Church authority

[graceandpeace]

There is a thread I started in STR about Church authority, seeing it could provide a reference for why I am starting this topic. You can view it here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7845904/

The authority question is one of the toughest things I find myself going over again & again.

If the Church is the interpreter of the Bible (or tradition, etc), how do I know they are right?

Looking at the different churches with apostolic succession (or more broadly churches in general)...if the consensus of one group is this, & the consensus of another group is that, who is in a position to decide who is right?

Well, RCC & EOC claim both to be "true" to the exclusion of others, unless I missed something, but as far as I can tell that solves nothing. First, who interprets the interpreter? Second, how am I to know which is the "true" body in the first place from where I should be seeking an interpretation?

It seems to me at the end of the day, every church body is in some form of schism & that the idea that one body - & one body alone - is "true" seems false or at least unprovable. It seems to really come down to how you interpret certain texts & bits of history. If that's the case, then how can anyone be sure beyond their OWN interpretation - not just of history, but the religion, too? Aren't we all just choosing based on our own understanding?

So, explain to me why your particular apostolic church has authority. Further, if you are RC or EO, explain to me why you think your church is the "true" Church in exclusion to others & how anyone can be certain they have interpreted history correctly to even come to such a conclusion.

 

[Cappadocious]

G&P,

The internet is filled with vapid apologetics. As a member of Christianforums.net, an American Evangelical-style forum, you have been exposed to a number of apologetic arguments set in this style.

Some you may be familiar with:

"Who compiled the canon? The church!..."
"How can you trust your interpretation? The church..."

These are just empty platitudes which people sling back and forth, and it seems that you're reaching the tail end of what little substance they might've once had for you.

Your question involves, in part, the greater question of what we can know about the state of things in general; to sufficiently answer this question with any rigor is beyond my meager familiarity with Epistemology.

What I do believe, though, is that if we are truly human beings made in the image and likeness of God, and have a purpose, then there will always be some element of risk in the things we choose to believe and do.

We throw our hats in the ring and do our best.

That said, I would like to contest something in your post:

Well, RCC & EOC claim both to be "true" to the exclusion of others, unless I missed something

The RCC and EOC don't claim to have monopolies on truth; if this were the case, then they wouldn't have shared truths. What they do claim, respectively, is being in the right about certain truths (the proper ecclesiastical structure, understandings of Original Sin, the permissibility of divorce, etc.) having certain practices, an ethos, etc. The Church which remains in relevant continuity with Christ and his Gospel, then, would be the right Church. How does one recognize this? You're going to get mixed answers.

I have found in the Orthodox Churches the most beautiful and true expression of the Christian faith. For me this was a matter of convincing(ly) personal experiences and trials, resonance with certain key doctrines, and some key people I met. As such, my reasons for believing that the EOC is the Church are not wholly directly transmittable in a word-for-word way.

 

[Albion]

It looks like two different concepts are being mixed together here. Apostolic Succession is believed to maintain a valid priesthood and valid sacraments. It doesn't guarantee any invulnerability to error when the church makes decisions affecting doctrine.

There is a thread I started in STR about Church authority, seeing it could provide a reference for why I am starting this topic. You can view it here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7845904/

The authority question is one of the toughest things I find myself going over again & again.

If the Church is the interpreter of the Bible (or tradition, etc), how do I know they are right?

Looking at the different churches with apostolic succession (or more broadly churches in general)...if the consensus of one group is this, & the consensus of another group is that, who is in a position to decide who is right?

Well, RCC & EOC claim both to be "true" to the exclusion of others, unless I missed something, but as far as I can tell that solves nothing. First, who interprets the interpreter? Second, how am I to know which is the "true" body in the first place from where I should be seeking an interpretation?

It seems to me at the end of the day, every church body is in some form of schism & that the idea that one body - & one body alone - is "true" seems false or at least unprovable. It seems to really come down to how you interpret certain texts & bits of history. If that's the case, then how can anyone be sure beyond their OWN interpretation - not just of history, but the religion, too? Aren't we all just choosing based on our own understanding?

So, explain to me why your particular apostolic church has authority. Further, if you are RC or EO, explain to me why you think your church is the "true" Church in exclusion to others & how anyone can be certain they have interpreted history correctly to even come to such a conclusion.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I think I have to agree with Cappadocious to a point.

