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

[calluna]

The chair of Moses (per Christ) was to be 'respected' even when occupied by the 'less than perfect'.

That was when Israel was under law, written law. It is a failed model that does not apply in the church, as Paul made very clear, and his commands Rome has utterly ignored, with the most terrible consequences. There cannot actually be succession for that reason.

 

[Standing Up]

That was when Israel was under law, written law. It is a failed model that does not apply in the church, as Paul made very clear, and his commands Rome has utterly ignored, with the most terrible consequences. There cannot actually be succession for that reason.

About what was the rebellion of Korah in type?

Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he (Apostle Paul) sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. ... Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.


1 Peter 5:1-2 (to the dispersion 1:1) The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

[/size]
From what I have discerned/gleened from this thread, the Orthodox have very few differences that those who say "We get ours from the bible." Except for the fact anyone has said from where they actually do get it, that is barring the assertion--Jesus Christ. As you said yourself we can all make this assertion, but by what VEHICLE did we obtain this information (that the authority comes from Jesus). I learned that first from Sunday school and preachers (before I actually read Scripture), but to the best of my knowledge each preacher I remember held a Bible in his hand (or laid in on his podium) and preached from that.

Yes, all authority for Christianity comes from Christ--but how do we know that? That is the ultimate question.

Now we're getting somewhere- I must commend you for highlighting issues that challenge each and every Christian- not just RC, EO, OO, Protestant.

Let's take this one thing at a time:

Where do Orthodox Christians say they- and by "they," let us rephrase it to "we" get authority from?

From Christ, yes, as witnessed to in the scriptures, and echoed in the witness of the Church.

Like all Christians, we accept this on faith, and we EO accept the witness of the Church as found in the scriptures and in the witness to the faith community and scriptures found within the Church.

CJ would refer to this as "self-authenticating." What seems to miss his perception is that any Christian faith statement is going to be essentially self authenticating, since the scriptures themselves are authenticated by the witness of the Church, particularly the Church in the first few centuries. We have no original copies of scripture signed and notarized, and no video footage of either a burning bush nor Jesus walking on water.

Ergo, there is no "proof" of our faith. What Prots, EO, and RC- not to mention our brothers, OO, share, is this self-authenticating witness of the primitive Christian Church: The ones who lived with the Apostles, and their descendants who preserved the letters and gospels.

Our reading of the scriptures, coupled with the writings of the ECFs, is that Christ vested His authority in a Body, as opposed to a book alone. There is good practical reason for this approach: The Arians, Montanists, Ebionites, Judaizers, et al claimed authority from the scriptures. The authority exercised then would be over claims to the truth.

I think overt hostility between the Christians who adhere to the Creed is misplaced, as we are moving basically in the same direction, and are not attempting to lead the Body into the wolf pack in the manner that early heretics were ("ravenous wolves").

If one reads the ECFs, one sees PASSIONATE and unrelenting defense of the truth, and claims to same. It is no wonder that we all, descendants as it were of the ECFs, would squabble over claim to the truth. In spite of what some Prots say, I see Protestants as no less strident in their claims to defense of the truth- nor should they back down from same. I personally find relativism to be equivalent to lukewarmness and softheadedness.

The authority that Christ refers to in scripture seems, however, to reside chiefly in spiritual realms, if one reads the Gospel carefully. Notions like His Kingdom not being "of this world" and having dominion over Satanic forces are clearly spiritual in scope, making us-each of us- to be "kings and priests."

In the long expanse of time, each of us- EO, RC, and Protestant- have flirted with governance in a magisterial sense. Calvin bought into Augustine, Justinian acted as if he was a Bishop, and various RC pontiffs have acted in kind. I think we all, for the most part, agree that this was the misplacement of authority. IOW, we have all forgotten at some point of what world the Kingdom is.

The EOC makes no claims to have authority over any other flock. Nor do we have authority "over" one another, except in the classic sense of a family. I am a son of obedience to my bishop- to a point. When our bishops propose action/doctrine like founded at Florence (council), we act upon our disagreement and refuse.

We are a voluntary family, bound in a covenant of love. Some of our bishops- and Patriarchs- might be wise to remind themselves of this.

Now, 750 words later, you may understand my reluctance to undertake an explanation- our view unto these matters is simple, yet INVOLVED.

As to what falls under the authority of the Church, that is yet another question, too much to tackle at this hour.

To clarify your answer (no fault of yours), are you saying your read that Jesus Christ gave authority to your Church in the Bible or are you saying that you read your Church has the authority it claims in the Bible.

Either way, now I will go one question further. How do you know that the Bible is right? Why do you as an Orthodox Christian accept the Truth of the Bible?

Gotta go for now!

