Christian theology thread for Christians - Deus homo factus est naturam erante, mundus renovatus est a Christo regnante

[Preacher ✝]

That's such a blatant miss representation of the concept of Autocephaly as to be clear deception and not mere lack of familiarity with the subject.
The existence of Autocephaly is not schism. The schisms are the schisms. Autocephaly is the concept of local authority the churches remain in communion with each other.

It was not my intention to misrepresent autocephaly, but it is equally wrong to say there are no schisms in the Orthodox church. They've had the Aresenite schism in 1265, the Old Believers split off in the 1600s, a pair of Schisms in Ukraine in the 1900s, and another about calendars in 1935. Most recently there's been at the very least severe tensions if not outright schism between the Russian and Ukranian churches because of the war.

The Catholics love to paint the Great Schism as out of the blue the Orthodox just appeared and decided to tell Rome to go away.

Where did I say this? We may disagree on the specifics but I have acknowledged there are specifics to disagree about. While the Filioque gets more coverage on the matter than is really due, the larger issue of poor communication remains, and the geopolitical issues you outlined fall nicely into why I've long said that separation of Church and State is good for the Church. To reiterate, while a close relationship between Church and State seems like a good idea when the Church has a positive influence on the State, it goes both ways and the State tends to have a negative influence on the Church. Speaking of which...

The Pope has no more authority than any other bishop. He isn't a king, he isn't the bishop of bishops or king of kings.

The Roman Catholic Church is birth of politics.

Because the Pope is the focus of all of the political power collected by the church and it can't survive without the Pope.

Politics is a reality of the world we persist in. One cannot exist as a global organization like the Church without some degree of politics, especially in a world that continues to secularize. If we stubbornly insisted on not engaging with politics then we would be shooting our mission in the foot and crippling its progress. We can discuss the theological significance and necessity of the Pope later if you wish, but in terms of practicality he is invaluable both as a diplomat and as a political leader. Attempting to have a Church without central leadership, like we see with your autocephaly, results in a power vacuum and one that is often filled by national leaders, aka caeseropapism. Hence why the Russian Orthodox Church is kneeling before Putin and calling the Ukraine War a Holy War.

The Rock Peter built is not Rome, it's not the Papacy it is the Church. The institution, the Laying of the Hands that started with the Apostles and has continued thousands of years and all over the globe.

If Rome is such an important place why didn't God outright tell us?

This is some scripture literalist tier argument that I expect from a KJV-only type. Shifting the focus to Rome itself is misleading and deceptive. I firmly agree that the Church is what's important, and Peter was the first Steward of Christ's Kingdom. It was the Church decided to base itself out of Rome. Is this decision any less valid because of the city? If the Church decided to base itself out of Paris or Constantinople would that be any more valid because its not Rome? As an institution the Church needs a headquarters. That's a logistical reality. The fact that it happens to be in Rome (technically Vatican City is its own country so its not politically in Rome, just geographically) is irrelevant.

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

It was not my intention to misrepresent autocephaly, but it is equally wrong to say there are no schisms in the Orthodox church. They've had the Aresenite schism in 1265, the Old Believers split off in the 1600s, a pair of Schisms in Ukraine in the 1900s, and another about calendars in 1935. Most recently there's been at the very least severe tensions if not outright schism between the Russian and Ukranian churches because of the war.

We've also had major heresies, religious wars, famines and more. The Church is a living organization as such it will sustain injuries. You have quickly backpaddled from such an audacious claim that every single Autocephalous church is in schism with each other to now and then the Orthodox church has suffered schisms. Catholics too mind you.

the geopolitical issues you outlined fall nicely into why I've long said that separation of Church and State is good for the Church

You have now conjured an argument that wasn't here before. The matter of Church and State is irrelevant to the Orthodox Church there have been times and places where the Church has existed without a State. Outside of the Eastern Roman Empire much of eastern Europe during the latter half of the 1st millennia was in anarchy and much the same once the Empire collapsed. To go on a slight tangent the problem isn't the State or lack there off but the Church as Rome was at times surrounded in anarchy during the 9th century and it survived. The State only became a problem when it could interfere politically with the Church.

Attempting to have a Church without central leadership, like we see with your autocephaly, results in a power vacuum and one that is often filled by national leaders, aka caeseropapism. Hence why the Russian Orthodox Church is kneeling before Putin and calling the Ukraine War a Holy War.