I did study out doctrine and did my best to compare Bible interpretation and search for Truth. I found what seemed to resonate well and be historically accurate within the Traditional Churches - for me I will say that included Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglican. I found things I disagreed with as well, and many things I just wasn't sure about.

But I felt most closely aligned with the Orthodox Church, and their claim to historic succession also seemed to be the most valid.

(I will say though, that as long as a Church is not the ONLY expression of Christianity on earth, it seems possible that one must allow that even historic succession is not a completely perfect means of selection - I do find that I agree with the Orthodox Church, but in fairness, it is not a logical necessity for me that that criteria is a perfect one.)

But what really did it for me was going to the Church, meeting the people, seeing how they interact and live in community. It seemed to me to be the truest expression of Christianity I have seen (though two different evangelical protestant churches I belonged to also came as close - the problem is the teaching there was not really what I can completely agree with).

What I hav found is that, when I disagree with something in the Church, I set it aside. I may study it some more, but mostly I just wait, and I figured there may simply be things I disagree with. Not that much of the Orthodox Church's teachings are required dogma anyway - there is space for a variety of opinions on many things.

But as my understanding grows and I pray about it, things fell into place. What I initially was suspicious of or didn't agree with began to make sense - especially as I prayed and lived according to the faith of the Church - it begins to make sense and weave into a beautiful tapestry of faith, and I see wisdom in things I never appreciated before. It's something you have to live, to a degree, instead of just study.

Exclusion I'm not so sure about. Of course one must be in communion with the Church to receive the Eucharist. But I have yet to hear a priest or Church leader speak in such a way as to seem condemnatory toward anyone outside the Church. They will sometimes comment on what the Church sees as error, but never do I hear that only the Orthodox will be saved, for example (except from over-zealous laity online that I think may not have a grasp of the Church's actual position).

If anything, I hear that the Church believes she has the fullness of the faith. That does not mean every other church is devoid. It just means they lack something that has not been removed from the Orthodox Church. And since no other is identical, that is easily enough seen to be true. They may have a good percentage of it, but not all.

Hmmm ... I thought this thread would be about something else, since you mentioned authority. The Church does have authority, but we voluntarily place ourselves under it. To the degree we fail to submit, I suppose she lacks that authority. I don't see the Orthodox Church particularly exercising authority - all I see is the drawing out of what is expected to be the Christian faith - we choose to agree or disagree - and we have a priest who serves as a spiritual guide and helper - I suppose we allow him to or not. But as far as exercising authority - it hardly seems to be an issue. I have seen much more authoritative statements handed down from my previous churches - MUCH more so.

As a matter of fact, the only "demand" of authority I can think of that has been laid upon me so far is that I not commune at Churches that are not Orthodox after becoming a catechumen. Since that is automatically excommunicating oneself, it seems perfectly reasonable.

 

[graceandpeace]

G&P,

The internet is filled with vapid apologetics. As a member of Christianforums.net, an American Evangelical-style forum, you have been exposed to a number of apologetic arguments set in this style.

Some you may be familiar with:

"Who compiled the canon? The church!..."
"How can you trust your interpretation? The church..."

These are just empty platitudes which people sling back and forth, and it seems that you're reaching the tail end of what little substance they might've once had for you.

Your question involves, in part, the greater question of what we can know about the state of things in general; to sufficiently answer this question with any rigor is beyond my meager familiarity with Epistemology.

I get what you're saying I think. Things started sounding circular, but it's possible I was overthinking stuff.

What I do believe, though, is that if we are truly human beings made in the image and likeness of God, and have a purpose, then there will always be some element of risk in the things we choose to believe and do.

We throw our hats in the ring and do our best.

That seems to agree with what I already thought - we are all just making our own interpretation of things to arrive at our religious choices, including where we choose to attend church.

That said, I would like to contest something in your post:

The RCC and EOC don't claim to have monopolies on truth; if this were the case, then they wouldn't have shared truths. What they do claim, respectively, is being in the right about certain truths (the proper ecclesiastical structure, understandings of Original Sin, the permissibility of divorce, etc.) having certain practices, an ethos, etc. The Church which remains in relevant continuity with Christ and his Gospel, then, would be the right Church. How does one recognize this? You're going to get mixed answers.