Thanks for asking: As I mentioned above, we accept the witness of the Church to the Truth of Christ, the Man Christ; as to the presence of Christ in the Church (and in the world), and as to the apostolicity of the scriptures.

How do we know, as in REALLY know? We don't...we believe. Why believe? For me, it has been a synthesis of three streams: My experience, my reading of scripture and history, and the witness of the EO, as found in Her liturgy, Her people, Her worship, and Her charismata.
Yes, the first two streams are essentially personal in nature. The third stream is a common witness, which I suspect that every member of every Christian sect also adheres to- at least to some extent.

In sum: scripture, reason, history, witness, charismata.
Peace

 

[Albion]

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

Well, I don't remember any place in Scripture where it says not to use marijuana, so according to what Thekla told us, we are perfectly entitled to make it a dogma and say it's of God.

 

[Albion]

[/size]
Now we're getting somewhere- I must commend you for highlighting issues that challenge each and every Christian- not just RC, EO, OO, Protestant.

Let's take this one thing at a time:

Where do Orthodox Christians say they- and by "they," let us rephrase it to "we" get authority from?

From Christ, yes, as witnessed to in the scriptures, and echoed in the witness of the Church.

Like all Christians, we accept this on faith, and we EO accept the witness of the Church as found in the scriptures and in the witness to the faith community and scriptures found within the Church.

CJ would refer to this as "self-authenticating." What seems to miss his perception is that any Christian faith statement is going to be essentially self authenticating, since the scriptures themselves are authenticated by the witness of the Church,

Now we're getting into an opinion concerning the credibility of the EO system rather than merely stating what it is (as you started us off with). It's the church's explanation of the basis for the doctrines it has created, but we cannot say that its objectively true that the scriptures are "authenticated by the witness of the (particular institutional) Church."

We have no original copies of scripture signed and notarized, and no video footage of either a burning bush nor Jesus walking on water.

Right. We all receive that information because it is in Scripture and we have convinced ourselves that Scripture is what it says it is.

Ergo, there is no "proof" of our faith.

Not the parts that come through "Tradition," no. But the teachings that are Biblical rest upon the acceptance of the legitimacy of Scripture, not something unknowable.

Our reading of the scriptures, coupled with the writings of the ECFs, is that Christ vested His authority in a Body, as opposed to a book alone.

I think that this is the heart of the issue.

Then the EO basis is its leadership's perception of what was the prevailing stream of opinion existing in the early church.

This is selective, however, in as much as other churches which also base their beliefs upon this source find different and contrasting views to have prevailed then, and this despite the fact that all such churches say that there is only one Tradition and refer to the ECFs for most of that.

This is, I think,what CalJosiah called self-authenticating and what I called a matter of perceived consensus.

 

[calluna]

About what was the rebellion of Korah in type?

Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he (Apostle Paul) sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. ... Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.


1 Peter 5:1-2 (to the dispersion 1:1) The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

How do these passages impinge on succession or Korah?

 

[Standing Up]

How do these passages impinge on succession or Korah?

Korah was a Levite who tried to usurp the authority of the High Priest Aaron and of Moses. For the NT, the believer is also a priest. One can take it from there.

What little I know about the claimed line of authority from the various parts of the body (RCC, EO, OO, Protestant) is twofold. One is the 'keys of the kingdom'. Two is the 'feed My sheep'. They were given from Christ to the apostles to their successors. Surely someone can correct this 'claim of authority', if I am off base.

The passages quoted from scripture clearly show for at least one of the claims where the authority went. Keep in mind that the apostles agreed that Peter went to the Jews, while Paul went to the Gentiles. As such, Peter turns it over to those in the dispersion, while Paul turned it over to those in Ephesus.

They assigned it to the elders of the church/flock, not to all, but to the elders (plural). In turn, they were supposed to transfer the same information, authority, and power, bringing up believers from baby to maturity/elder.

Acts 20:17 And from Miletus he (Apostle Paul) sent to Ephesus, and called the elders of the church. ... Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.


1 Peter 5:1-2 (to the dispersion 1:1) The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;

 

[tz620q]

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.
.

No, my Brother in Christ, I was trying intentionally to answer the question of what claims to authority the RCC and EOC have without being exclusionary. For me that attitude is rude and unworthy of Christian love. How can we discuss anything with people if we think they are beneath us? At best this attitude leads to sermonizing and not true dialogue.

I layed out a scriptural basis for apostolic succession. Since the canon of the Bible was wisely exclusionary itself to only include writings that were thought to be by the Apostles, we have to move out of the Bible into the historical claims after the Apostolic age. Again this is not an exclusionary thing. I acknowledge the validity of Alexandria (first bishop, Mark the evangelist) as well as Constantinople (not even a city at the time of Christ, but later the seat of one of the bastions of Christianity.)

