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

[tz620q]

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)?"

I would like to avoid the "in particular one church body" for now, since that inevitably leads us to stay behind our bastions and lob rocks at each other.

So if you will let me generalize this a little, I will continue with my line of reasoning.

The line of reasoning that I have used to determine if this occured follows my own experience in how authority is passed on.

1. The person in authority choses successors.
2. He gives these successors training so that they will carry on with the programs he has started.
3. He tests these successors to see if they can do the job.
4. Finally, when he feels they are ready, he confers upon them some measure to use the authority that was granted him. In the case of Jesus, it is evident that this was partial. He did not make his disciples gods.

After the Ascension, we enter another phase where these successors are on their own. This leads to the following reasoning.

5. The successors are seen using the granted authority to do things that only the originator could do before.
6. People within the organization treat the successors with deference to their authority.

All of the above can be found in Scripture. We can use these general principles to trace this succession. This requires one more assertion though.
7. The successors have the abililty and the right to transfer this authority to their own successors.

Why don't we rest here and see what type of commentary this provokes?

 

[Trento]

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.

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutheru ( 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses".

 

[Standing Up]

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops have been handed down to us by St. IrenaeusJulius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutheru ( 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses".

You may also find this from Irenaeus interesting http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103302.htm

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops have been handed down to us by St. IrenaeusJulius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutheru ( 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses".

John 14:30 "Not still much I shall be talking with ye, for is coming/ercetai <2064> (5736), the of the world, this, ruler/Chief/arcwn <758>, and in Me not he is having anything.

John 18:3 Judas therefore having taken the band and officers out of the chief-priests/arc-ierewn <749> and Pharisees is coming/ercetai <2064> (5736) thither with torches and lamps, and weapons;

 

[Uphill Battle]

I would like to avoid the "in particular one church body" for now, since that inevitably leads us to stay behind our bastions and lob rocks at each other.

So if you will let me generalize this a little, I will continue with my line of reasoning.

The line of reasoning that I have used to determine if this occured follows my own experience in how authority is passed on.

1. The person in authority choses successors.
2. He gives these successors training so that they will carry on with the programs he has started.
3. He tests these successors to see if they can do the job.
4. Finally, when he feels they are ready, he confers upon them some measure to use the authority that was granted him. In the case of Jesus, it is evident that this was partial. He did not make his disciples gods.

After the Ascension, we enter another phase where these successors are on their own. This leads to the following reasoning.

5. The successors are seen using the granted authority to do things that only the originator could do before.
6. People within the organization treat the successors with deference to their authority.

All of the above can be found in Scripture. We can use these general principles to trace this succession. This requires one more assertion though.
7. The successors have the abililty and the right to transfer this authority to their own successors.

Why don't we rest here and see what type of commentary this provokes?

my first thought, is that the Pope previous to this one didn't choose a successor, he died, and then they ELECTED a new one. (actually, that's happened numerous times.) how can HE have passed on his authority? HE didn't choose his successor.

 

[Albion]

I would like to avoid the "in particular one church body" for now, since that inevitably leads us to stay behind our bastions and lob rocks at each other.

So if you will let me generalize this a little, I will continue with my line of reasoning.

The line of reasoning that I have used to determine if this occured follows my own experience in how authority is passed on.

1. The person in authority choses successors.
2. He gives these successors training so that they will carry on with the programs he has started.
3. He tests these successors to see if they can do the job.
4. Finally, when he feels they are ready, he confers upon them some measure to use the authority that was granted him. In the case of Jesus, it is evident that this was partial. He did not make his disciples gods.

After the Ascension, we enter another phase where these successors are on their own. This leads to the following reasoning.

5. The successors are seen using the granted authority to do things that only the originator could do before.
6. People within the organization treat the successors with deference to their authority.

All of the above can be found in Scripture. We can use these general principles to trace this succession. This requires one more assertion though.
7. The successors have the abililty and the right to transfer this authority to their own successors.

Why don't we rest here and see what type of commentary this provokes?

OK. Let's see what happens.

 

[Albion]

my first thought, is that the Pope previous to this one didn't choose a successor, he died, and then they ELECTED a new one. (actually, that's happened numerous times.) how can HE have passed on his authority? HE didn't choose his successor.

Although I was and am willing to give our friend the pause he asked for, what you say is correct. Neither did St. Peter pass on his bishopric, and this is attested to by the Roman Catholic church itself.

 

[Standing Up]

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)?"

Apparently, there is an acknowledgement of two successions, one at Rome and the other at Smyrna. See this link:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm


"But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. "

And there is this Rev. 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
but I'm getting afield.

 

[Thekla]

Although I was and am willing to give our friend the pause he asked for, what you say is correct. Neither did St. Peter pass on his bishopric, and this is attested to by the Roman Catholic church itself.

Except that the apostolic succession is in the ordination to office by those ordained by apostles or those they ordain.
As to Peter appointing or recommending a successor - the absence of written history is not the absence of the occurrence itself in history. An historical record should not be confused with history itself.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

my first thought, is that the Pope previous to this one didn't choose a successor, he died, and then they ELECTED a new one. (actually, that's happened numerous times.) how can HE have passed on his authority? HE didn't choose his successor.

An EXCELLENT point....

The RCC has a NUMBER of assumptions. That Peter had the "keys" and what that means (note that the RCC is entirely alone in the interpretation of that singular verse), that Jesus told Peter that Peter could give those keys to whomever Peter wanted, that Peter was a bishop and the bishop of Rome and that was as the Pope (all unsubstantiated). But you raise an excellent point here: PETER never gave the keys to anyone, nor has ANY bishop of Rome ever done that.

Thanks for that insight.



.

