the unlikely, the younger over the preferred and St Paul untrue?

You say that the only reason I talked about this was to attack St Peter. I think it's a huge self tell. St Peter's role is not in focus at all in what I'm saying - the focus of what I'm talking about is St Paul. The only reason you're arguing against it is to defend the papacy.

"You came in hot saying it was clear that Paul was the real replacement." Yes. And I stand behind that. I'd even go as far as to say that if, gun to my head, I was forced to say which throne for which tribe, that St Paul would judge Joseph - i.e., Ephraim - because in that tribe the fullness of the gentiles will come. Does it matter? No. Is this something to argue about? No.

Quote:

---

Even if this wasn't about the papacy, the idea that Peter and the rest of the church bungled their very first unanimous action is going to bring in his character and that of the apostles. Why? Because the gifts of the Holy Spirit don't include "now you can interpret scripture correctly when before you could not".

---

Again, motivated reasoning. Why are you downplaying the impact of the Holy Spirit? This is not the picture that St Luke presents at all, but instead that the Spirit is what fills the apostles with power and authority, understanding - what leads them into the truth. And I mean.. the bold portion? Yes? Yes that is absolutely one of the gifts of the Spirit???

This isn't the first "unanimous action" of the Church because the Church proper begins at Pentecost.

You're making this far too rigid.

Quote:

---

This isn't really a hypothetical. You are offering iconography. I am offering you written words of the fathers. What you are claiming puts them in contradiction. The problem you present is either one of these guys isn't the 12th or they both are, which makes no sense. If you hadn't come in saying that it was just so obvious the apostles were incorrect when they picked Matthias, and the paul was CLEARLY the true replacement, I would have dropped it long ago. But as such, the situation arises where we trust the early writings or we rely on the earliest evidence of your theory, which would be icons that popped up later.

---

They are not in contradiction.

Your understanding is the problem. You're forcing a rigid framework something that doesn't need it.

Which is basically the west vs east in a nutshell.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't really address the point?

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

Not that I take offense to it, but it was clearly created as a religious slur. Thank you for making this point

---

Are you not under the authority of the Bishop of Rome? Are you not Catholic?

Would you prefer I call you the Latins? Or maybe the Barbarians? Either would be following the ancient practice.

---

We are the Latin rite of the Catholic Church. Go research the history. "Roman" was an attempted slur arising out of the protestant reformation to do exactly what y'all are trying to do here: downplay the historical claims of the Church. We're just the "roman" church rather than the universal Church, simply because we stay in union with the pope.

We're just the Catholic Church, under the roman rite of the mass. Like eastern Catholics are just a part of the Catholic church, under their particular rite

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 acts a unifying force. Some popes have been better at this than others, but the references to the role of the See of Rome has always been one of doctrine. Not day to day matters or tyrannical monarchy that has to sign off on every single decision. The fact that the church grew as large as it did and functions the way it does today would not be possible with some of the misunderstandings of how the pope is assumed to operate.

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 acts a unifying force. Some popes have been better at this than others, but the references to the role of the See of Rome has always been one of doctrine. Not day to day matters or tyrannical monarchy that has to sign off on every single decision. The fact that the church grew as large as it did and functions the way it does today would not be possible with some of the misunderstandings of how the pope is assumed to operate.

---

I mean, obviously in his own domain, sure (which is a massive point of contention in Christendom that's been glossed over). It's why we still talk about issues revolving around the filioque and theotokos. What claims can he make, with what authority, and what are their bounds? That's the entire point here.

But there were bishops from the ends of the known world at councils making decisions, no? Aren't we kind of rewriting history and skipping over some councils to claim he's the unifying force? Again, a church in England existed that wasn't so heretical it couldn't commune with Rome. That says something about these claims.

In my opinion, you introduced the rigidity. You were the one who said Matthias wasn't the 12th. The idea that one of the two had to be the 12th was introduced by you. I merely responded. You kept making it more and more confusing, which is why I dug in more.

You say it's nothing to argue about, but then take a very firm stance on your particular view of it as correct. If it's nothing to argue about, why take such a firm stance to begin with? The only reason available is because this theory cuts away at what happens in Act 1.

I find it incredible that you take a theory that is non-existent until the 1800s and then say I'm taking a modernistic approach. I genuinely don't understand. It was just known: Matthias replaced Judas. You said this is wrong. Then say well they both kind of replaced Judas. Now we're back to Paul being the real replacement. And all of this arises because of a theory that's less than 200 years old.

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. I think you would agree it's the writings, when clear an unanimous. And when we consider the writings of the Church fathers, I don't think any would agree with you that the Church began at Pentecost. A number of protestant denominations would join you in that belief, but the historical view held by a large amount of early saints is that the church began with Jesus Himself here on earth, if not before when you consider the NT fulfilling the OT. He sent out the apostles to preach and work miracle far before Pentecost. "Pentecost is the birth of the church" is a protestant invention.

