Just a minute there! What on earth does Acts 2:15-22 say? And, who said it?
That Judas should be replaced…? That it is right to replace those who have compromised the faith? No problem with any of this. We believe it and follow it. And while I certainly recognize the idea of the “office”
as expressed in Acts, there is no support for this idea that all the supposed “powers” or authority given to any particular apostle were thereby passed down to the bishops he ordained
by virtue of their having been ordained by him, which seems to be the popular RC understanding of how apostolic succession works. If we believed as you apparently do, we would not have recourse to deal with Patriarchs who must be deposed, as the Copts did as recently as Pope Yusab II (1946-1956), and the Greeks as recently as Patriarch Irenaios (2001-2005), to use two prominent and recent examples.
So, yes, the much-vaunted “Office of St. _____” does not exist, not because there were not men ordained to carry on what the apostles themselves established, but because what the RCC and what the Orthodox understand such passages and events to mean are radically different, and obviously one must be wrong. In deference to where I am posting, I am perfectly fine with letting RCs believe whatever they want about whatever they think “the Office of St. Peter” is, but would also like to call attention to the fact that as there is no “Office of Judas” (or perhaps there are many), I think the passage you’ve quoted is more in line with Orthodox ecclesiology than the modern Catholic. The See of a particular saint certainly exists and there really is someone occupying it, but beyond that any talk of an “office” has to get into the nuts and bolts of how we think of apostolic succession as working, and in that we are just too far apart. St. Mark didn’t pass down anything to HH Pope Tawadros II that he retained
of himself (i.e., by virtue of being an apostle), and hence HH Pope Tawadros II does not have any authority that cannot be taken away. We could all be Judas, Peter, or anyone else, and the same goes for all of our Patriarchs, precisely because such an “Office” does not exist. The throne may pass to this one or that one, but it is the faith that must be protected, not the assumed privileges based on who ordained who.
So, in order to defend what amounts to ecclesial apartheid
Well this is a tad bit dramatic, isn’t it? Last I checked, Malan is no saint in any communion.
are you alleging that the offices died with the Apostles?
No. What I’m trying to say as diplomatically as possible is that the RC idea of an “office” which is passed down whereby whosoever should occupy a given chair/see/throne is seen as possessing the rights, powers, privileges, and indeed perhaps even the very person (at least as I have seen some, not all, RCs interpret the infamous statement of Chalcedon that “Peter has spoken through Leo”) of its founder by virtue of having been elevated to the position of occupying that chair/see/throne is erroneous. There is no reason to recognize that as a thing, since it is based upon a conception of apostolic succession that we do not share in common.
Jerusalem is known as the “See of James” to this day. Do you claim that this is somehow not true?
It absolutely is true. The term “See” is just a fancy way of talking about a particular episcopal jurisdiction. Jerusalem is the “See of James” just like Alexandria is the “See of St. Mark”, etc. I think you are confusing the existence of sees tied to historically prominent cities with this idea of the “Office”. From where I’m sitting, they’re not the same thing. Everybody on earth who can read recognizes that the “Holy See” (without qualifiers, in English) refers to the Vatican/the RCC/the headquarters of the Roman Pope, so it’s quite clear that these are things that exist. They have concrete reality in so far as you can point to them and say “there’s the Vatican”, “there’s a Catholic Church”, “there’s where the Pope’s residence is”, etc. Where, then, is “the Office of Peter”? or the “Office of Mark?” or the “Office of anybody”? These are turns of phrase meant to evoke particular understandings of what apostolic succession entails in a given communion. We in communion with OO Alexandria also talk about the “See of St. Mark”, obviously. I guarantee you we do not mean what you mean when you talk about the “Office of St. Peter”. Again, knowing in advance this discrepancy, I maintain that there is no “office” of any apostle and invite you to re-read any of the above should you become confused as to what that does or does not mean.
Many years, sir.
