Christian Discussion Thread VIII: Augustine's Revenge.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Eh just in general. I try to refrain from God will do x statements unless they're specifically referred to in Theological terms. It's just not wise to speak for God imho

Well, it's true there will be Judgment Day. I'm referring what is directly portrayed in the Bible.

Even while I disagree with the KKK and other radical groups, this is the most appalling thing I've read in this thread, and I've been through a lot of these threads.

We should not be wishing people to be obliterated by God. Being obliterated by God, or otherwise getting such an extreme punishment such as an eternity of calamity and misery is a bad thing. Applying "love your neighbor as you love yourself", are you really that devoid of love that you can't extend the courtesy to not judge your enemies beforehand, or to feel sad for what you seem to think is going to be their demise, even if you do judge beforehand?

Also, do remember, with the same rule you're measuring right now, so you will be measured. If you decide to not change, I just hope your rule isn't eventually used against you.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Why do you say that, Tarsonis? The Lutheran tradition has a long tradition on the Office of the Keys based on Mt. 16, Mt. 18 and Jn. 20, that is decidedly not about the papacy.

And they'd be wrong. The office of the Keys was extended to Peter. No keys are extended to the Othrr disciples or are even mentioned in Matt 18 or Jn 20

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” - Matthew 18: 18-20[4]

Since the keys are understood as the power to bind and loose sins, it seems Christ does give it to the rest of the Apostles.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

And they'd be wrong. The office of the Keys was extended to Peter. No keys are extended to the Othrr disciples or are even mentioned in Matt 18 or Jn 20

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” - Matthew 18: 18-20[4]

Since the keys are understood as the power to bind and loose sins,

Not quite:
For expediency' sake from wikis "Binding and loosing is originally a Jewish phrase appearing in the New Testament, as well as in the Targum. In usage, to bind and to loose simply means to forbid by an indisputable authority and to permit by an indisputable authority"

The acts of binding and Binding and Loosening aren't about forgiving and not forgiving sins, they're about declaring what is doctrine and what isn't doctrine.

it seems Christ does give it to the rest of the Apostles.

Except he didn't in closer review:

The act of Giving of the Keys, parrallels the apointment of the Steward of Israel.

"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat[a] of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars."


17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[b] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.


Christ is giving Peter a very special position. The Office of the Keyes is an authoritative position that Christ gives to Peter.

In Matthew 18, he makes no mention of the keys to kingdom of heaven. He does extend authority to bind and loose, but there's an important difference in this case.

If another member of the church[d] sins against you,[e] go and point out the fault when the two of you are alone. If the member listens to you, you have regained that one.[f] 16 But if you are not listened to, take one or two others along with you, so that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If the member refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if the offender refuses to listen even to the church, let such a one be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 Again, truly I tell you, if two of you agree on earth about anything you ask, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.”

Christ emphasizes the dependent plurality of the authority he gives to the rest of the Apostles. The Authority given to the Apostles is a "co-authority." Peter, is given "singular" authority. This is further echoed in John 21:

Peter is told to feed both lambs and sheep, layity and elders. Peter is given the pastoral role to tend the entire flock, Layity and Priest alike.

What we see is the Latin system perfectly layed out: Pope holds the Office of the Keys, and serves as the Steward of the whole church. All the Bishops and Archbishops beneath him, while having authority in their own dioscese, cannot determine doctrines for the whole church, but must come together in agreement with other Bishops and Archbishops in order to do so.

[Talchyon]

And they'd be wrong. The office of the Keys was extended to Peter. No keys are extended to the Othrr disciples or are even mentioned in Matt 18 or Jn 20

18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” - Matthew 18: 18-20[4]

Since the keys are understood as the power to bind and loose sins, it seems Christ does give it to the rest of the Apostles.

That's exactly what I was going to say.

When Jesus gives the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter in Mt. 16, Peter stands as the representative of all the apostles, and not just himself in his own person. Because, if the Keys and the Office of the Keys were given only to Peter, then we would also have to say the Office of the Keys is not given to the Pope, either, because he also is not Peter.

Yes, I do realize and know the (contested) claim that the Pope sits in Peter's chair and in Peter's office. However, I also realize that Peter calls himself a "fellow-presbyteros" (1 Pet. 5:1) and does not exalt himself over others who are in the same office as he is. Therefore, even if the Pope were to sit in Peter's chair and Peter's office (which again, is contested), then we have to say that this office is of equal standing, power and primacy as all of the other presbyteroi.

