Infallible Authority Of The Church.

[AlightSeeker]

Look at what you're saying and ask yourself if you believe it. You are saying that I don't have authority. No authority in myself at all. Its the same as saying i follow myself. You're saying my faith is false. And why? Because I follow scripture not your church. You have set your church up as having more authority than scripture. Do you actually believe that? It's fine with me but I submit to the word. I know who the word is.

 

[AlightSeeker]

The apostles didn't just say they had authority but showed it with power. Not only that but used scripture to prove truth. I use scripture. I have no power other than the letter of my heart that causes me to edify the church. I try my best to be an example. I don't just talk but do what I talk about. That's how we teach each other. That's the only authority I see. To shine light. Not dividing the body by boasting of authority that i don't have but dividing light from darkness.

 

[AlightSeeker]

Forgive me. I just want to shine the light of the Lord. Its all i have. Its all I need. I need to shine it with my words and deeds. Praise the Lord. It will be OK. Good night friends

 

[ozso]

There is nothing to interpret. Power is power. Also where is the fruit? Does fruit of the spirit contradict scripture?

According to scripture there are those who distort the meaning of scripture to suit their own purposes and design.

 

[AlightSeeker]

According to scripture there are those who distort the meaning of scripture to suit their own purposes and design.

Yes I guess so. I just want to reflect Jesus. I wonder if I failed to do that here. We are supposed to edify each other. I wished this discussion did that.

 

[AlightSeeker]

Love edifies. If im not doing that then I neither edify myself or anyone else. I'm a failure. Tomorrow is another day.

 

[AlightSeeker]

I stumbled over myself. Love edifies ourselves as much as others. It's that love I like. That's why I love the lord so much because he loves me so much.. I am a fool but praise the Lord he still loves me and shows me.

 

[IcyChain]

I dont know your opinion but let me ahare my mine. Thanks. Saying scripture isn't sufficient to train us contradicts scripture. I wouldn't want to contradict John 14 for example.

I would say that Scripture is materially sufficient but not formally sufficient. Protestants have all had the same Bible for 500 years and cannot come to an agreement on baptism and the real presence.

 

[IcyChain]

Look at what you're saying and ask yourself if you believe it. You are saying that I don't have authority. No authority in myself at all. Its the same as saying i follow myself. You're saying my faith is false. And why? Because I follow scripture not your church. You have set your church up as having more authority than scripture. Do you actually believe that? It's fine with me but I submit to the word. I know who the word is.

Every man and his Bible Christianity. There as many different denominations as there are people on the Earth.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Look at what you're saying and ask yourself if you believe it. You are saying that I don't have authority. No authority in myself at all. Its the same as saying i follow myself. You're saying my faith is false. And why? Because I follow scripture not your church. You have set your church up as having more authority than scripture. Do you actually believe that? It's fine with me but I submit to the word. I know who the word is.

"You're saying my faith is false." No, I think that what was said amounts to "Your doctrines are just made up as you go along, you read and passage and invent a doctrine. Some of the doctrines you invent are correct or nearly correct and some are just wrong."

 

[dzheremi]

The fact that I know in advance that this is meant to apply only to Rome and those in communion with Rome really sours me on the idea that 'infallibility' as understood by Rome is something given by God, rather than invented by man in an attempt to substantiate the supposed divine command enjoyed by Rome according to its defective and heterodox ecclesiology.

'Speaking' as a member of the first Papal Church in the world (which is Alexandria, not Rome; look up the history, particularly as concerns the thirteen bishop of Alexandria, HH St. Heraclas), it is notable to me that we have never, ever declared any such thing or received any such thing from our fathers. It is an utterly foreign idea, and no one in our Church would stand for it, if it were proposed. The truth is (and I know RCs will disagree with this in advance; that's fine) that keeping everything so that no bishop is infallible in any circumstance is something that actually protects the Church, while Papal infallibility as the RCC teaches it actually harms the Church. It is not the divine protection that they think it is. Why? Because sometimes Popes 'go bad', obviously. I'm not going to name the obvious ones that you'd think, given my ecclesiastical allegiances, but I can name some of 'ours' (that is to say, Coptic Popes), such as Pope Yusab II, who was a shockingly recent example (r. 1948-1956) of a Pope who needed to be removed from office for the good of the Church and the protection of the faithful, as he had proven to be a dangerously ineffectual leader, and was in practice being led by a cadre of intermediaries that surrounded him, controlling access to him, engaging in simony, and doing all kinds of other things to further weaken him, and ultimately doing great damage to the Church in Egypt at the time. I could make similar, even more recent examples of people in other communions like the former Patriarch of Jerusalem Irenaios (for an Eastern Orthodox/Chalcedonian example), who was deposed in 2005 following some shady property deals with Israeli developers. Truly Rome is alone among the ancient churches in believing this fiction of infallible leadership; and that is what it is -- a fiction.

 

[IcyChain]

The fact that I know in advance that this is meant to apply only to Rome and those in communion with Rome really sours me on the idea that 'infallibility' as understood by Rome is something given by God, rather than invented by man in an attempt to substantiate the supposed divine command enjoyed by Rome according to its defective and heterodox ecclesiology.