Yes we have survived bigger mad men and more dirty conflicts than the current one unfolding. Just as how the Roman Catholic Church can survive a bad Pope so can a Church inside of a nation survive a bad or many bad leaders. The political push of Rome is what exacerbated the Protestant Reformation and guaranteed things like the Anglican split. Sure our more soft handed approach may sometimes fail (Armenia) or create long standing thorns (Old Belivers, the Calendar Question) but it seems to survive the worst things thrown at it so far and does so without less blood being spilled. It also lends it's self to a more human means of persistent faith. By tying Church as an identity to the people you allow those populations (for the most part) to grow and change with time while remaining inside the Church. If the Church is instead tier to a foreign man with too much power it is not seen as something from within but from without.
The Roman Catholic Church has acted as a brute and done a lot of damage in the name of uniting the faith. Was it even fruitful?

This is some scripture literalist tier argument that I expect from a KJV-only type. Shifting the focus to Rome itself is misleading and deceptive.

If the Church decided to base itself out of Paris or Constantinople would that be any more valid because its not Rome?

It's impressive how you both denigrate my argument and entirely side step it and go on a non sequitur.
I will now repeat it even more clearly so you would have to be even more blatant.
Apostolic succession is done from bishop to bishop. Not from temporal or local seats of bishops but from individuals to individuals. Peter ordaining bishops that did not serve in Rome that in turn also didn't serve in Rome but are still tied to the Rock he built. When those bishops also descended from Peter disagreed and distanced themselves from Rome it didn't destroy their ties to the Rock or to Peter or their Apostolic succession. In terms of their ties to the Rock they are no further or closer than the Pope for there is nothing special to the Pope over other bishops.
I will agree with one thing. The schism didn't birth two churches in a religious sense. The schism resulted in two organizations that claim to be the one true Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church. A more pertinent question is if Apostolic succession can be lost, something the Orthodox Church it's self hasn't produced a unanimous argument.

 

[Preacher ✝]

The Church is a living organization as such it will sustain injuries.

This is a very charitable way to address missteps of the past, but it's one we can agree on, and it applies to the Catholic Church as well as the Orthodox. As such what value is there in continuing to relitigate history?

You have now conjured an argument that wasn't here before.

No I have not, the geopolitical issues you brought up here:

The Greek Rite exist mostly through coercion and use of force by the likes of the Austrian Empire and previous Catholic states that used conversion by force, stripped the Orthodox of rights, sometimes just outright killed them.

and here:

the destruction of the Greek aligned Bishopric of Transylvania by the Latin aligned Avar king, the Latin and Greek massacres.

are largely the result of, as you put it:

The State only became a problem when it could interfere politically with the Church.

Therefore it is unfair to tie this issues to theological differences alone.

Yes we have survived bigger mad men and more dirty conflicts than the current one unfolding. Just as how the Roman Catholic Church can survive a bad Pope so can a Church inside of a nation survive a bad or many bad leaders.

This strikes me as too much of a handwave of the issue of Caeseropapism, and the situation in Ukraine is a perfect example. There is no theological justification for the Russian Orthodox Church to declare it a holy war. They are only doing so to appease Putin. Such blatant compromise of theology at the behest of politics is abhorrent. It's a relic of the past like the Crusades but without the justification of unchecked Islamic aggression. Compare this to the Pope's stance on Ukraine, an unequivocal call for peace, and the contrast is stark. Both the Ukrainian and Russian Orthodox Churches should be united in a desire for peace in the region, not fueling the flames of war by compromising their theology in favor of politics and national identity. Just because you have survived worse and will continue to persist after does not mean it's okay to pretend the problem isn't a problem.

Apostolic succession is done from bishop to bishop.

Such an assertion ignores the importance of the Pope, aka the Steward of Christ's Kingdom. The office of Steward is evident even in Old Testament scripture, see Isaiah 22:15-25. The Steward administers to the Kingdom under the authority of the King, and serves as the highest authority when the King is away. The power and authority of the office is symbolically represented by the possession of the Keys to the Kingdom. Christ gave Peter those Keys in Matthew 16:19. That isn't to say all Bishops do not have some level of apostolic succession, but there is the concept of a first among equals for a reason. This is also why we have Papal Infallibility. When push comes to shove and someone has to put their foot down to reconcile a dispute, it's the Pope that has the authority to do so. Having a central authority with the power of the final word is invaluable in preventing disputes between Bishops from spiraling out of control and detracting from the greater good of the overall mission.

