Authoritative

[brinny]

Pope Saint Damasus I: The Chief See is judged by no one.

Pope Saint Sylvester I: The Judge can never be judged.

Pope Saint Boniface I: Our judgment is not to be reviewed, for it has never been permitted to go over anything once it has been decided by the Apostolic See.

Pope Boniface VIII: Therefore if the earthly power err, it shall be judged by the spiritual power; but if the lesser spiritual power err, by the greater. But if the greatest, it can be judged by God alone, not by man, the Apostles bearing witness. A spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is judged by no one.

Pope Saint Leo IX: By passing a preceding judgment on the great See, concerning which it is not permitted any man to pass judgment, you have received anathema from all the Fathers of all the venerable Councils.

Pope Saint Boniface I: To the Synod (of Corinth) … we have directed such writings that all the brethren may know … that there must be no withdrawal from our judgment. For it has never been allowed that that be discussed again which has been once decided by the Apostolic See.

Pope Eugene IV: Where I am, there is all Christendom.

Pope Saint Clement: Accept Our counsel and you shall have nothing to regret. But should anyone disobey what has been said through Us by Christ, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in great danger.

Pope Leo XIII: Can the Apostolic College be said to have been above its master in authority? This power over the Episcopal College to which we refer, and which is clearly set forth in Holy Writ, has ever been acknowledged and attested by the Church, as is clear from the teaching of General Councils. "We read that the Roman Pontiff has pronounced judgments on the prelates of all the churches; we do not read that anybody has pronounced sentence on him" (Hadrianus ii., in Allocutione iii., ad Synodum Romanum an. 869, Cf. Actionem vii., Conc. Constantinopolitani iv). The reason for which is stated thus: "there is no authority greater than that of the Apostolic See" (Nicholaus in Epist. lxxxvi. ad Michael. Imperat.) wherefore Gelasius on the decrees of Councils says: "That which the First See has not approved of cannot stand; but what it has thought well to decree has been received by the whole Church" (Epist. xxvi., ad Episcopos Dardaniae, n. 5).

Vatican Council Session 4: And since the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse can be had to his judgment; moreover, that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone permitted to pass judgment on its judgment. Therefore, they stray from the straight path of truth who affirm that it is permitted to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical Council, as to an authority higher than the Roman Pontiff.

I apologize....forgive my slowness......but God Almighty is JUDGE. He is JUDGE over all men. Men are flawed and are not perfect, in their current state.

 

[Sphinx777]

The sovereign is said to be ‘exempt from the law’, as to its coercive power, since, properly speaking, no man is coerced by himself, and law has no coercive power save from the authority of the sovereign. Thus then is the sovereign said to be exempt from the law, because none is competent to pass sentence upon him if he acts against the law. … (I-II, Q96, A5)

The Primatial See can be judged by no one. Canon 1556. This is a restatement of the Vatican Council (1870) in DZ 1830, which refers to DZ330: The first seat will not be judged by anyone., Saint Nicolas I to Michael the Emperor, 865.

Saint Leo IX on September 2, 1053 states (Chap. 32) . . . As the hinge while remaining immovable opens and closes the door, so Peter and his successors have free judgment over all the Church, since no one should remove their status because “the highest See is judged by no one.” (DZ 353)

Baldus de Ubaldis, during the debates circulating during the Western Schism wrote: Canon law expressly states that nobody shall try a Pope; on the contrary, Canon Law lays down the dictum that in doubtful situations, the man elected has to be held as Pope, (DIST. lxix).

Saint Alphonsus: I am satisfied as long as I have not lost the grace of God. The Pope wills it; the Lord God be blessed! The Pope thought he had to act in this manner; God be blessed; the will of the Pope is the Will of God; it is not for us to pose as judges. Who has appointed us to judge between ourselves and the Pope? Let us bow our head and be obedient. If the Pope has wounded us by one rescript he can heal the wound by another. Therefore let us be obedient and make no excuse or explanation.

The Catholic Encyclopedia in its entry on Pope St. Leo III by Horace K. Mann states: In the following year (800) Charlemagne himself came to Rome, and the pope and his accusers were brought face to face. The assembled bishops declared that they had no right to judge the pope; but Leo of his own free will, in order, as he said, to dissipate any suspicions in men’s minds, declared on oath that he was wholly guiltless of the charges which had been brought against him. At his special request the death sentence which had been passed upon his principal enemies was commuted into a sentence of exile.

Ecclesiasticus 8:17 - Judge not against a judge: for he judgeth according to that which is just.

 

[boswd]

Ah, so ANYONE who can prove the "line of Ordination" back to one of the 13 (or 14) Apostles is the Authority?

Then,

1. What do you do with the reality that NO ONE can do that for the time period up to about 300 AD - there's a nearly 300 year gap NO ONE can account for?