-Talc

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Since the keys are understood as the power to bind and loose sins, it seems Christ does give it to the rest of the Apostles.

That's exactly what I was going to say.

When Jesus gives the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter in Mt. 16, Peter stands as the representative of all the apostles, and not just himself in his own person. Because, if the Keys and the Office of the Keys were given only to Peter, then we would also have to say the Office of the Keys is not given to the Pope, either, because he also is not Peter.

No he doesn't. There is no evidence of this, the other Apostles weren't even Christians yet at this time. This argument is completely contrived. Peter stands in for himself only. If you read the Greek, the "you" is accusative and singular. He is speak about Peter and Peter alone. Any authority given to the Apostles comes later

Yes, I do realize and know the (contested) claim that the Pope sits in Peter's chair and in Peter's office. However, I also realize that Peter calls himself a "fellow-presbyteros" (1 Pet. 5:1) and does not exalt himself over others who are in the same office as he is. Therefore, even if the Pope were to sit in Peter's chair and Peter's office (which again, is contested), then we have to say that this office is of equal standing, power and primacy as all of the other presbyteroi.

-Talc

Wrong. You're inserting a certain humility into that statement of "as an elder myself" where none is mentioned. The Pope is a Priest, no one denies this. The Pope's priesthood in terms of its sacramental role, is no greater than any other priests. A blessing from the Pope is no different than a blessing from your parish priest. If the Pope leads the mass, the Eucharist isn't some super Eucharist compared to others. The Pope's office is Ecclesial and administrative, not sacramental. This position isn't legitimately contested.

[Talchyon]

That's exactly what I was going to say.

When Jesus gives the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter in Mt. 16, Peter stands as the representative of all the apostles, and not just himself in his own person. Because, if the Keys and the Office of the Keys were given only to Peter, then we would also have to say the Office of the Keys is not given to the Pope, either, because he also is not Peter.

No he doesn't. There is no evidence of this, the other Apostles weren't even Christians yet at this time. This argument is completely contrived. Peter stands in for himself only. If you read the Greek, the "you" is accusative and singular. He is speak about Peter and Peter alone. Any authority given to the Apostles comes later

Yes, I do realize and know the (contested) claim that the Pope sits in Peter's chair and in Peter's office. However, I also realize that Peter calls himself a "fellow-presbyteros" (1 Pet. 5:1) and does not exalt himself over others who are in the same office as he is. Therefore, even if the Pope were to sit in Peter's chair and Peter's office (which again, is contested), then we have to say that this office is of equal standing, power and primacy as all of the other presbyteroi.

-Talc

Wrong. You're inserting humility into that statement of "as an elder myself" where none is strictly mentioned. The Pope is a Priest, no one denies this. The Pope's priesthood in terms of its sacramental role, is no greater than any other priests. A blessing from the Pope is no different than a blessing from your parish priest. If the Pope leads the mass, the Eucharist isn't some super Eucharist compared to others. The Pope's office is Ecclesial and administrative, not sacramental. This position isn't legitimately contested.

Yeah, I have my Greek in front of me. And I know that in Mt. 16, the "you" is the 2nd singular form, meaning to Peter. Which also means, if you are sticking with this, it means only to Peter and not to the pope. Peter alone has it, or it has to be shared. And if it has to be shared, than there are others who have the office of the keys, too. And we see this happening in Jn. 20:19. In Jn. 20:19, the people there present are "the disciples". (οἱ μαθηταὶ, 3p plural). And it is to them, not to Peter alone, that Jesus gives the authority and office to forgive sins in His stead and by His command. So, I don't know how you got the idea that the other apostles weren't Christians at the time of Mt. 16. But it is easily seen that the authority and office to forgive sins to the other apostles, and thus use the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven, did not come like centuries later. Instead, this office and authority was given in Jesus' lifetime to all the apostles before He ascended. And thus, the office of the keys in Mt. 16 is not given only to the pope, but to Peter as the representative of all the apostles.

Thanks for your clarification as to the pope being a priest on the same level as all other priests. That's helpful. As for the Pope's office being 'ecclesial and administrative', I don't think anyone argues with that. But that is not the basis as to why the claim is made that the Pope has the office of the keys alone. I understand that the pope's claim to having the office of the keys alone, is based on the fact that he sits in Peter's seat and has Peter's office. And my argument was, that Peter in his office also did not exalt himself over other priests like the pope does. So the pope is not acting in Peter's stead very well, if he is at all.