I'm not trying to argue as much as I am trying to help show that these two positions you hold are not the historical position. Your evidence is iconography. I think it's natural, when the two are at odds, to ask how we work through the apparent contradiction. It's not east versus west. It's historical versus modern. You think I take the modernist approach while giving extremely modern evidence for your claims, outside of a few icons. And in order to not misunderstand you, I am genuinely asking how you rectify the clear differences. If you weren't taking such a firm stance on this modern interpretation, I wouldn't even bother asking that.

I'll leave it at this before I leave cell service for the weekend: I am genuinely interested in your perspective and appreciate you haring. I will take your claim that I am failing to understand due to eat west differences under consideration. I would invite you to take the claim that your view is modern and incoherent under consideration as well. If you'd like nay further discourse, I'll catch you on Monday.

Have skimmed this thread. One thing I haven't seen pointed out is that the 12 -1 +1 apostles follows very closely to the 11+2-1 tribes of Israel (+2 being the double portion of Josephs, -1 being Dan). The tribe of Dan very quickly falls away, falls further away, and doesn't even make it into revelation as a scroll as being lifted up on the last day because of their actions.

There is some mirroring in the apostles. Judas fell away. Matthias being elevated immediately can be both a story of haste but also still allowable by the authority granted to man by God. We see a 'two halves' emerge with Peter and Paul steering the rudder of the early church.

I don't understand the part of this thread that is insistent on the rigidity around the number of apostles.

Right, which is why the papal see recently moved to Chicago or Peru. Wait….

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.

It's pretty clear Jesus anointed the apostles as the leaders of the church. It's also pretty clear that St Peter was first among the apostles. Now we can split hairs with OCC about how much first among equals means. But we can agree that one of the aspects of the true church is apostolic succession. Without it, there's a pillar of the church missing which results in schism after schism as we see in the Protestant churches.

Also want to say I have always appreciated Zobel's posts.

Could not have missed the mark farther.

Furlock Bones said:

---

Could not have missed the mark farther.

---

I can assure you that if the Catholic church had piped up before the 1000s with the modern catholic fully fleshed out doctrine of original sin, immaculate conception, purgatory, and treasury of merit the orthodox church would have spent an ecumenical counsel on it and bid those believers goodbye without waiting to discuss papal supremacy in the 1050s.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Furlock Bones said:

---

Could not have missed the mark farther.

---

I can assure you that if the Catholic church had piped up before the 1000s with the modern catholic fully fleshed out doctrine of original sin, immaculate conception, purgatory, and treasury of merit the orthodox church would have spent an ecumenical counsel on it and bid those believers goodbye without waiting to discuss papal supremacy in the 1050s.

---

And that is merely the opinion of a heretic, orthobro.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Furlock Bones said:

---

Could not have missed the mark farther.

---

I can assure you that if the Catholic church had piped up before the 1000s with the modern catholic fully fleshed out doctrine of original sin, immaculate conception, purgatory, and treasury of merit the orthodox church would have spent an ecumenical counsel on it and bid those believers goodbye without waiting to discuss papal supremacy in the 1050s.

---

I get your 'fully fleshed out' call out, which really weakens your claim, but the early church fathers came up with all of those doctrines in one form or another.

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Furlock Bones said:

---

Could not have missed the mark farther.

---

I can assure you that if the Catholic church had piped up before the 1000s with the modern catholic fully fleshed out doctrine of original sin, immaculate conception, purgatory, and treasury of merit the orthodox church would have spent an ecumenical counsel on it and bid those believers goodbye without waiting to discuss papal supremacy in the 1050s.

---

I get your 'fully fleshed out' call out, which really weakens your claim, but the early church fathers came up with all of those doctrines in one form or another.

---

Just like Arius and Nestorius fleshed out doctrines set by early church fathers?

TSJ said:

---

Tom Kazansky 2012 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Furlock Bones said:

---

Could not have missed the mark farther.

---

I can assure you that if the Catholic church had piped up before the 1000s with the modern catholic fully fleshed out doctrine of original sin, immaculate conception, purgatory, and treasury of merit the orthodox church would have spent an ecumenical counsel on it and bid those believers goodbye without waiting to discuss papal supremacy in the 1050s.

---

I get your 'fully fleshed out' call out, which really weakens your claim, but the early church fathers came up with all of those doctrines in one form or another.

---

Just like Arius and Nestorius fleshed out doctrines set by early church fathers?

---

I loled

"My patriarchate is older than Rome."

+++

The older brother argument again? Esau and Jacob would be amused.

It was also founded by St Peter.

Zobel said:

---

It was also founded by St Peter.

---

Ah yes, St Peter. You know, he is buried in the rock right there where the Romans crucified him. There is a beautiful church there now.

"18 I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it." -Matt 16:18