Right, but they each claim to be the one true Church in exclusion to others - correct? I know they recognize truth beyond their own boundaries.

And yes there are mixed answers - which comes back to us making our own interpretation of what's true, etc.

I have found in the Orthodox Churches the most beautiful and true expression of the Christian faith. For me this was a matter of convincing(ly) personal experiences and trials, resonance with certain key doctrines, and some key people I met. As such, my reasons for believing that the EOC is the Church are not wholly directly transmittable in a word-for-word way.

I found Orthodoxy beautiful & right in many ways, too, but felt Anglicanism was a better expression & interpretation of the faith overall. I suppose we each just choose.

 

[graceandpeace]

It looks like two different concepts are being mixed together here. Apostolic Succession is believed to maintain a valid priesthood and valid sacraments. It doesn't guarantee any invulnerability to error when the church makes decisions affecting doctrine.

I agree with you, sorry for any confusion. I was just wondering about how we determine if a church has authority, what that really means, & further how anyone choosing a church can be sure beyond their own understanding that it's the right one - or in the case of RCC, etc that it alone is the "church Jesus founded," "one true church," etc. My feeling is that we are all just making our own interpretations, & while perhaps some matters can be easily settled, others are far less clear.

 

[graceandpeace]

I think I have to agree with Cappadocious to a point.

I did study out doctrine and did my best to compare Bible interpretation and search for Truth. I found what seemed to resonate well and be historically accurate within the Traditional Churches - for me I will say that included Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, and Anglican. I found things I disagreed with as well, and many things I just wasn't sure about.

But I felt most closely aligned with the Orthodox Church, and their claim to historic succession also seemed to be the most valid.

(I will say though, that as long as a Church is not the ONLY expression of Christianity on earth, it seems possible that one must allow that even historic succession is not a completely perfect means of selection - I do find that I agree with the Orthodox Church, but in fairness, it is not a logical necessity for me that that criteria is a perfect one.)

Okay, I did the same thing (& considered the same paths), but arrived at a different answer. However, in general Anglicans & Lutherans don't view themselves as being the only church(es) Jesus set up, in contrast to the RC & EO view. It seems that would place a larger burden on RC & EO to be certain they got it all right - or maybe not, I'm just wondering.

But what really did it for me was going to the Church, meeting the people, seeing how they interact and live in community. It seemed to me to be the truest expression of Christianity I have seen (though two different evangelical protestant churches I belonged to also came as close - the problem is the teaching there was not really what I can completely agree with).

Right, which brings us back to us making our own interpretations.

What I hav found is that, when I disagree with something in the Church, I set it aside. I may study it some more, but mostly I just wait, and I figured there may simply be things I disagree with. Not that much of the Orthodox Church's teachings are required dogma anyway - there is space for a variety of opinions on many things.

But as my understanding grows and I pray about it, things fell into place. What I initially was suspicious of or didn't agree with began to make sense - especially as I prayed and lived according to the faith of the Church - it begins to make sense and weave into a beautiful tapestry of faith, and I see wisdom in things I never appreciated before. It's something you have to live, to a degree, instead of just study.

Okay, but others have done the same thing with their religious choices - so we are just following our own understandings at the end of the day it would seem.

Exclusion I'm not so sure about. Of course one must be in communion with the Church to receive the Eucharist. But I have yet to hear a priest or Church leader speak in such a way as to seem condemnatory toward anyone outside the Church. They will sometimes comment on what the Church sees as error, but never do I hear that only the Orthodox will be saved, for example (except from over-zealous laity online that I think may not have a grasp of the Church's actual position).

I don't consider the EOC (or RCC) to be condemning, but I just don't see how declaring either body to be "the" Church really fixes anything. It offers (absolute) certainty, but I'm not comfortable or confident with that assertion. The only certainty I know is Jesus. (I do consider EOC & RCC to be valid churches in the sense of having right orders & sacraments, as I consider my own to be. It's the opposing claims of the two bodies regarding truth that I find problematic.)