In other words, if the Eastern Orthordox Church had a Pope then the Russian Orthodox Church would not be calling the Ukraine conflict a holy war.

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

In other words, if the Eastern Orthordox Church had a Pope then the Russian Orthodox Church would not be calling the Ukraine conflict a holy war.

We do. It's the EP. The Ecumenical Patriarch. He is the current first among equals and he has spoken in favor of peace.
You put too much value on the impact a religious leader has on stopping people wishing war. The Pope did not stop many of the wars between Catholic nations. Nor did the Patriarch of Constantinople or the EP or even an Emperor supported by the Pope and the rest of the Pentarchy.

Just because you have survived worse and will continue to persist after does not mean it's okay to pretend the problem isn't a problem.

You keep seeing flaws in the Orthodox Church but ignoring the ones in the Catholic Church. Wars between Christian nations of the same denomination are not new. Kings or equivalents trying to pressure the Church is not new.
And what is the Catholic solution to this problem?
Should we go with a 1st millennium approach and claim Putin is the Anti-Christ. Should we go with a 2nd millennium approach and have the EP raise an army and attack both nations. Or should we go with a 3rd millennium approach and ask for peace?
Is the ROC and UOC going into the pit of petty politics that different from Prince Bishops in the HRE taking part in local politics and wars?
Is your solution different than ours, does it create different outcomes?

Such an assertion ignores the importance of the Pope, aka the Steward of Christ's Kingdom. The office of Steward is evident even in Old Testament scripture, see Isaiah 22:15-25. The Steward administers to the Kingdom under the authority of the King, and serves as the highest authority when the King is away. The power and authority of the office is symbolically represented by the possession of the Keys to the Kingdom. Christ gave Peter those Keys in Matthew 16:19.

Your arguments do not counter the core issue. There is no value in the local and temporal nature of specific seats of bishops. If specific seats would matter than God would have said so.

When push comes to shove and someone has to put their foot down to reconcile a dispute, it's the Pope that has the authority to do so.

Yet this authority is severely lacking from the councils. The leader of the councils was almost always the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Pope rarely showed in person, the Pope rarely provided arguments. In effect the Pope was no different than the bishops that stood aside and accepted the results of the councils.
The proof is in the Fourth Council of Constantinople. By the fact that there were 2 of them. The Authority of the Pope was not that powerful in the 9th century.
A question. Which Pope is right? Adrian II or John VIII?
Which is the infallible Pope, could it be neither?

 

[Preacher ✝]

You put too much value on the impact a religious leader has on stopping people wishing war.

I am not saying that a Pope calling for peace can cause peace to manifest, but that doesnt make it any less of the right thing to do.

Should we go with a 1st millennium approach and claim Putin is the Anti-Christ. Should we go with a 2nd millennium approach and have the EP raise an army and attack both nations. Or should we go with a 3rd millennium approach and ask for peace?
Is the ROC and UOC going into the pit of petty politics that different from Prince Bishops in the HRE taking part in local politics and wars?
Is your solution different than ours, does it create different outcomes?

The difference is that the 1st and 2nd millenniums, as well as the concept of Prince Bishops and the HRE, are relics of the past. ROC and UOC are demonstrating that they have not learned from the missteps of days gone by and continue to make the same mistakes. The 3rd millennium approach of calling for peace is the most correct approach available, and the one with the most theological legitimacy.

Your arguments do not counter the core issue. There is no value in the local and temporal nature of specific seats of bishops. If specific seats would matter than God would have said so.

You're completely missing the point. The Pope happens to be the Bishop of Rome, that doesn't mean the Bishop of Rome has to be the Pope by virtue of the temporal or local nature of Rome. It just works out that way because the Vatican is there. If the Vatican were in Paris the Pope would be the Bishop of Paris and he would still be just as important as he is in Rome.

Yet this authority is severely lacking from the councils. The leader of the councils was almost always the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Pope rarely showed in person, the Pope rarely provided arguments. In effect the Pope was no different than the bishops that stood aside and accepted the results of the councils.

