From Where do the RCC and the EOC get the Authority they claim for themselves?

[racer]

So, for you guys who belong to these faiths, please explain to us where the authority of your originated from and provide evidence or substantiation.

Simple one word comments like "Jesus," "Tradition," "Scripture," won't suffice so don't waste your time, please.

And, since I am the originator of the OP, I will define the limits of what is considered off topic and what is not, if you don't like the direction the discussion goes, feel free to "unsubscribe."

 

[Uphill Battle]

good luck with that.

 

[Heber]

You think you'll get a definitive answer? I admire your faith in men and women!!

 

[Thekla]

What is your experience of these 'faiths' (ex. worshiping in their community, research etc.) ?

 

[calluna]

So, for you guys who belong to these faiths, please explain to us where the authority of your originated from and provide evidence or substantiation.

The fact that one needs to ask is conclusive.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

From Where do the RCC and the EOC get the Authority they claim for themselves?

...from the same place the LDS does. Themselves.




.

 

[calluna]

.




...from the same place the LDS does. Themselves.

"I know that he is a great and good man. He told me so himself." WS Gilbert, humorist

 

[Kolya]

I don't see the point in debating this. If one really wants to know, one either gets up and does their own research, and then draw their own conclusions. Or you stay as you are for the rest of your life.

I could quote you the genealogies of the Current Bishops back to the Apostles. But I doubt the likes of you would attribute any significance to that.

So I rest my case and say if you really want a satisfactory answer to the OP, go and ask a RCC or EOC cleric. they have been trained to give significant responses to such queries.

 

[GuardianShua]

So, for you guys who belong to these faiths, please explain to us where the authority of your originated from and provide evidence or substantiation.

Simple one word comments like "Jesus," "Tradition," "Scripture," won't suffice so don't waste your time, please.

And, since I am the originator of the OP, I will define the limits of what is considered off topic and what is not, if you don't like the direction the discussion goes, feel free to "unsubscribe."

Good Luck.​

 

[Kristos]

What "authority" are you talking about?

 

[calluna]

I don't see the point in debating this. If one really wants to know, one either gets up and does their own research, and then draw their own conclusions. Or you stay as you are for the rest of your life.

I could quote you the genealogies of the Current Bishops back to the Apostles. But I doubt the likes of you would attribute any significance to that.

He's not wet behind the ears, is he.

 

[Thekla]

So, for you guys who belong to these faiths, please explain to us where the authority of your originated from and provide evidence or substantiation.

Simple one word comments like "Jesus," "Tradition," "Scripture," won't suffice so don't waste your time, please.

And, since I am the originator of the OP, I will define the limits of what is considered off topic and what is not, if you don't like the direction the discussion goes, feel free to "unsubscribe."

This question suggests also the question: where does the Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican etc., etc. Church get its authority ?

 

[Chesterton]

...from the same place the LDS does. Themselves.

CJ, are Mormons Christians?

 

[Heber]

So I rest my case and say if you really want a satisfactory answer to the OP, go and ask a RCC or EOC cleric. they have been trained to give significant responses to such queries.

If you can find one that will talk with you. Our local RCC guy doesn't bother with any other denominations and doesn't bother to respond when you try to get to know him, either! So that line of approach is no use, here!

 

[calluna]

This question suggests also the question: where does the Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican etc., etc. Church get its authority ?

Those churches are elective, and permit the existence of each other. The RCC and EOC make exclusive claims, and came into existence via those claims. Ergo, if their claims are invalid (which they must be), they have no moral or rational right to existence, whereas Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans do have those rights.

 

[Thekla]

Those churches are elective, and permit the existence of each other. The RCC and EOC make exclusive claims, and came into existence via those claims. Ergo, if their claims are invalid (which they must be), they have no moral or rational right to existence, whereas Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans do have those rights.

The Anglicans, iirc, have as their head their monarch, and changes must pass Parliment - their existence derives from their King or Queen (which would imply that any authority this Church has is granted by their monarch).

As for the others, I'm not sure what you mean ... is it that these others have no authority, or is it something else ?

 

[Albion]

Those churches are elective, and permit the existence of each other. The RCC and EOC make exclusive claims, and came into existence via those claims. Ergo, if their claims are invalid (which they must be), they have no moral or rational right to existence, whereas Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans do have those rights.

Thanks for helping keep the discussion on the real point of the OP (as opposed to it being viewed as nothing but an invitation to people of different denominations to throw verbal stones at each other).

One answer has been offered by Kolya:

"I could quote you the genealogies of the Current Bishops back to the Apostles. But I doubt the likes of you would attribute any significance to that."

But I don't see how that answers the question since there are all kinds of churches that can trace their bishops back to the Apostles, both Catholic and Protestant. But that may be a start. Is this saying that AGE is what makes validity? Or is it transmitted manually like a piece of property? If so, bunches of churches with widely different theolgies can claim this one.

The reason Methodists and Lutherans (already mentioned) and other churches claim validity is because they feel that ALL who truly preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments are the Church of Christ. If a church doesn't do that, then it follows that it is not valid, but if a thousand church bodies do indeed teach and practice the essentials of what Jesus taught, they are naturally going to feel validated by his intention.

 

[Chesterton]

...from the same place the LDS does. Themselves.

CJ, are Mormons Christians?

Of course that was a trapping question, so why wait, I’ll spell it out.

If you say “yes, Mormons are Christians”, then you hold heretical beliefs.

If you say “no”, then by considering the LDS and the RC, EO and OO as having equivalent authority (none, or worse than none) and being otherwise equivalent, you’re saying there was no Christianity for 1,500 years after Christ. You’re saying the blood of the early martyrs was spilled as folly. Christ said he was founding a Church; he said he’d send the Holy Spirit to guide it, and you make Christ a liar.

 

[Albion]

The Anglicans, iirc, have as their head their monarch, and changes must pass Parliment - their existence derives from their King or Queen (which would imply that any authority this Church has is granted by their monarch).

The Anglican Church derives its authority from the same place your church does.

And by the way, your Ecumenical Patriarch cannot do a thing, by law, unless the Turkish government--a Muslim government--permits it. The Queen in England actually has virtually no involvement in Church affairs or rights other than ceremonial ones, and that only refers to one country out of the hundred or so in which there are self-governing Anglican churches, many of them larger than the Church of England.

 

[Albion]

Of course that was a trapping question, so why wait, I’ll spell it out.

If you say “yes, Mormons are Christians”, then you hold heretical beliefs.

If you say “no”, then by considering the LDS and the RC, EO and OO as having equivalent authority (none, or worse than none) and being otherwise equivalent, you’re saying there was no Christianity for 1,500 years after Christ. You’re saying the blood of the early martyrs was spilled as folly. Christ said he was founding a Church; he said he’d send the Holy Spirit to guide it, and you make Christ a liar.

All of that seems to me to be much ado about nothing. To say something is "Christian" does not require the speaker to define whether it is either orthodox or heterodox. Those terms are applicable, after all, only in they eyes of the beholder.

The real point is just that any of these churches, whether LDS or RCC or EO or some other, that is claiming exclusive validity...is making up the basis for the claim for itself.

If we turn to other churches which don't claim to be the one and only one, that doesn't apply.