Authoritative

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I have noticed that this word, "authoritative", has been thrown around here and there. And I think it would be productive if we discuss how to determine what is authoritative and what is not.

What makes something authoritative?

After all, we all want to believe that we are learning from truly authoritative sources.

Not a simple discussion.....

Of course, some just appoint self as The Authority (perhaps 'accountable' directly to GOD as self so arbitrates). This is always convenient.... Of course, even such has SOME limit on their ego so they may TRY to come up with some justification for that. "God made me so, cuz I say He did" is the most common.

Of course, we can choose to be under an Authority which is not me. Not any of us. In civil societies, for example, we may submit to the Rule of Law. Since that Law is neither you NOR I, beyond and above and outside ANY individual, then it is over all. Not a case of "which has authority: Me over you or you over me?" It becomes a case of "all of us under that...." But, of course, that requires that we all embrace THAT as the Authority. Some, you'll find, can/will embrace nothing other than the Authority they see in the mirror....


The Authority rarely (if ever) can be proven. My degree is in physics. In a sense, our authority is repeatable laboratory experimentation and math. Can any physicist prove that such IS the authority? Or even correct? Not really, not in any absolute sense. A signfiicant part of it is that we ALL accept it as such AND it's not any of us. The more objective, knowable, unalterable such is, the better it is to identify it and for it to serve as such. A soldier needs to know who his CO is, and he can't just say: "I am my own infallible CO because I'm the CO so I can so designate myself as the CO."

Of course, once the Authority is designated, that leads to other questions.... But you've asked a more fundamental one, one that must be answered first.






.

 

[brinny]

​

would you be so kind as to explain?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I think if something has survived the test of time than that would, at the very least, make it quasi-authoritative.

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?



.

 

[visionary]

I wonder what authority to 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?
.

Good point

 

[TheCatholic]

I wonder what authority you give to Hinduism?

That depends: Are you a Hindu?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

That depends: Are you a Hindu?

The point was made:

Originally Posted by E.C.

I think if something has survived the test of time than that would, at the very least, make it quasi-authoritative.
​

Hinduism is often regarded to be some 6,000 years old. Considerably older than most would regard Christianity. Thus, using the rubric of E.C, Hinduism would seem to be, at the very lest, quasi-authoritative. The point was THE TEST OF TIME.

I've always found the "what's older" rubric a curious one, especially since the dogmas often embraced are NEWER than the views they displaced.


For example, the OLDEST view ("test of time") is to not teach Transubstantiation. MANY centuries LATER, one denomination did begin to teach it and in 1551 made it dogma. So, using "the test of time," wouldn't the older view be true and the newer one not? Or, for some time, no one said anything about how often Mary had sex after Jesus was born (if at all) - the view of about 49,995+ denominations today, but LATER some began to teach that She did exactly zero times. So which has better withstood the "test of time?" Ah, this rubric doesn't work too well for the RCC, where dogmas OFTEN are newer than what it now calls wrong. Using "the test of time" as is being suggested, would seem to suggest the opposite is the case. But then I don't accept this rubric. We'd all be Jews if we did.




.




.

 

[Sphinx777]

would you be so kind as to explain?

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.

 

[TheCatholic]

The point was made:

The point really is that you asked a silly question. We are all Christians here, and the discussion is about authority within Christianity. Why would you throw a monkey wrench into the thread?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church...

,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[TheCatholic]

In heaven God is authorative... and His will be on earth even as it is in heaven... in the mean time.. we have the pope claiming God's authority.... by apostle assension

What is "apostle assension"?

Are you attempting to say Apostoilic Succession?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Thank you sphinx for the reps on those Pope pictures I quoted.....but I didn't quote them for reps

 

[visionary]

What is "apostle assension"?

Are you attempting to say Apostoilic Succession?

yeah.. fingers keyboard funny...

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

What is "apostle assension"?

Are you attempting to say Apostoilic Succession?

Are you attempting to say Apostolic Succession?


Of course, since the RCC only acknowledges it's OWN as part of this succession (as least in terms of authority), it's actually moot to our discussion: self is simply declaring self to be the Authority.

CCC 85, The Catholic Church (alone) states that, "The task of giving an AUTHORITATIVE interpretation to the Word of God (either in its written or in the form of oral Tradition) has been entrusted to the teaching office of The [Catholic] Church ALONE. This means that the task of interpretion has been entrusted to the Bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome."
Thus, the RCC simply declares the bishops of itself alone to be the sole authority. It doesnt say, "all those who can trace their line of succession back to one of the 13 or 14 Apostles" (thus making Apostolic Succession the point). Of course, it doesn't do that because there are no bishops that can trace their line of succession back to the Apostles (we have virtually NO records from the first 3 centuries of Christianity, the "fake" retroactively created "lists" not withstanding), and those in the EO, OO, Anglican, Lutheran and beyond could do so as well as the RCC can - and the RCC doesn't want to give THEM any authority, it insists on giving only one "ALONE" this authority: itself.





.

 

[TheCatholic]

Thank you sphinx for the reps on those Pope pictures I quoted.....but I didn't quote them for reps

Maybe you can get an indulgence for that

 

[TheCatholic]

Of course, since the RCC only acknowledges it's OWN as part of this succession (as least in terms of authority), it's actually moot to our discussion

Actually we recognize Orthodox Bishops too.
You have made another error

 

[visionary]

Are you attempting to say Apostolic Succession?


Of course, since the RCC only acknowledges it's OWN as part of this succession (as least in terms of authority), it's actually moot to our discussion: self is simply declaring self to be the Authority.

CCC 85, The Catholic Church (alone) states that, "The task of giving an AUTHORITATIVE interpretation to the Word of God (either in its written or in the form of oral Tradition) has been entrusted to the teaching office of The [Catholic] Church ALONE. This means that the task of interpretion has been entrusted to the Bishops in communion with the Bishop of Rome."
Thus, the RCC simply declares the bishops of itself alone to be the sole authority. It doesnt say, "all those who can trace their line of succession back to one of the 13 or 14 Apostles" (thus making Apostolic Succession the point). Of course, it doesn't do that because there are no bishops that can trace their line of succession back to the Apostles (we have virtually NO records from the first 3 centuries of Christianity, the "fake" retroactively created "lists" not withstanding), and those in the EO, OO, Anglican, Lutheran and beyond could do so as well as the RCC can - and the RCC doesn't want to give THEM any authority, it insists on giving only one "ALONE" this authority: itself.
.

now that is what I call laying claim to fame

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Actually we recognize Orthodox Bishops too.

You have made another error

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).



.

 

[ConqueredbyLove]

But he can excersize the gift of Infallibility, when God decides it is time.

There is already a thread on the pope though so I don't want to go too far into that

OK, but would you just try to explain a little to us what you mean by exercising "the gift of Infallibiltiy"?

I have never heard of that gift before...

 

[TheCatholic]

OK, but would you just try to explain a little to us what you mean by exercising "the gift of Infallibiltiy"?

I have never heard of that gift before...

Try reading this:
Papal Infallibility