If anything, I hear that the Church believes she has the fullness of the faith. That does not mean every other church is devoid. It just means they lack something that has not been removed from the Orthodox Church. And since no other is identical, that is easily enough seen to be true. They may have a good percentage of it, but not all.

I could agree that Orthodox, because of historical circumstances, have been slower to change or otherwise have changed the least in some areas of practice, but I don't see that as a measure of truth.

Hmmm ... I thought this thread would be about something else, since you mentioned authority. The Church does have authority, but we voluntarily place ourselves under it. To the degree we fail to submit, I suppose she lacks that authority. I don't see the Orthodox Church particularly exercising authority - all I see is the drawing out of what is expected to be the Christian faith - we choose to agree or disagree - and we have a priest who serves as a spiritual guide and helper - I suppose we allow him to or not. But as far as exercising authority - it hardly seems to be an issue. I have seen much more authoritative statements handed down from my previous churches - MUCH more so.

As a matter of fact, the only "demand" of authority I can think of that has been laid upon me so far is that I not commune at Churches that are not Orthodox after becoming a catechumen. Since that is automatically excommunicating oneself, it seems perfectly reasonable.

My questioning was about how to know whether the Church is interpreting things rightly - & how to decide which body is interpreting the faith correctly or the best. I think it's been answered, though it's unsettling - we all just make our own interpretation & do the best we can with what we know.

 

[~Anastasia~]

As far as who is interpreting things rightly - yes, I see no other answer than to rely on our own judgment. And obviously we do not all arrive at the same place.

I try to question every step of the way. For me personally, that means making SURE that I'm not favoring this Church over another because I have a personal reason for favoring a particular teaching. That's probably my downfall. The Orthodox Church was NOT the one that "appealed" most to me on certain levels, and in fact, certain things put me off quite a bit in terms of personal preference. Who wants to be under obligation for all that fasting? LOL Not to mention, it would be nice to be easier to find a Church, and have services more often. Services in English would be my preference as well, though a minor point. And I love long services, but up to 5-ish hours is probably too long for many people.

That has always been an important part of discerning things spiritually, for me. Taking myself out of the equation.

For someone else, I suppose it might be different.

From a historic standpoint, it's difficult to ignore the claims of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches. Of course, I generally hear each one claim that the other split off from them. In that case, honestly, I find the EO's position to make more sense historically. But ... unless you bolster that position with a beliefs that God would not allow the "One" Church to go a wrong way, it is less important, so for many folks I suppose that part really doesn't matter, essentially.

It does come down to our personal interpretations. I see no way around that. We have to do the best we can, be as honest as we can. But in the end ... unless we ourselves think that God will deny salvation to all outside of the "one true Church" ... is it a matter of eternal consequence? Again I suppose there will be different interpretations though.

If there is that niggling doubt, then I would suggest one needs to keep the matter in prayer and study, if one is not yet comfortable with one's choice. I'm not saying that's you - just speaking generally.

I wish there was the One Church with no question in the matter - but on the other hand, there have always been factions, heresies, false teachers. Even when there was One Church, there was danger of being misled by false teachers within it. Always we have had a degree of responsibility ourselves, I think.

 

[com7fy8]

My questioning was about how to know whether the Church is interpreting things rightly - & how to decide which body is interpreting the faith correctly or the best. I think it's been answered, though it's unsettling - we all just make our own interpretation & do the best we can with what we know.

About "authority" > Hebrews 13:17 does say,

"Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief; for that would be unprofitable for you."

So, yes, I would say, God does have His leaders for us . . . ones who God Himself trusts; so He expects us to trust them, also.

But how do we make sure we know who God's real leaders are?

We can pray and trust God to guide us. He knows. His leading and guiding are infallible. He is able to guide us to whoever He wants us to trust to lead us.

But we know we can get things wrong, because we're not perfect; so . . . I would say simply trust our Father to make sure we really are guided by Him. "Test all things; hold fast what is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21) So, yes God expects us to be able to test what is and what is not good With Him, we can

By the way, I would say . . . our Father is especially concerned about who He wants to lead us. So, this is about who a person is, not first about what are correct beliefs and practices. You might consider 1 Timothy 3:1-10 with 1 Peter 5:3 > see who is feeding you example of how to become real with God and how to love any and all people like Jesus wants (Matthew 5:46). A Christian example leader is someone you know personally so you can feed on that person's example, I consider. "God is not distant, nor are His leaders."