If the Pope did not do those things at those times then it was because he didn't need to. Not needing to exercise that element of his authority does not mean that said authority is any less legitimate. Choosing when to exercise it is part of having authority.

A question. Which Pope is right? Adrian II or John VIII?
Which is the infallible Pope, could it be neither?

John VIII did not become Pope until after Adrian II died. I'm not sure what conflict between the two you're referring to.

As far as Infallibility, were either of them speaking Ex Cathedra? If so did these Ex Cathedra statements contradict eachother? If so then whichever one happened second.

 

[Preacher ✝]

The Wisdom of Bl. Fulton Sheen

Day 177 - Joy is the delightful experience of the feelings of pleasure at a good gained and actually enjoyed, or the prospect of a good which one has reasonable hope of obtaining.

 

[Derrick]

@Preacher ✝

If I can intrude on a conversation I am not a part of, I am a Protestant (non-denominational) though I do believe there is a very compelling case for Roman Catholicism given the whole: "on this rock" thing from the Gospel of Matthew. While doctrinal differences keep my from converting there is the question I wonder of if there is evidence for the idea that Peter was given the power to appoint a successor, or was his role as Church founder a one time thing. And if so how do we know if/who he picked and how the selection was made? He certainly couldn't have done it after his death and I'm unaware of a Neronian Era College of Cardinals. I'm also aware of evidence that leads me to believe Clement (often ordered as Pope #4) may actually have come much earlier, would it be a theological problem for the Catholic Church if there official ordering of the Popes is out of order or would it not matter (just so long as they're naming actual popes)?

 

[Preacher ✝]

I wonder of if there is evidence for the idea that Peter was given the power to appoint a successor, or was his role as Church founder a one time thing. And if so how do we know if/who he picked and how the selection was made?

I would say that the power to appoint a successor, or establish a system of succession, is encompassed by the powers to bind and loose. Typically Popes do not appoint their successors, in fact the second Pope, Pope Linus (who is mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21), was ordained so by Paul the Apostle, though it is noted that Peter was involved in planning that decision.

Keep in mind that in these early days of the Church many of the sacred traditions we trust in today were still developing. While the formal system of a College of Cardinals wasn't yet established in ~63-68AD, we can see the seed of it being planted in the collaboration of Peter and Paul to decide who goes next. They are, arguably, the two top Apostles with Peter being ordained by Christ to lead and Paul being sent out to spread the word of Christ to the gentiles. If the Apostles are like Bishops, and Peter is akin to the Pope, then it's not too much of a stretch to see Paul like a Cardinal.

I'm also aware of evidence that leads me to believe Clement (often ordered as Pope #4) may actually have come much earlier,

I am unaware of any such evidence so I cannot really speak on it.

would it be a theological problem for the Catholic Church if there official ordering of the Popes is out of order or would it not matter (just so long as they're naming actual popes)?

Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that there was a mistake in the ordering of the Popes, but all involved were legitimate Popes, I do not see why it would be a theological problem, just a clerical error. (pun intended)

 

[Derrick]

I am unaware of any such evidence so I cannot really speak on it.

Tertullian (~200 AD) calls him Peter's successor, also internal evidence within his letter has lead many (including then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) to conclude it was written before the destruction of the Temple.

we can see the seed of it being planted in the collaboration of Peter and Paul to decide who goes next.

Can you tell me more about this decision making?

I guess my problem is that there are two ways to look at it, either the Protestant way of the Church is a universal organization and Peter's ability to bind and it died with him or the Catholic way of this was a very specific organization through which the power given to Peter by Jesus has continued to this day, I would be more inclined to pick the Catholic viewpoint if I could see more clear evidence exactly how Peter's role is leader clearly and distinctly transferred to the next guy. You mentioned Paul ordained Linus but certainly he and Peter ordained more guys, Clement for example was consecrated by Peter. Was it by virtue of being the highest ranking man (I'm not sure how that would be determined) in the city where the previous Pope died, did it have some special relation to the city of Rome? Because Peter had only been there for a short time prior to his death, being noticeably ascent from the more than 50 people Paul shouts out at the end of the epistle of Romans (57 AD), though I suppose this could be done deliberately because of their feud. Did Peter and the other subsequent early Popes, under the threat of persecution and martyrdom make known their choice of successor just in case?