The position of the pope sitting in Peter's office has been legitimately contested for 500 years at least since the Reformation. I encourage you to read The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope by Philipp Melanchthon. The authority that the pope has over the church is one that is only by human arrangement only and not divine. There is nothing divine about it, and therefore, since he only sits by human arrangement only, and the office of the keys is a divine authority, there is nothing about him being the pope that means he will hold the office of the keys only.

I await your response.


EDIT - Tarsonis, I just saw your earlier long post to the other writer on this subject. I didn't address what you had written there. In my next post, I will.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

No he doesn't. There is no evidence of this, the other Apostles weren't even Christians yet at this time. This argument is completely contrived. Peter stands in for himself only. If you read the Greek, the "you" is accusative and singular. He is speak about Peter and Peter alone. Any authority given to the Apostles comes later



Wrong. You're inserting humility into that statement of "as an elder myself" where none is strictly mentioned. The Pope is a Priest, no one denies this. The Pope's priesthood in terms of its sacramental role, is no greater than any other priests. A blessing from the Pope is no different than a blessing from your parish priest. If the Pope leads the mass, the Eucharist isn't some super Eucharist compared to others. The Pope's office is Ecclesial and administrative, not sacramental. This position isn't legitimately contested.

Yeah, I have my Greek in front of me. And I know that in Mt. 16, the "you" is the 2nd singular form, meaning to Peter. Which also means, if you are sticking with this, it means only to Peter and not to the pope. Peter alone has it, or it has to be shared.

No, no, no. Peter receives the "office," that the other disciples do not. It's a singular office is possessed entirely in his person at the time. That "office" Is not shared but it is passed. As the Church is promised to be eternal, so must be the Papacy.

And if it has to be shared, than there are others who have the office of the keys, too. And we see this happening in Jn. 20:19. In Jn. 20:19, the people there present are "the disciples". (οἱ μαθηταὶ, 3p plural). And it is to them, not to Peter alone, that Jesus gives the authority and office to forgive sins in His stead and by His command.

No, what we see in Jn 20:19' is a different authority. We see the disciples receiving their Apostolic and priestly office. (Being sent and able to forgive). This authority allows them to stand as representatives of Christ and provide absolution to those who seek it. The Church would absolutely agree that this authority is shared, not just among the disciples, but all priests. Every priest has the authority to do this because it is a sacramental authority intrinsically tied to the priesthood. As I said, the Papal authority and possition is Ecclesial, not sacramental.

So, I don't know how you got the idea that the other apostles weren't Christians at the time of Mt. 16. But it is easily seen that the authority and office to forgive sins to the other apostles, and thus use the Keys to the Kingdom of heaven, did not come like centuries later. Instead, this office and authority was given in Jesus' lifetime to all the apostles before He ascended. And thus, the office of the keys in Mt. 16 is not given only to the pope, but to Peter as the representative of all the apostles.

Buried in the pages of this thread I gave a commentary on what the name Petros, means. Contained in Matthew 16, as well we see just why Christ founds the Church on Simon bar Jonah

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah,[c] the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter,[d] and on this rock[e] I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. "

Peter is the first human being to confess his faith in Christ as the son of God and the promised messiah. He is the first Christian, and the first member of the Church. The other Apostles, had not expressed this belief, not professed it, so they cannot be catagorized as Christians at that time. They were disciples of Christ, but to them he was just a rabbi, not all the other stuff.

Now Between Matthew 16, and Matthew 18, we see an important event in Matt 17, the transfiguration. Here the other 11 Apostles (I refer to the 12 as Apostles as this was their defining trait. Christ has many disciples but only 12 Apostles): see Christ's transfiguration and believe. They become Christians in 17 where as Peter became a Christian in 16. Peter is also regarded as the leader of the Apostles, because his faith was "cleaner." He didn't not require a sign, to believe he had great faith. The other 11 needed proof.

Thanks for your clarification as to the pope being a priest on the same level as all other priests. That's helpful. As for the Pope's office being 'ecclesial and administrative', I don't think anyone argues with that. But that is not the basis as to why the claim is made that the Pope has the office of the keys alone. I understand that the pope's claim to having the office of the keys alone, is based on the fact that he sits in Peter's seat and has Peter's office. And my argument was, that Peter in his office also did not exalt himself over other priests like the pope does. So the pope is not acting in Peter's stead very well, if he is at all.