 

[Thekla]

Apparently, there is an acknowledgement of two successions, one at Rome and the other at Smyrna. See this link:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm


"But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. "

And there is this Rev. 2:8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;
but I'm getting afield.

Iirc, Smyrna and (some of) the Churches of this region were of John (who was episkopos in Ephesos).

St. Peter: Antioch then Rome.

(correction welcome)

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

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."

IF you are now arguing that Christian PEOPLE have all the responsibilities that the RCC and LDS claim each uniquely for ITSELF, then welcome to Protestantism.... But we still have the issue of this thread: From where do the RCC and EOC get the Authority each uniquely claims for it itself?

And is the "substantiation" or "reasoning" or "evidence" - the arguments - for such by the RCC and LDS reasonable, credible and valid?




.

 

[calluna]

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutheru ( 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses".

Yes, yes- but none of this is contemporary. The killer phrase is 'have been'. And there is the issue of vested interests to consider, to which modern historians give much importance.

 

[Albion]

Except that the apostolic succession is in the ordination to office by those ordained by apostles or those they ordain.

If you want to argue for validity on the basis of Apostolic Succession, neither the EO nor the RCC are unique in that. Even Protestant churches such as mine practice Apostolic Succession. The mention of Apostolic Succession leaves us still wondering, therefore, where the idea of any particular denomination or communion being valid while others are not so comes from.

That aside, this wasn't tz620's point as I read his post. He was explaining the foundation for a Roman Catholic claim to uniqueness on the basis of something to do with Peter, I think. But if he was only leading up to a consideration of Apostolic Succession, that wouldn't lead anywhere.

As to Peter appointing or recommending a successor - the absence of written history is not the absence of the occurrence itself in history. An historical record should not be confused with history itself.

I reject as nonsense this idea that men can just make dogma on the basis of nothing at all, out of what DIDN'T authorize it.

That's one of obvious failings of the Holy Tradition claims to doctrinal matters, that if it didn't happen or if there is no known reason to think that it did happen, we can just charge ahead with making up doctrines for ourselves. But in this case, we do indeed have enough information to know that Peter did not call or nominate or install or consecrate Linus as his successor, yet he's considered the second Pope by the RCC.

 

[calluna]

5. The successors are seen using the granted authority to do things that only the originator could do before.

This conflicts with Jesus' statement that all are brothers. There is no superior caste in Christ's body.

 

[Thekla]

IF you are now arguing that Christian PEOPLE have all the responsibilities that the RCC and LDS claim each uniquely for ITSELF, then welcome to Protestantism.... But we still have the issue of this thread: From where do the RCC and EOC get the Authority each uniquely claims for it itself?

And is the "substantiation" or "reasoning" or "evidence" - the arguments - for such by the RCC and LDS reasonable, credible and valid?

.

The question remains, the authority to baptize comes from "somewhere"; if the RC and EO claim that they are "only" the Church, and have a "unique responsibility" why would they accept the baptism of converts ?

 

[Thekla]

If a RC priest converts to the Lutheran Church, is the priest's RC ordination accepted by the Lutherans, or must a new ordination occur for this man to serve the role of priest/pastor in the Lutheran Church ?

 

[Thekla]

If you want to argue for validity on the basis of Apostolic Succession, neither the EO nor the RCC are unique in that. Even Protestant churches such as mine practice Apostolic Succession. The mention of Apostolic Succession leaves us still wondering, therefore, where the idea of any particular denomination or communion being valid while others are not so comes from.

That aside, this wasn't tz620's point as I read his post. He was explaining the foundation for a Roman Catholic claim to uniqueness on the basis of something to do with Peter, I think. But if he was only leading up to a consideration of Apostolic Succession, that wouldn't lead anywhere.

The chair of Moses (per Christ) was to be 'respected' even when occupied by the 'less than perfect'. The bishopric is the 'chair', not the particular occupant. But only ordination can "fill" the chair.

I reject as nonsense this idea that men can just make dogma on the basis of nothing at all, out of what DIDN'T authorize it.

That's one of obvious failings of the Holy Tradition claims to doctrinal matters, that if it didn't happen or if there is no known reason to think that it did happen, we can just charge ahead with making up doctrines for ourselves. But in this case, we do indeed have enough information to know that Peter did not call or nominate or install or consecrate Linus as his successor, yet he's considered the second Pope by the RCC.

This is a question of literacy confirming history.

We cannot deny the possibility that Peter recommended a successor (this is still done, though the recommendation is not always taken). The recommendation must be filled by ordination, though.

 

[Albion]

The chair of Moses (per Christ) was to be 'respected' even when occupied by the 'less than perfect'. The bishopric is the 'chair', not the particular occupant. But only ordination can "fill" the chair.

...which doesn't seem to have anything to do with what tz or I wrote or with the topic itself since Apostolic Succession in no way is unique to any particular denomination.

We cannot deny the possibility that Peter recommended a successor (this is still done, though the recommendation is not always taken). The recommendation must be filled by ordination, though.

We do not make doctrine, let alone claim a special commission from Christ to dispense the means of salvation, etc. on the basis of "we don't know that he DID NOT do it."

By that kind of reasoning every cult's claim to being the real and only church of Christ is iron-clad and above being doubted, yet none of us would simply let their claims pass with "I see no evidence that golden plates were not found in New York, so let's agree that the Book of Mormon is to be the basis of our doctrines." I think this should be pretty obvious.

 

[namericanboy]

...
By that kind of reasoning every cult's claim to being the real and only church of Christ is iron-clad and above being doubted, yet none of us would simply let their claims pass with "I see no evidence that golden plates were not found in New York, so let's agree that the Book of Mormon is to be the basis of our doctrines." I think this should be pretty obvious.

I like the "church" in California the uses that Genesis references to plants as an excuse to smoke marijuana as part as their service..