If I could see good clear evidence of an early successor system meant to transfer Peter's power to the next guy worked out during Peter's time then certainly I'd be hard pressed to say the Church Jesus referred to wasn't the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Preacher ✝]

Tertullian (~200 AD) calls him Peter's successor, also internal evidence within his letter has lead many (including then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger) to conclude it was written before the destruction of the Temple.

Well the Temple was destroyed in 70AD, and Tertullian wasn't born until 155AD, so I don't see how he could have written a letter before he was born.

As far as the phrasing, "Peter's successor" has been used to refer to many different Popes over the years, including the current Pope Leo XIV. It refers to the fact that the Pope is the current successor to the line of Saint Peter, not just specifically his immediate successor in that line.

Can you tell me more about this decision making?

First let me preface the rest of this by saying that the Papal Line and the history of Papal Succession is not my area of expertise, I am merely going off my understanding of it. It's possible for me to be mistaken to varying degrees and if someone who is more well versed on the matter wants to chime in I welcome it.

the Catholic way of this was a very specific organization through which the power given to Peter by Jesus has continued to this day, I would be more inclined to pick the Catholic viewpoint if I could see more clear evidence exactly how Peter's role is leader clearly and distinctly transferred to the next guy.

I think it's important here to clarify the depth of the Catholic position, and I will do my best to show it's basis in scripture. We can all agree that Christ is not just King, but the King of Kings. This means that he has a Kingdom, and unless you believe something very different than I do, that Kingdom includes all of existence, which itself includes Earth. While a King is the highest authority in a Kingdom, he rarely administers it alone. Typically it is impossible for a given King to run an entire Kingdom without help, and while Christ is arguable the exception to that rule, it makes sense that he would follow a traditional structure not because he has to but for our benefit as his subjects. We see this in the Gospels, Christ could have gone out to all the people personally, but instead he sent his Apostles.

So we have a King and we have a Kingdom, and for the sake of the subjects that Kingdom needs administrators. The top administrator of a Kingdom is traditionally called the Steward, and the symbol of the office of Steward are the keys to the Kingdom. We see this in the Kingdom of David per Isaiah 22:15-25, where the corrupt steward Shebna is struck down and replaced with the righteous Eliakim. With specific attention to Isaiah 22:22 we see the significance of the keys and the powers that come with them.

The verse reads:
22 And I will place on his (Eliakim's) shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Now we can draw a direct parallel to Matthew 16 when Christ ordains Peter as the rock of the Church and grants him the keys and powers.

The verse reads:
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

If we agree that Christ is our King, and the Earth is his Kingdom, then it lines up that Peter is his Steward. In the structure of a Kingdom, the only authority higher than the Steward is the King, so when the King is away from the Kingdom, the Steward is the highest authority. So when the Steward is faced with the reality of his own mortality, and knows the importance of his office, he has the authority to transfer that power to a new Steward, or establish a system by which a new Steward is chosen. The best evidence for this happening is that we continue to have Stewards with a direct line traced back to the first one.

You mentioned Paul ordained Linus but certainly he and Peter ordained more guys, Clement for example was consecrated by Peter.

They ordained him once as a what we would call a Priest or perhaps a Bishop today, but when someone becomes Pope it is an additional ordination. So I meant that Paul ordained him as Pope specifically. Granted it the office wasn't called "Pope" then. However as we see with Tertullian the office was still referred to as Peter's successor.

Was it by virtue of being the highest ranking man (I'm not sure how that would be determined) in the city where the previous Pope died, did it have some special relation to the city of Rome?

Well the office we know as Pope has long been considered the first among equals, so a traditional system of rank doesn't exactly fit in. When I referred to Peter and Paul as the two top apostles I meant so more in terms of importance than a traditional ranking system. As the Church grew and developed a system of rank became necessary, but back then there wasn't a need for delineation between Priests and Bishops. Especially in the very early days, all 12 Apostles would be like Bishops are now.

Did Peter and the other subsequent early Popes, under the threat of persecution and martyrdom make known their choice of successor just in case?

Such a practice would make logical sense, but I suspect they didn't simply name a successor so much as confer with their immediate peers and reach a consensus as to who is best suited to lead next. There is certainly more indication of a collaborative decision process than Popes unilaterally declaring a successor.