You might feed on Proverbs 3:5-6 > God wants to personally guide you in "all your paths", this says, to me. My paths includes paths of my attention, thinking, feelings, choice-making (Philippians 2:13), interests, emotions, how I react and relate with people.

By the way > see what happened when Jewish leaders did not make sure with God > Joshua chapter nine.

But there are people who are spreading the attitude that we are on our own to try to figure out what God wants. They claim that our own Father is not interested in guiding us in all the details of our lives. But we have > Colossians 3:15 > "And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which also you were called in one body; and be thankful."

So, yes our Father does love us so much that He desires to rule each of us personally; it says that "in one body" we are called to this. So, our Father does desire to rule each of us with His own peace. And this ruling of His peace is so personal, right in our "hearts". So, our Father does desire to personally guide us, in our "hearts" > also please see 2 Thessalonians 3:5. Ruling is all the time. If a king is in ruling authority and control, this 24/7, not only at certain times. In our dreams, I can see . . . even . . . we need to be with God and how He rules what we do, even in our dreams ! ! ! . . . and our dreaming about what we want.

So, don't take this into your own hands; do it with Him Christianity is sharing with God.

Most of all, in us He is guiding our hearts into how to be in love and how to be loving with Him and in caring for any and all people. So, He is not only getting us to judge between groups of people, judging by what they claim to believe and do. How you interpret people's beliefs can be mistaken.

We need "faith working through love," Paul says in Galatians 5:6. So, faith is not only beliefs. But faith is connection with God (1 Corinthians 6:17) in His love and personal guiding which is infallible (Proverbs 3:5-6) But people have quit, about this, before even getting started, saying things like "God won't guide you about everything." But people are the ones who are impersonal, not God. With our Groom Jesus, we are not on our own (John 10:1-30).

 

[Cappadocious]

I don't consider the EOC (or RCC) to be condemning, but I just don't see how declaring either body to be "the" Church really fixes anything. It offers (absolute) certainty

I don't think some Christians got up one day and said, "you know, we're the Church, and those other guys aren't." This presupposes a united Judaism or a united early Chrisitanity which was later divided by, I dunno, any convenient culprit (ego, hellenism, imperialism, whatever), and the history doesn't bear that out. There were numerous competing sects of Judaism and numerous competing sects of early Christianity, with mutually-exclusive claims. So the early Christians found themselves claiming that they were the Israel of God in the Messiah (the Church) over-and-against competing sects from the beginning. You see this in the very earliest writings and records.

The bodies which persist down from that time still make the claim that they are the Church; what's the real problem with this? I don't feel irreparably divided from Muslim or Baha'i friends of mine because we believe the others' religion to have many grave errors. This feeling of division, I claim, is something we are taught to have, not something that is the natural reaction to exclusive religious claims.

it's unsettling - we all just make our own interpretation & do the best we can with what we know.

Is it?

Are you saying anything more than this: "The person who is caused to hold your beliefs is you."

Furthermore, I don't see the difference between certainty and absolute certainty.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

this topic.
The authority question is one of the toughest things I find myself going over again & again.
If the Church is the interpreter of the Bible (or tradition, etc), how do I know they are right?[quote/]

First, The Church considers that Scripture contains all things necessary for Salvation, Also that all things from scripture should be interpreted by the Bishops of the Early Centuries. This by means off the Holy Ghost leading the fathers at the debate.
In the forties and fifties most Anglican Churches carried signs in the entrance claiming that they were 'members of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church' A Catholic Communion within the Body of Christ! Accepting the Seven Councils and their interpretation by the Holy Fathers of the First three hundred years.
Archbishop Laud in his clash with Fisher claimed that'
any council freely called, ,freely attended, whose findings in the faith had been freely entered in to and accepted without compulsion by the various particular churches,' was considered infallible.

It's called Faith! This is what our Church has taught. As Anglicans, confirmed and baptised we claim to be Members of Christ and Children of God! Believe and accept.

 

[Albion]

First, The Church considers that Scripture contains all things necessary for Salvation,Also that all things from scripture should be interpreted by the Bishops of the Early Centuries.