1.But is why the claim is made, again you've been misconstruing binding and loosing with "forgiving". They are not the same. The former is an ecclesial issue, the latter a sacramental one.
2. Just because Peter was a humble man, doesn't mean he didn't sit in a higher office in actuality. I should also point out again, that in 1 Peter 5: Peter is not humbling himself by saying he's a priest as well. He's giving a justification for his guidance to the other priests he's addressing. Basically, "I am one of you as well, so listen to me cause I know what I'm talking about"

The position of the pope sitting in Peter's office has been legitimately contested for 500 years at least since the Reformation.

The Reformation is illegitimate.

I encourage you to read The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope by Philipp Melanchthon. The authority that the pope has over the church is one that is only by human arrangement only and not divine. There is nothing divine about it, and therefore, since he only sits by human arrangement only, and the office of the keys is a divine authority, there is nothing about him being the pope that means he will hold the office of the keys only.

Let's follow that logic shall we. The Bible was cobbled together by Human hands, guess we can toss that out too.

[Luminesa]

Well, it's true there will be Judgment Day. I'm referring what is directly portrayed in the Bible.

Even while I disagree with the KKK and other radical groups, this is the most appalling thing I've read in this thread, and I've been through a lot of these threads.

We should not be wishing people to be obliterated by God. Being obliterated by God, or otherwise getting such an extreme punishment such as an eternity of calamity and misery is a bad thing. Applying "love your neighbor as you love yourself", are you really that devoid of love that you can't extend the courtesy to not judge your enemies beforehand, or to feel sad for what you seem to think is going to be their demise, even if you do judge beforehand?

Also, do remember, with the same rule you're measuring right now, so you will be measured. If you decide to not change, I just hope your rule isn't eventually used against you.

Indeed, "Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us."

[Salus Maior]

The position of the pope sitting in Peter's office has been legitimately contested for 500 years at least since the Reformation.

The Reformation is illegitimate.

Well, the power of the Roman Pope has been contested a little longer than that.

*COUGH*GreatSchism*COUGH*

But that being said, the Pope's Apostolic authority as Bishop of Rome is pretty universally legitimate.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The Reformation is illegitimate.

Well, the power of the Roman Pope has been contested a little longer than that.

*COUGH*GreatSchism*COUGH*

But that being said, the Pope's Apostolic authority as Bishop of Rome is pretty universally legitimate.

The schism occurre for much more than just measuring contest between the heads of two partrirchates.

[Salus Maior]

Well, the power of the Roman Pope has been contested a little longer than that.

*COUGH*GreatSchism*COUGH*

But that being said, the Pope's Apostolic authority as Bishop of Rome is pretty universally legitimate.

The schism occurre for much more than just measuring contest between the heads of two partrirchates.

I know. But what I'm saying was that the power of the Pope was contested at least since then.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

The schism occurre for much more than just measuring contest between the heads of two partrirchates.

I know. But what I'm saying was that the power of the Pope was contested at least since then.

I wouldn't call it legitimately though.

[Talchyon]

Well, the power of the Roman Pope has been contested a little longer than that.

*COUGH*GreatSchism*COUGH*

But that being said, the Pope's Apostolic authority as Bishop of Rome is pretty universally legitimate.

Ha ha. Yeah, and his primacy was challenged even before the schism erupted, too. But thanks for bringing that up.

[Salus Maior]

Well, the power of the Roman Pope has been contested a little longer than that.

*COUGH*GreatSchism*COUGH*

But that being said, the Pope's Apostolic authority as Bishop of Rome is pretty universally legitimate.

Ha ha. Yeah, and his primacy was challenged even before the schism erupted, too. But thanks for bringing that up.

Of course, whether that challenge was legitimate is up for debate.

[Talchyon]

Ok, Tarsonis. I went back and searched for the posts you had written earlier about Petros and rock, and I found six. I think I get the gist of what you were referring me to. It's the very familiar argument on Petros as rock, and therefore when Jesus says in Mt. 16, "On this rock I will build my Church," you have read this as Peter, which is the traditional Catholic view. I will address this below, but let me say first that I did find things I agreed with in your posts. Like, I also hold that only pastors should preach and lay people should not. So, we agree on at least one thing.