If I could see good clear evidence of an early successor system meant to transfer Peter's power to the next guy worked out during Peter's time then certainly I'd be hard pressed to say the Church Jesus referred to wasn't the Roman Catholic Church.

Honestly IMO some of the best evidence we have is that there has been a traceable line of successors to this day. It is not as if they were conjured from nothing afterall. The Great Schism didn't occur until 1054 so even if you ask the Orthodox the line of Popes from Peter to Leo IX is recognized. The first protestants didn't split off for another 500 years after that.

Anyway, I have said this is not my area of expertise so the best I can do is show how it is rooted in scripture, how it makes logical sense, and how it is evident by history, which is what I have tried to do here.

 

[Mad_Dog]

Yet this authority is severely lacking from the councils. The leader of the councils was almost always the Patriarch of Constantinople, the Pope rarely showed in person, the Pope rarely provided arguments. In effect the Pope was no different than the bishops that stood aside and accepted the results of the councils.
The proof is in the Fourth Council of Constantinople. By the fact that there were 2 of them. The Authority of the Pope was not that powerful in the 9th century.

Let's talk about the failed "Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church" in 2016, that was in preparation for over 50 years and was supposed to be the first major gathering of Orthodox churches since the Second Council of Nicaea in 787.

It was boycotted by the Russian Orthodox Church, the largest Orthodox church, who withdrew less than a week before the start of the council. The Church of Antioch, the Church of Bulgaria and the Church of Georgia, also decided to boycott, with just 167 of the ~850 Orthodox bishops present.

Nevertheless, Patriarch Bartholomew I proceeded with the council.

Yet, despite approving its six agenda items with minor amendments, it failed to address pressing issues like the Orthodox calendar (Julian vs. Gregorian) or jurisdictional disputes in the diaspora, which were removed from the agenda due to lack of consensus. There were even disputes over seating arrangements and procedural issues, such as the Ecumenical Patriarch’s presiding role.

After all that, the Russian Orthodox Church's Synod then decided to review the council’s documents, and ended up dismissing their immediate authority.

Some Orthodox theologians and clergy, even criticized the council as "iconoclastic" and accused it of promoting heresy, especially over ecumenical language in the document on relations with other Christian communities.

The Ecumenical Patriarch later sent a letter to the Archbishop of Athens in November 2016, requesting action against Greek clergy who rejected the council, warning of potential severance of communion if they continued to denounce it as heretical (while claiming to simply be acting as "first among equals").

So, in over 1200 years, the Orthodox Church has had 0 successful synods, while the Catholic Church has had 21 councils, 14 of which were ecumenical.

I think the Pope matters, guys. I think he matters a lot.

May God bless our Holy Father Pope Leo XIV.

 

[Derrick]

Well the Temple was destroyed in 70AD, and Tertullian wasn't born until 155AD, so I don't see how he could have written a letter before he was born.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear, I meant internal evidence in CLEMENT'S letter not Tertullians showed that it was written before the destruction of the temple (specifically chapter 41 of Clement's Epistle).

They ordained him once as a what we would call a Priest or perhaps a Bishop today, but when someone becomes Pope it is an additional ordination

Such a practice would make logical sense, but I suspect they didn't simply name a successor so much as confer with their immediate peers and reach a consensus as to who is best suited to lead next.

That's fair I was looking for more of a hard definitive process (like the current papal one) but I understand what you mean.

Honestly IMO some of the best evidence we have is that there has been a traceable line of successors to this day.

I guess my big grip (or the saving grace I can hold onto a Protestant) is there seems to be a lot of confusion about the order of Popes once lists started to be made around the end of the 2nd century/start of the third. As I alluded to Clement seems likely to be next in line following Peter despite official positioning today, and the exact position of the #2,#3, and #4 seem to change based on which source you consulted from the era. Part of me wonders if the mystic of the Pope (and subsequent power) was cultivated by a desire to fight back against Gnostics. You know by placing so much emphasis and power in the Bishop of Rome you could knock down Gnostic heresies by saying, "Look the man at the top, the man who sits on Peter's seat says [insert Gnostic belief here] is bunk, therefor we needn't discuss your heresy any more," this might explain the early confusion about who was Bishop of Rome prior to the 2nd Century.

Of course this is just me speculating I don't know much about early Church history (a tragic consequence of too much sola scriptura is I miss out on important historic developments), perhaps some one else can tell me more about rather or not this makes sense.

