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

[LittleLambofJesus]

[/size]
Well, even the RCC doesn't claim that Protestant baptisms are invalid if properly done, so I am mystified at that point.

Well I for one am glad to see more threads concerning the RCC and Orthodox instead of those against Protestants. This thread is very interesting

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6449385
Vatican Takes Step to Absorb Orthodox Church

 

[Thekla]

Do you see the highlighted areas above? Authority came from scripture first you say, then you say, if authority is from scripture.

Because of such thinking, and nearly everyone does as much, if I understand you/them correctly, we get various teachings on baptism (full, partial, baby, after believing). Why do we baptize, and thus we get: to be saved, as a symbol, to show identification. The truth is back in the OT, which was for an example for the NT as taught by Christ Jesus to the Apostles.

No, all authority comes from Christ; scripture is about Christ.

For some Churches, they claim authority to baptize from scripture.

The early Church baptized before they had scripture that records the baptism of the New Covenant. Also, not all Churches had access to the OT.

Christ authorized and showed baptism.
John baptized the OT baptism.
(The baptism of John versus the baptism of the New Covenant is discussed in Acts.)

 

[Yeznik]

Hello Racer,

I have been trying to keep up with this thread, and I don’t know if this has been addressed yet. I don’t understand the OP specifically,

please explain to us where the authority of your originated from and provide evidence or substantiation.

[FONT=&quot]Could you please explain the authority of what you are asking? [/FONT]

 

[tz620q]

Is any Catholic or Orthodox Christian intending to answer the OP's question...or should we all move along to some other thread?

How does one seek serious discussion by stating a rather vague question, refusing to clarify the scope of it, and placing limitations on the evidence that can be used to validate the claims?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

This thread is very interesting

.... because of the deafening silence.


IMHO, big, egotistical, divisive claims of self alone for self alone require big, conclusive, reasonable evidence and support. Something regarded as valid, something more than, "the self same so self claim that the self claims of self alone are valid." Unless that same self regards such as valid when the other denomination making them uses the same argument.




.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

How does one seek serious discussion by stating a rather vague question, refusing to clarify the scope of it, and placing limitations on the evidence that can be used to validate the claims?

Matt 21:24 And making answer Jesus said unto them "I also will ask you one thing which if ye tell me I also will tell you by what authority these things I am doing
25 The immersion by John, whence was it, of heaven or of men"? But they began to deliberate among themselves saying "if we say of heaven He will say unto us 'wherefore then did ye not believe him'?
26 But if we say of men we fear the multitude for all as a prophet are holding John".
27 And making answer to Jesus they said "we know not". He also said unto them "neither do I tell you by what authority these things I am doing".

 

[Thekla]

As I pointed out, Lutherans understand that it's CHRISTIANS that have the command and responsibility to baptize, not The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod - uniquely, solely or especially or even at all - or any other denomination.

And the Christians who are Lutherans claim the authority to baptize; if they do not have the authority to baptize, why do they do it ? And where do they derive the notion that Christians have the authority to baptize ?

In receiving converts and not re-baptizing them, how does this show that the RC alone claims it has the authority to baptize ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

For some Churches, they claim authority to baptize from scripture.

I have no idea what denominations you speak of.
Except for the RCC and LDS, no denomination known to me argues that IT has the Authority to Baptize (especially, IT alone). Generally, it is accepted that CHRISTIANS have the command and responsibility to baptize, not any specific denomination.


Back to the reasoning and substantiation that the RCC uses for the claims of itself exclusively for itself exclusively and if such is regarded as valid. And yes, IMHO, it is appropriate to consider the validity of the same from the other denomination that claims the same things for itself exclusively: the LDS. Because if the argument is unreasonable or invalid, then it's unreasonable and invalid. And vise versa.


IMHO, big, egotistical, divisive claims of self alone for self alone require big, conclusive, reasonable evidence and support. Something regarded as valid, something more than, "the self same so self claim that the self claims of self alone are valid." Unless that same self regards such as valid when the other denomination making them uses the same argument.





Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[ikonographics]

Gwenyfur,

Can you recommend any good links? I live in a rural area and don't often get to book stores. I guess I could order them off the internet. But, I'm more likely to read up on internet sources if good ones are available.

I highly recommend OODE

 

[Albion]

How does one seek serious discussion by stating a rather vague question, refusing to clarify the scope of it, and placing limitations on the evidence that can be used to validate the claims?

The placing of limits is not a problem. All that was said on that score was that there ought not be some curt and wildly open-ended answer like "Christ" or "Tradition." Obviously, the answer requires something more specific than that.

But as to the rest of what you've said, how much doubt is there, really?

I know that several people have written that they are uncertain, and I would have thought that Racer would have restated it by now, however enough has been posted anyway that I can't imagine any good reason for the silence. I, in fact, offered several tentative answers myself that I thought were fair to both churches, wanting to see if there was agreement or not ...and received no reply (that I could find) from any Catholic or EO saying, either "that's wrong" or "that's what we'd say all right."

 

[ikonographics]

" [4.] I HAVE often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
[5.] But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason,--because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.
[6.] Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors."