What I notice as the chief area of disagreement in our recent discussion was the definition as to what the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven are. Your most recent post to me showed this better, as well as your long post earlier to the other writer at the top of this page. Where I see the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven as the authoritative forgiving or retaining of sins in the stead and by the command of Christ, you see the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven as an Ecclesial and administrative oversight of the church. To quote you earlier, you said, "The acts of binding and Loosening aren't about forgiving and not forgiving sins, they're about declaring what is doctrine and what isn't doctrine." This, as I see it, is the clearest definition of your position as to what the Keys are and how they are defined. And this also is the chief disagreement between us.

Questions then:
1) If the pope holds the keys alone due to the position he holds (passed down from Peter), then how do his decisions on doctrine relate to binding and loosening? Because it seems like binding and loosening isn't a very fitting description for deciding doctrine. I can see the binding, perhaps, in that he may decide that a certain new teaching is doctrine to be held to. But I am not familiar about loosening of doctrine so as for it to not be binding, in so far as the pope is concerned. Maybe he has relaxed certain traditional Catholic doctrines now and I just am unaware of it.

A better understanding however is that the binding and loosening is the binding of sins to those who are unrepentant, and the loosening of sins to those who repent of their sins and want to be forgiven. Because Jesus speaks here of Peter (yes, I do agree that he is speaking to Peter alone in 16:19 - though as the representative of all apostles and all pastors) that whatever he binds on earth, shall have been bound in heaven. (So we have the phrase in :19, ἔσται δεδεμένον, δεδεμένον being a Perfect Participle Passive Masc. sng Accusative). For a good discussion on the translation of this passage and others, see the interesting grammatical article here. The article also has a unique perspective on the use of petra and petros in ancient literature, beginning on pg. 133ff.

2) Often, Jesus uses the phrase "the Kingdom of heaven" to speak about the Church both in heaven and on earth. Sometimes He is speaking about eternal life, i.e., life and God's favor after death in the intermediate state and on the Last Day. (See Mt. 8:11; 18:3; 19:23). Other times, He uses the phrase to speak about the Church on earth (Mt. 11:12; 13:47). To which do the pope's decisions on doctrine go, in your opinion? Are they bound for the church on earth, or the church in heaven? And what about decisions a pope makes that are contrary to the Word of God?

3) And if the church is built on Peter as the person and not the ministry of his confession of faith as I hold, then doesn't Mt. 16 later show that Peter is a faulty foundation to build on? Especially since Jesus calls Peter Satan. See Mt. 16:23.


One other question. I understand that you disagree with me. But making pompous assertions does not prove your points. I especially refer to your assertion that I am misconstruing things. Also of the illegitimacy of the Reformation. I could counter by saying that the Reformation was exactly what Holy Scripture commanded (Rom. 16:17), even if it contradicted Canon Law, therefore it is not illegitimate...

Re. your comment after I referred you to read the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope - when I said, "I encourage you to read The Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope by Philipp Melanchthon. The authority that the pope has over the church is one that is only by human arrangement only and not divine. There is nothing divine about it, and therefore, since he only sits by human arrangement only, and the office of the keys is a divine authority, there is nothing about him being the pope that means he will hold the office of the keys only." You responded, "Let's follow that logic shall we. The Bible was cobbled together by Human hands, guess we can toss that out too."

A: Where people confess truly what the Bible is saying, it should be regarded and not thrown out. The fact that there words are not Holy Scripture does not make them less of a clear presentation of what Scripture says. So likewise, I'm not going to throw out the Nicene Creed either, even though it is written by men. But rather, it is the clear confession of what Holy Scripture teaches. Therefore, it stands. Much as the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope does, too. (You should read it. There are various quotes from the early church fathers who disagreed with your understanding of the Church being built on Peter).

Enough for now.

-Talc

[United Muscovite Nations]

I wouldn't dispute that the Papacy has a special place among the successors of the Apostles. What I would dispute is how this institution evolved in the West and whether the current occupants of St Peter's Chair are legitimate.

[Diopolis]

I wouldn't dispute that the Papacy has a special place among the successors of the Apostles. What I would dispute is how this institution evolved in the West and whether the current occupants of St Peter's Chair are legitimate.

In the bible, keys are used to indicate something handed on, so the special place is something that goes from predecessor to successor.

[Free Maronites]

I think the Papacy lost a fair bit of legitimacy after becoming politicized, more like Human rulers than religious heads. Fortunately that trend has been reversed, with the Popes losing worldly power but becoming more focused on doctrine, charity and Christianity. Of course this sort of thing also depended on the Pope himself.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I wouldn't dispute that the Papacy has a special place among the successors of the Apostles. What I would dispute is how this institution evolved in the West and whether the current occupants of St Peter's Chair are legitimate.