First let me preface the rest of this by saying that the Papal Line and the history of Papal Succession is not my area of expertise, I am merely going off my understanding of it. It's possible for me to be mistaken to varying degrees and if someone who is more well versed on the matter wants to chime in I welcome it.

You're right, and that's a fair thing to point out. It was kind of unfair for me take my questions to you, a stranger on the Internet, and expect you to produce answers to my admittedly complex questions. I didn't want you to think I was going to you like, "GIVE ME SOLID ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS OR YOUR WHOLE FAITH IS BUNK!!!!11!" Perhaps I would have been better served consulting a local Priest or somebody with the theological training to know this stuff, not to insinuate you don't know what you're talking about, you've certaintly changed the way I view communion from "totally symbolic!" to "uhh, I'm really not sure anymore". with your interesting pieces of evidence regarding the physical prescene of Christ in the elements.

 

[Preacher ✝]

That's fair I was looking for more of a hard definitive process (like the current papal one) but I understand what you mean.

As nice as something that cut and dry would be, I think it's very human to recognize that something as formal as the process of electing a new Pope we know today developed from more humble beginnings of the Apostles having a discussion and coming to a consensus.

Another parallel for this can be seen in something like a college Fraternity, and the traditions within. For example I was in a Frat in college and one of our traditions (not a secret one) involved a system of heirlooms. When brothers graduated they would hand these items down to other brothers in the house. Certain items had long running traditions of how to determine who they went to next, others were more free form, and it was not uncommon for brothers to create new heirlooms from their personal belongings. While this was a thoroughly honored and enjoyed tradition, its origin was the simple fact that by the time you graduate college chances are you've got more stuff than you want to deal with so you either throw it out or give it away.

I guess my big grip (or the saving grace I can hold onto a Protestant) is there seems to be a lot of confusion about the order of Popes once lists started to be made around the end of the 2nd century/start of the third. As I alluded to Clement seems likely to be next in line following Peter despite official positioning today, and the exact position of the #2,#3, and #4 seem to change based on which source you consulted from the era.

I am not familiar with such a controversy, but if I am understanding it right who the three Popes were is not questioned, just the order in which they reigned. If that's the case then I don't see how its all that consequential. Given we are going back to the times where oral tradition was still widely used and anything written was done so by hand from the scribes who could, its entirely feasible that there are discrepancies in the order. A scribe makes a transposition error copying a list, or someone telling the oral tradition mixes up the order of names; humans are prone to such things.

The acknowledged order is Peter, Linus, Anacletus, Clement I. If that's wrong and it was really Peter, Clement I, Linus, Anacletus, or some such variation, what difference does that actually make in terms of theology?

You're right, and that's a fair thing to point out. It was kind of unfair for me take my questions to you, a stranger on the Internet, and expect you to produce answers to my admittedly complex questions. I didn't want you to think I was going to you like, "GIVE ME SOLID ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS OR YOUR WHOLE FAITH IS BUNK!!!!11!" Perhaps I would have been better served consulting a local Priest or somebody with the theological training to know this stuff, not to insinuate you don't know what you're talking about, you've certaintly changed the way I view communion from "totally symbolic!" to "uhh, I'm really not sure anymore". with your interesting pieces of evidence regarding the physical prescene of Christ in the elements.

It's no worry, I was pointing it out not because I thought you were banking it all on me but as a means of disclaiming myself if I do get something wrong lest I give the impression that I know more than I do.

I am glad my posts about the real presence in communion have been helpful.

 

[Derrick]

As nice as something that cut and dry would be, I think it's very human to recognize that something as formal as the process of electing a new Pope we know today developed from more humble beginnings of the Apostles having a discussion and coming to a consensus.

That's a fair answer, I guess my questions is who exactly, like was a vote of only the apostles of Rome. I do find it a bit strange they passed up the guy ordained by Jesus himself (John) although taking care of Jesus's mom might have taken up his free time, though I guess she would have been dead (or ascended depending on the view you hold) by the time of Neronian persecution so he should have been free to take the job (assuming the Bishop of Rome was really the man seen as 'in charge').

I am not familiar with such a controversy, but if I am understanding it right who the three Popes were is not questioned, just the order in which they reigned. If that's the case then I don't see how its all that consequential. Given we are going back to the times where oral tradition was still widely used and anything written was done so by hand from the scribes who could, its entirely feasible that there are discrepancies in the order. A scribe makes a transposition error copying a list, or someone telling the oral tradition mixes up the order of names; humans are prone to such things.