St Vincent of Lerins - 5th Century

 

[Albion]

I have no idea what denominations you speak of.
Except for the RCC and LDS, no denomination known to me argues that IT has the Authority to Baptize (especially, IT alone). Generally, it is accepted that CHRISTIANS have the command and responsibility to baptize, not any specific denomination.

I'm quite sure that you're confusing people here by putting it that way since the baptisms of one denomination are accepted in most others, the RCC included (I'm not sure of the EO on this one, but Thekla says they don't take an exclusivist stance on this). And the more we talk about baptism the more we avoid dealing with the bigger issue, which I think concerns the claim of any church body to be, itself, uniquely the Church Christ founded.

 

[Thekla]

I have no idea what denominations you speak of.
Except for the RCC and LDS, no denomination known to me argues that IT has the Authority to Baptize (especially, IT alone). Generally, it is accepted that CHRISTIANS have the command and responsibility to baptize, not any specific denomination.

and what are (collective) Christians ? The Church, the body of Christ.

There is no difference between saying:
"Christians have the authority to baptize." and saying,
"The Church has the authority to baptize."

 

[tz620q]

Matt 21:24 And making answer Jesus said unto them "I also will ask you one thing which if ye tell me I also will tell you by what authority these things I am doing
25 The immersion by John, whence was it, of heaven or of men"? But they began to deliberate among themselves saying "if we say of heaven He will say unto us 'wherefore then did ye not believe him'?
26 But if we say of men we fear the multitude for all as a prophet are holding John".
27 And making answer to Jesus they said "we know not". He also said unto them "neither do I tell you by what authority these things I am doing".

LLOJ, you are golden when it comes to pulling out pertinent scripture.

I was thinking about this recently. My thinking fell into two questions.

1. Would Jesus have had this authority from God, if he had never exercised it? In other words, is unexercised authority a valid form of authority? This leads to thoughts like, if Jesus or God could cure all the ill in the world and do not do it, is their authority absolute?

IMHO, authority cannot be judged by performance. It must be judged by the source of the authority. This leads back to the OP.

2. Did Jesus pass this authority that was granted him by God, the Father, on to others?

The first thing that is claimed by the EOC and RCC is that this did in fact happen and that this happened directly from Jesus Christ and not through later mechanizations of the Holy Spirit. So before we go further with this discussion, we need to either agree on this assertion or decide that we are so far apart in our understanding of how one obtains authority to even be able to discuss it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

[/size]
I'm quite sure that you're confusing people here by putting it that way since the baptisms of one denomination are accepted in most others, the RCC included (I'm not sure of the EO on this one, but Thekla says they do). And the more we talk about baptism the more we avoid dealing with the bigger issue, which I think concerns the claim of any church body to be, itself, uniquely the Church Christ founded.

 

[calluna]

How does one seek serious discussion by stating a rather vague question, refusing to clarify the scope of it, and placing limitations on the evidence that can be used to validate the claims?

Ok, ok, ok. Let's boil it down. Herr Ratzinger has a piece of paper somewhere that says that he is the legitimate Vicar of Christ. Let us see the document that did the same for Linus. Furnish us with that and we'll all go home.

 

[Albion]

IMHO, authority cannot be judged by performance. It must be judged by the source of the authority. This leads back to the OP.

2. Did Jesus pass this authority that was granted him by God, the Father, on to others?

The first thing that is claimed by the EOC and RCC is that this did in fact happen and that this happened directly from Jesus Christ and not through later mechanizations of the Holy Spirit. So before we go further with this discussion, we need to either agree on this assertion or decide that we are so far apart in our understanding of how one obtains authority to even be able to discuss it.

Let me be one to thank you for answering...and on topic.

IMO, you are correct about the source. Now....I'd have to follow that up by asking "How do you know that this happened (Jesus himself passed it on to others, in particular one church body)?"

 

[Thekla]

I'm quite sure that you're confusing people here by putting it that way since the baptisms of one denomination are accepted in most others, the RCC included (I'm not sure of the EO on this one, but Thekla says they don't take an exclusivist stance on this). And the more we talk about baptism the more we avoid dealing with the bigger issue, which I think concerns the claim of any church body to be, itself, uniquely the Church Christ founded.

Baptism is an action, and reveals in the acting the belief of those who act by baptizing (both the authority of that Church its exclusivity by accepting or refusing the baptism of a "convert").

We can discuss "unique authority" as a concept sundered from action (which is a dead idea, because what is not enacted is less perfectly understood), or we can gain an understanding of the concept by seeing how it is enacted.

 

[Rick Otto]

Some of His authority not ll of His authority.

 

[SummaScriptura]

Baptism is an action, and reveals in the acting the belief of those who act by baptizing (both the authority of that Church its exclusivity by accepting or refusing the baptism of a "convert").

We can discuss "unique authority" as a concept sundered from action (which is a dead idea, because what is not enacted is less perfectly understood), or we can gain an understanding of the concept by seeing how it is enacted.

I appreciate the fact the EOC never forgot the meaning of the word Baptizo, ie, "to dunk", for 2,000 years.