I've read that (bolded part) in church publications from time to time, but what is it based upon and who knows what all the bishops of an undefined "early centuries" had to say? In any case, I believe that few Anglicans would give that as an answer if asked.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Traditional Anglicans hold to the ancient Church and if you read the histories of Peter Heylin , or Bishop Jeremy Collier, classical Anglican Historians ,it was considered standard to relate to the ,'Canon of Lerins' where in the 4th, Century the principal was laid down , that to be a Catholic, was to believe that which was taught, 'Every where, by everyone and at all times'. Until recently it was believed to be important that we received the same beliefs as the early fathers and Councils!Indeed, what do you think the 318 Holy Fathers of Niceae were doing at that Council but retailing the Faith that had been explained to them and working it out with Scripture?
Have you read the preamble to the S.Louis Concordat? If the Anglican Communion had believed and taught the faith over the last years would it have split?
Would Anglicans have separated and the Archbishop of Canterbury be put into the position of being asked if the Communion had a faith?

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Good reads on the subject from an Anglican position are,
Ecclesiastical History of Great Britain. Vol's 1/9. Jeremy Collins.
Ecclesia Restaurata. 2Vols. Peter Heylin.
These are all 17th/18/Cent, publications and are or were obtainable from Google Books Free.
Also Amazon have started to republish both authors at a cost! The Heylin was/ is about £9.00, whilst the Ecclesiastical history is about £20.00 per Vol.

In discussions regarding the Papacy, I don't think Anglicans can do better than studying ,
Pullan. Early Church & Rome.
Denny. Papalism.
Littledale . Petrine Claims.
All the books here I obtained from Google books. or Downloaded from the Internet.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

Christ's Revelation, Scripture and Holy Tradition!
This was authority or, magisterium in the Early Days . Along with Apostolic Succession Christ revealed it, it was written in scripture and interpreted by the bishops in Councils.
Then a host of people came and thought they could do it better, Gnostics, Donatists Rome and with eventually, today, everyman or woman thinks they are able to involve themselves in interpreting Revelation. The Catholic Church is the play thing of the liberals.

 

[Albion]

Traditional Anglicans hold to the ancient Church and if you read the histories of Peter Heylin , or Bishop Jeremy Collier, classical Anglican Historians ,it was considered standard to relate to the ,'Canon of Lerins' where in the 4th, Century the principal was laid down , that to be a Catholic, was to believe that which was taught, 'Every where, by everyone and at all times'. Until recently it was believed to be important that we received the same beliefs as the early fathers and Councils!Indeed, what do you think the 318 Holy Fathers of Niceae were doing at that Council but retailing the Faith that had been explained to them and working it out with Scripture?

Well, you're a devotee of a certain train of thought that can be found among Anglicans. When the question is asked about what "Anglicans" overall -- or in general -- believe, however, the answer is something else.

 

[luckyfredsdad]

What you are saying in fact is that the early years of the Church, with the Christian Revelation, and the apostolic college plus the early saints are redundant.
Knowledge appears to be confined to the modern years and the glossy mags.
Christ,'s revelations were meant to be permanent surely. Christ revealed to us the pathway to eternal life, he gave instruction to help us move along this path with guides. Scripture, Apostolic Succession and bishops, all within the Catholic Church of which the Anglican Church is an ancient and valid community!

 

[Albion]

What you are saying in fact is that the early years of the Church, with the Christian Revelation, and the apostolic college plus the early saints are redundant.

I don't recall saying that, LFD. No, I just looked and found that I did not. What I did was comment on what Anglicanism believes in. To you, continuing most of what the Roman Church believed at the time of the Reformation must be critically important, but I look at the actual history of the English Reformation and see that the church denounced as wrong or as immaterial some of the alleged history or tradition that the Church of Rome had made so much of. I personally am oriented towards that REFORMED Catholicism that most people think of -- rightly -- as the profile of Anglicanism, but more than that, it is the actual nature of Anglicanism, to the extent that our formularies define something "official," and even though there are those in the church who regret that certain reforms were made at all. For those folks, I have a fraternal affection, but I can't agree that they are reflecting the official or historic view of the Anglican churches.