2. Then you must disagree with the Catholic Catechism when it says authority is limited to, "... those bishops in communion with the bishop of Rome" (CCC #85).

3. Yes, the RCC acknowledges the SUCCESSION of bishops outside of itself, but it does NOT acknowledge their AUTHORITY - which is the point of this thread. And thus, this "disconnect" proves that AUTHORITY in the RCC is not derived from Apostolic Succession. But, as your Catechism points out, the RCC acknowledges only ONE authority: itself. It just appoints the one it sees in the mirror. And it has nothing to do with Apostolic Succession (real or imagined).



.

Actually you are very wrong on this subject both the EO, OO and RCC all acknowledge and accept each other's Apostolic Succesion.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Yes, the RCC acknowledges the SUCCESSION of bishops outside of itself, but it does NOT acknowledge their AUTHORITY - which is the point of this thread. And thus, this "disconnect" proves that AUTHORITY in the RCC is not derived from Apostolic Succession. But, as your Catechism points out, the RCC acknowledges only ONE authority: itself. It just appoints the one it sees in the mirror. And it has nothing to do with Apostolic Succession (real or imagined).

Actually you are very wrong on this subject both the EO, OO and RCC all acknowledge and accept each other's Apostolic Succesion.

EXACTLY as I posted. Read what I posted.

But the RCC does NOT acknowledge the AUTHORITY of anyone/anything but it's own self - it's OWN bishops. Read CCC # 85. The AUTHORITY which the RCC acknowledges is the bishops IN COMMUNION WITH THE POPE - not "those with Apostolic Succession."

IF the RCC claimed those with Apostolic Succession had this Authority (and it does not - read CCC 85), then it would have quite a problem:
1. It would have to prove that every bishop in the RCC can trace his ordination back to some Apostle, and while such is CLAIMED, we all know it has zero historic confirmation of such since we have virtually NO historic records of ordinations for the first 300 years (quite a huge gap there, huh?)
2. It would have to explain why other bishops with just as strong of a case are NOT authoritative (EO, OO, Anglican, Lutheran, probably Methodist, etc.)
But all that is moot. Apostolic Succession is not the basis of Authority, it saying that it has it is.



.

 

[boswd]

Does the LCMS recognize the Authority of the Southern Baptist to make policy and doctrine for the LCMS?

 

[TheCatholic]

ouch

 

[E.C.]

You'd at least have to take it seriously.

Heaven forbid! 0

I wonder what authority you give to Hinduism?

Since Judaism is older than orthodoxy, do you regard it as more authoritative? Since Gnosticism is older than any known denomination, do you regard it as more authoritative?



.

I would give Hinduism, at the very least, a bit more credence on how to live one's life than I would a Baptist because at least Hindus do not dress themselves as wolves in sheep's clothing just to put another rear end in the pew.

The Jews I would give more credence than the Adventists on the Old Testament and how the world was before Christ.

The Gnostics I would give more respect for than the Mormons because at least the Gnostics had some idea of what they were talking about and didn't bother me by knocking on my door once or twice a year.


But of course, since neither Hinduism, Judaism nor Gnosticism worship Christ who is God the Son with two natures and two wills on one neatly packaged hypostatic unionized body; then we're not talking green M&M vs. red M&M. Since they do not worship Christ as described, we are talking M&Ms vs. some disgusting thing like broccolli.

Actually you are very wrong on this subject both the EO, OO and RCC all acknowledge and accept each other's Apostolic Succesion.

Yeah, but sometimes you come across one or two and can't help but wonder.

Does the LCMS recognize the Authority of the Southern Baptist to make policy and doctrine for the LCMS?

Zing!



But getting back to my apparently borderline heretical test of time notion...

Let's take a look at the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The last time the Creed was changed was in 381 at the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381. It is 2009. That has been 1,628 years in which the Creed has not been changed. Given that, I would have to say the Creed is the closest we'll come to putting the whole of Christianity in a nutshell because so far it has survived the passage of time. At least in the East. In the West there's that funny Filioque thing to worry about.

Or better yet, let's look at how the date of Pascha (Easter) is calculated. The formulae was discussed and settled upon at the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325. This is 2009, so that's about 1,684 years in which the date of Pascha has been calculated the same way which means that that method works which means it has survived the test of time.


If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That is the entire history of Orthodox Christianity in a nutshell whereas the West seems to believe, that if something is not broken than it must be "fixed" for the sake of "fixing things".

 

[ebia]

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That is the entire history of Orthodox Christianity in a nutshell whereas the West seems to believe, that if something is not broken than it must be "fixed" for the sake of "fixing things".

While it might be fair comment to suggest that we try to fix things that are not, in fact, broken it could equally be suggested that you assume that nothing old needs fixing and therefore cannot see those things that do need a good make-over.

 

[MamaZ]

May I ask how a baptist are wolves in sheeps clothing? I had to edit this because I had a senior moment.