In the bible, keys are used to indicate something handed on, so the special place is something that goes from predecessor to successor.

I don't dispute that, what I am saying is that the current claimants to the Papacy do, and for a long time have, produced heretical teachings that delegitimize them. This includes teachings that were declared anathema at ecumenical councils acknowledged by Popes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Co ... n_Orthodox)

Wiki links with parentheses are weird, so copy&paste the link instead of just clicking on it.

[Constantinopolis]

The Reformation is illegitimate.

Well, the power of the Roman Pope has been contested a little longer than that.

*COUGH*GreatSchism*COUGH*

But that being said, the Pope's Apostolic authority as Bishop of Rome is pretty universally legitimate.

Eh, sort of. The Pope certainly has apostolic succession, and no one disputes this. However, according to the Orthodox view, the Pope is currently in schism and heresy. So he is a validly-ordained, heretical bishop. Like the bishops of ancient heretical Churches, such as the Arian Church, who also had valid apostolic succession (while being, of course, far more heretical than any Pope ever was). Perhaps a better comparison would be with Nestorius, or Dioscorus, or Severus of Antioch - also valid bishops, also heretical.

[Czechanada]

Well, the power of the Roman Pope has been contested a little longer than that.

*COUGH*GreatSchism*COUGH*

But that being said, the Pope's Apostolic authority as Bishop of Rome is pretty universally legitimate.

Eh, sort of. The Pope certainly has apostolic succession, and no one disputes this. However, according to the Orthodox view, the Pope is currently in schism and heresy. So he is a validly-ordained, heretical bishop. Like the bishops of ancient heretical Churches, such as the Arian Church, who also had valid apostolic succession (while being, of course, far more heretical than any Pope ever was). Perhaps a better comparison would be with Nestorius, or Dioscorus, or Severus of Antioch - also valid bishops, also heretical.

Does the Coptic Pope have some claim to apostolic succession?

[Constantinopolis]

Eh, sort of. The Pope certainly has apostolic succession, and no one disputes this. However, according to the Orthodox view, the Pope is currently in schism and heresy. So he is a validly-ordained, heretical bishop. Like the bishops of ancient heretical Churches, such as the Arian Church, who also had valid apostolic succession (while being, of course, far more heretical than any Pope ever was). Perhaps a better comparison would be with Nestorius, or Dioscorus, or Severus of Antioch - also valid bishops, also heretical.

Does the Coptic Pope have some claim to apostolic succession?

Of course. He has just as much claim as the Pope of Rome. No one disputes the fact that the Coptic Pope has valid apostolic succession. The issue is, again, schism (and this time only schism).

The Coptic Popes trace their apostolic succession to the ancient bishops of Alexandria, who in turn trace it to St. Mark the Evangelist.

[Constantinopolis]

And since the Copts were mentioned...

Obligatory re-posting of the video of a large crowd of Coptic Christians chanting the Nicene Creed outside St. Mark's Cathedral in Cairo last year a couple of days after terrorist attacks took place in that cathedral.

Although I have disagreements with the Copts, their courage is (and has always been) without equal.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I wouldn't dispute that the Papacy has a special place among the successors of the Apostles. What I would dispute is how this institution evolved in the West and whether the current occupants of St Peter's Chair are legitimate.

It's a fair question as to whether or not the Papacy must be installed in Rome, but until our churches reconcile the point is moot.

However, Francis and many Latin theologians have acknowledged and confessed a willingness to negotiate on just how the Papacy would affect the eastern churches should we unify.

[Constantinopolis]

I wouldn't dispute that the Papacy has a special place among the successors of the Apostles. What I would dispute is how this institution evolved in the West and whether the current occupants of St Peter's Chair are legitimate.

It's a fair question as to whether or not the Papacy must be installed in Rome, but until our churches reconcile the point is moot.

However, Francis and many Latin theologians have acknowledged and confessed a willingness to negotiate on just how the Papacy would affect the eastern churches should we unify.

Frankly my biggest concern would be how to organize missionary work. Historically, all new converts to the Catholic Church have been converted into the Latin Rite. That would have to change - radically.

As long as the Latin Rite is treated as the "default rite", Rome's claim to treat all ancient traditions equally is a joke.