I guess the point I was going for was, you start to see people talking about the all important of the Bishop of Rome around the end of the 2nd Century (Tertullian and Ireneaus). Hegesippus might have made a list back in 180 and there are probably some from a few years earlier too, so I guess we can set the dating around 150 for when it starts to be discussed.

I was suggesting that perhaps the importance of the Bishop of Rome as Peter's successor who holds the power Jesus gave to Peter (to bind on Earth and in Heaven) emerged as a response to Gnosticism, which was rampant at that time. You know sort of a way for the early main Church to destroy Gnostic arguments in their tracks by having the Bishop of Rome use his authority to declare them heretical.

This would explain the fluidity of the ordering of the first several Bishops, since people didn't (in this scenario) place any emphasis on the Bishop of Rome's role until the 2nd Century nobody was making a list or paying much special attention to him, hence why once people start talking about the all powerful Bishop of Rome around 200 AD you see sharp disagreements about who goes where (an odd thing to have if these people were once the most important living men in Christendom), you can imagine it as sort of, "Oh shoot, we need to write this down- who, who was important in Rome back in the day? Uh... Clement and Linus and Cletus," and so their lists very since they have no idea the actual order and were just naming noteworthy Roman Christians from the 1st Century.

Of course as I alluded to this was just me speculating. As a Protestant something like a clear powerful Bishop of Rome with an uncorrupted and indisputable line succession going from it would be very devastating for my worldview, it would make my beliefs untenable so naturally it would be a hard idea for me to accept without big evidence, as you can imagine.

I am glad my posts about the real presence in communion have been helpful.

You gave me some good points that made me go from, "no way!" to pulling the Orthodox move of, "well it sure is a mystery!" (Yes I know Orthodox Christians do believe in the real presence I was just being cheeky).

 

[Cassius Crayfish]

either the Protestant way of the Church is a universal organization and Peter's ability to bind and it died with him

Or that, as the Greek suggests, the ability to bind is actually to do with God, not with Peter or anyone else in particular. It is probably more accurately rendered "anything you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose shall have been loosed in heaven." God has already decided to bind people through the truth that Peter proclaimed: that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God. The proclamation is the the use of the keys, for those who repent and believe will enter, and those who reject it cannot enter.

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

So, in over 1200 years, the Orthodox Church has had 0 successful synods

The Orthodox Church has had councils after Constantinople IV. Constantinople V and Synods at Iasi, Jerusalem and Constantinople. And some people disagreeing with the Councils or the Councils not being all encompassing is not new. The Council could have been planned and executed better. But if everyone agrees with a council then it was at best superfluous.

 

[Mad_Dog]

The Orthodox Church has had councils after Constantinople IV. Constantinople V and Synods at Iasi, Jerusalem and Constantinople.

None of them considered ecumenical.

But if everyone agrees with a council then it was at best superfluous.

The Council of Nicaea was at best superfluous. You heard it here first, guys.

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

None of them considered ecumenical.

The Council of Nicaea was at best superfluous. You heard it here first, guys.

Catholics sure love arguing like Jewish Communists.
Let me guess
"We don't consider them Ecumenical. It doesn't matter what YOU consider Ecumenical"
And taking my obvious point that councils are birth of disagreement ad absurdia is just so stupid. Do you think anyone would try to keep arguing in good faith with you?

 

[Mad_Dog]

"We don't consider them Ecumenical. It doesn't matter what YOU consider Ecumenical"

Which of the councils you listed above are part of the 7 ecumenical councils the Orthodox recognize?

And taking my obvious point that councils are birth of disagreement ad absurdia is just so stupid.

Literally your words. No reductio on my part, simple application of the principle you pulled out your ass.

 

[Smashed & Slamed]

Which of the councils you listed above are part of the 7 ecumenical councils the Orthodox recognize?

Constantinople IV and V are considered Ecumenical by some.

Literally your words. No reductio on my part, simple application of the principle you pulled out your ass.

Are you claiming nobody disagreed with Nicaea?
Arius was exiled for refusing to accept it.
No you are just again doing pilpul and making me wonder why I don't just call you names.