 

[ebia]

May I ask how a baptist dresses themselves as sheep in wolves clothing?

It's certainly an interesting image.

 

[MamaZ]

.......

 

[MamaZ]

It's certainly an interesting image.

Wow I really had a moment and got all tongue twisted..

 

[TheCatholic]

May I ask how a baptist are wolves in sheeps clothing? I had to edit this because I had a senior moment.

I would not go that far.
I just say they teach error

 

[MamaZ]

I would not go that far.
I just say they teach error

Such as?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Does the LCMS recognize the Authority of the Southern Baptist to make policy and doctrine for the LCMS?

1. CCC 85 does not so much as MENTION policy or doctrine. It's about AUTHORITY. And what I said is that it has NOTHING to do with Apostolic Succession; it does NOT say that Authority lies with those who have Apostolic Succession.

2. If you can find it, quote the Lutheran Catechism where it states, "The sole authority to interpret Scriptures lies with the bishops of The Lutheran Church and whatever they teach is to be accepted as the words of Jesus to be accepted with docility." Now, read the Catholic Catechism # 85, 87. IF the Lutheran Catechism says that same thing, then quote it. If not, then....




Originally Posted by boswd

Originally Posted by Josiah

Yes, the RCC acknowledges the SUCCESSION of bishops outside of itself, but it does NOT acknowledge their AUTHORITY - which is the point of this thread. And thus, this "disconnect" proves that AUTHORITY in the RCC is not derived from Apostolic Succession. But, as your Catechism points out, the RCC acknowledges only ONE authority: itself. It just appoints the one it sees in the mirror. And it has nothing to do with Apostolic Succession (real or imagined).
​

Actually you are very wrong on this subject both the EO, OO and RCC all acknowledge and accept each other's Apostolic Succesion.
​

EXACTLY as I posted. Read what I posted.

But the RCC does NOT acknowledge the AUTHORITY of anyone/anything but it's own self - it's OWN bishops. Read CCC # 85. The AUTHORITY which the RCC acknowledges is the bishops IN COMMUNION WITH THE POPE - not "those with Apostolic Succession."

IF the RCC claimed those with Apostolic Succession had this Authority (and it does not - read CCC 85), then it would have quite a problem:
1. It would have to prove that every bishop in the RCC can trace his ordination back to some Apostle, and while such is CLAIMED, we all know it has zero historic confirmation of such since we have virtually NO historic records of ordinations for the first 300 years (quite a huge gap there, huh?)
2. It would have to explain why other bishops with just as strong of a case are NOT authoritative (EO, OO, Anglican, Lutheran, probably Methodist, etc.)
But all that is moot. Apostolic Succession is not the basis of Authority, it saying that it has it is.



.

 

[E.C.]

May I ask how a baptist are wolves in sheeps clothing? I had to edit this because I had a senior moment.

Well, before I got to this thread I was reading one in TAW which had a link to a group of Baptists in the Republic of Georgia (a country whose people have been Orthodox since about the 9th century or there abouts) who do things contrary to Baptists such as...

-dress as Orthodox clergy
-display icons
-use the title of "Saints"
-venerate saints

and so on and so forth. Basically, take everything which the Baptists and other Protestants have an issue with Orthodoxy and those Baptists in the Republic of Georgia do exactly that.

It is quite sad and disheartening to think that Baptists groups here in the USA are giving some Orthodox here problems for the way our clergy dress and for using icons when they themselves are supporting proselytizers doing the same thing thousands of miles away!

Needless to say that thread was on my mind and when I saw boswd's witty comment about the ELCA and Baptists, the old saying "wolves in sheep's clothing" came to mind.

Any who, we've derailed the thread enough. If you want to have a better idea of what I'm talking about, feel free to wander over to TAW.


And now back to our regularly scheduled program...

But, we've derailed the thread enough

 

[ebia]

I would not go that far.
I just say they teach error

Don't we all?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by TheCatholic
I would not go that far.
I just say they teach error

Don't we all?

I suppose that depends on how one defines error in the Church

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870602/
Roman church errors and inventions

http://www.christianforums.com/t6983026/
Errors of Protestism

 

[visionary]

Our Father which are in Heaven
Hallowed Be thy name
Thy Kingdom come
Thy Will be done
On earth as it is in heaven..

Shouldn't we all pray for God's authority in every aspect of our lives

 

[ConqueredbyLove]

Our Father which are in Heaven
Hallowed Be thy name
Thy Kingdom come
Thy Will be done
On earth as it is in heaven..

Shouldn't we all pray for God's authority in every aspect of our lives

Yes! This morning, the Lord brought this Scripture to my mind....


Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

G1849

(IV) Power over persons and things, dominion, authority, rule.
(A) Particularly and generally (Mat_28:18, "Unto me was given all authority in heaven and on earth

Above copied and pasted from the "Complete Word Study Dictionary"

The Lord Jesus Christ is to be our authority...