'Speaking' as a member of the first Papal Church in the world (which is Alexandria, not Rome; look up the history, particularly as concerns the thirteen bishop of Alexandria, HH St. Heraclas), it is notable to me that we have never, ever declared any such thing or received any such thing from our fathers. It is an utterly foreign idea, and no one in our Church would stand for it, if it were proposed. The truth is (and I know RCs will disagree with this in advance; that's fine) that keeping everything so that no bishop is infallible in any circumstance is something that actually protects the Church, while Papal infallibility as the RCC teaches it actually harms the Church. It is not the divine protection that they think it is. Why? Because sometimes Popes 'go bad', obviously. I'm not going to name the obvious ones that you'd think, given my ecclesiastical allegiances, but I can name some of 'ours' (that is to say, Coptic Popes), such as Pope Yusab II, who was a shockingly recent example (r. 1948-1956) of a Pope who needed to be removed from office for the good of the Church and the protection of the faithful, as he had proven to be a dangerously ineffectual leader, and was in practice being led by a cadre of intermediaries that surrounded him, controlling access to him, engaging in simony, and doing all kinds of other things to further weaken him, and ultimately doing great damage to the Church in Egypt at the time. I could make similar, even more recent examples of people in other communions like the former Patriarch of Jerusalem Irenaios (for an Eastern Orthodox/Chalcedonian example), who was deposed in 2005 following some shady property deals with Israeli developers. Truly Rome is alone among the ancient churches in believing this fiction of infallible leadership; and that is what it is -- a fiction.

What are the specific doctrines that your church teaches that are in error?

 

[dzheremi]

What are the specific doctrines that your church teaches that are in error?

Where is this question coming from? Nothing I wrote in that post had anything to do with doctrines specific to my Church. The point was to show how Rome's ecclesiology is uniquely incorrect among the churches which can plausibly claim apostolic foundations.

 

[IcyChain]

Where is this question coming from? Nothing I wrote in that post had anything to do with doctrines specific to my Church. The point was to show how Rome's ecclesiology is uniquely incorrect among the churches which can plausibly claim apostolic foundations.

Does your church teach any doctrines that are in error? I would like to know.

 

[dzheremi]

Does your church teach any doctrines that are in error? I would like to know.

No, it does not, but that is also not the subject of this thread. And anyway, we would not credit that to any claimed 'infallibility' to begin with (as already pointed out), so that really has no relevance to anything that we're talking about here.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

What are the specific doctrines that your church teaches that are in error?

One could start with rejection of the authority and infallibility of the pope in Rome, and while schism is not a doctrine it is an error and a fault. Another doctrinal error would be the collegiate view of church rule, which has not worked out so well in the east. And while it is true that the Catholic Church has had long periods of political interference which led to ecclesiastical corruption it is nevertheless also true that no dogma of the Catholic Faith was ever an out and out heresy as was the case with Constantinople's patriarchs and Arianism, Iconoclasm, and a number of other errors.

 

[IcyChain]

No, it does not, but that is also not the subject of this thread. And anyway, we would not credit that to any claimed 'infallibility' to begin with (as already pointed out), so that really has no relevance to anything that we're talking about here.

So your church teaches no error. It sounds pretty infallible to me.

 

[dzheremi]

One could start with rejection of the authority and infallibility of the pope in Rome

Of course, that's as you see it, in keeping with your church's ecclesiology. It's not really debatable, however, that Alexandria has never been in any sense under the authority of Rome. For example, your Pope Leo's 445 letter to the then newly-elected and still-universally-recognized HH Pope Dioscorus, suggesting that we adopt particular Roman practices, was definitively answered by us not doing that at all. And so it always has been when Rome in particular complains about things and doesn't get her way, such as even earlier than that when objecting to the elevation of Constantinople via the second ecumenical council in 381 via canon III of that council. Rome objected, nobody else did, and hence Constantinople was in fact elevated to a status whereby she enjoyed a " prerogative of honor after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome" (to quote the canon in translation).

You didn't like it, you disagreed, and everyone else said "Well, we agree, so this is happening." ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

and while schism is not a doctrine it is an error and a fault.

And we all pray that you return from schism someday, in a spirit of repentance towards the eastern churches from which you have carved the vast majority of your eastern rite churches.

Another doctrinal error would be the collegiate view of church rule, which has not worked out so well in the east.

Are things judged to be in error because you personally find them to not have worked out well? Because I think everyone else in this thread who is not Roman Catholic can look at the RCC's ecclesiology and come to the conclusion that it has not "worked out so well" for RCs themselves. If that doesn't move you to abandon your ecclesiology, why should your evaluation of that of other communions mean anything to anyone actually in them?

And while it is true that the Catholic Church has had long periods of political interference which led to ecclesiastical corruption it is nevertheless also true that no dogma of the Catholic Faith was ever an out and out heresy

I would call the Immaculate Conception dogma heretical for the horrible mutilation it does to a proper understanding of the incarnation. So there's one, just as an example.

as was the case with Constantinople's patriarchs and Arianism, Iconoclasm, and a number of other errors.

And the west had no Arians or Iconoclasts? What do you call the Visigoths in Spain prior to their king's conversion to Catholicism in (IRRC) 589 or so? (The Visigoths had a whole Arian kingdom over there, as I suspect you well know.) And of course most Protestants, who are nothing if not the offspring of Roman Catholicism (it's not like Protestantism grew out of any the eastern churches), are anywhere from moderately to heavily iconoclastic.

It's really easy to maintain a fictional ecclesiology when you simply ignore all counterexamples.

 

[dzheremi]

So your church teaches no error. It sounds pretty infallible to me.

Nope. We do not credit it to anyone being infallible -- just zealous defense of the three ecumenical councils, having a proper liturgical life, and so forth. (Read: Things that any church could do -- including Rome -- without anyone having to be 'infallible' to do it.)

 

[IcyChain]

Nope. We do not credit it to anyone being infallible -- just zealous defense of the three ecumenical councils, having a proper liturgical life, and so forth. (Read: Things that any church could do -- including Rome -- without anyone having to be 'infallible' to do it.)

Semantics. I don’t care what you call it, if you think your church teaches no error that is infallibility.