You are quite right in pointing out that apostolic succession is claimed by more than just the RCC; and the RCC recognizes valid apostolic succession outside of itself. At this point we are left debating historical claims for succession between say Rome and Londinium. With the checkered history of the early Christian church, these claims can hinge on only a few sources. So either we accept these sources as truthful and therefore the claim as historical, or we reject what little history we have and create the Benevolent Order of the Inside Straight, which meets every Tuesday night at Bernie's house for the ritual of playing poker and drinking beer.

 

[Thekla]

Does the Anglican Church claim apostolic succession for herself ?

(Aside from her apostolic succession being acknowledged by others.)


Also, to add my earlier question:

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 ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Where do Orthodox Christians say they- and by "they," let us rephrase it to "we" get authority from?

From Christ, yes, as witnessed to in the scriptures.

Welcome to Protestantism....

But you've changed the subject of the thread.
This thread is not about where CHRISTIANS get their responsibilities from, it's about where the RCC and EO (and I'd add LDS) get their authority from.

As I read the Catholic Catechism (and I can't say anything about the EO), the RCC is absolutely OBSESSED with itself, going on and on and on, repeatedly, about what IT does and does alone. It makes it abundantly clear that it is NOT speaking of all CHRISTIANS, it is speaking of ITSELF. It makes it quite clear that in most cases, "Church" means IT, not the whole communion of saints (although that usage is found in the Catholic Catechism).


Now, perhaps you are telling us that the EO radically disagrees with the CC on this, and the EO does not regard that Jesus founded it, that Jesus did not give it any authority, promises, guarentees, etc. That the EO is not the sole interpreter or sole authority or sole arbiter, that these are all in the hands of the whole communion of saints TOGETHER - mine equally with yours, Pope Benedicts equally with Martin Luther. IF so, make that clear. IF not, then we are back to the issue of the opening poster. IF the authority lies NOT with CHRISTIANS, not with PEOPLE but with the EO - then tells us from where did IT get this?

CJ would refer to this as "self-authenticating." What seems to miss his perception is that any Christian faith statement is going to be essentially self authenticating

No.

Not only do I claim NOTHING for myself alone (nor does my denomination), but I do not affirm that this is mine because I say so.


Now, go back to my posts about the lds or the more generic example of the CJC. IF you reject the "substantiation" for their self-claims, then why should anyone accept the RCC's virtually idential "substantiation" for the same thing? Catholics listen to the Mormon and laugh - regarding the Mormon's "substantiation" for all the remarkable self-claims of the LDS alone for the LDS alone as just a perfect circle of self-authentication, quite absurd and rediculous. THEN, it seems to me, uses the virtually identical same words and certainly the identical same "explaination" to insist that the RCC's virtually same self-claims for self alone are all perfectly sound, reasonable, historical, etc. - and ridicule others for not acknowledging the RCC's claims as perfectly legit and sound.

Ergo, there is no "proof" of our faith.

Here's where I tend to have a bit more respect for Mormons than for Catholics (as amazing as that seems to me). Mormons seem MUCH more apt to say, "This we believe......" and leave it at that. Catholics keep shouting that it's all history, it's all right there in the Bible, we Protestants should all acknowledge it, etc. Like I've posted before, IF this is a pure article of faith - then I will give it the same respect that Catholics give to Mormons for the same article of faith for their denomination.

I think overt hostility between the Christians who adhere to the Creed is misplaced, as we are moving basically in the same direction, and are not attempting to lead the Body into the wolf pack in the manner that early heretics were ("ravenous wolves").

Lost me there....

The overwhelming majority of Protestants adhere to the Creed. And wherever BIG, divisive, remarkable, accountability-evading claims are make - substantiation is needed. "The bigger the point, the bigger the proof that's needed" to note a common theme in debate. And I have a hunch that you don't agree with the LDS in it's self claims of self alone for self alone - perhaps because you don't think they have a convincing substantiation for such. Well, a case could be made that theirs is historically more solid than the RCC's - at least the "tradition" affirming such is MUCH, MUCH clearer and closer to the supposed "founding."

Friend, you suddenly speak as if the RCC is claiming nothing and it doesn't matter if it did. I wonder if, as an Orthodox, you remember 1054? This is a huge, divisive point in Christianity - does the RCC ITSELF, ALONE have all this infallible, unaccountable authority? When it speaks, does Jesus speak - and vise versa? MUST all accept whatever the RCC says "with docility?" IF it's self-claims are true - then a case for that might be made (hey, while one is applying ego - go for it). BIG claims require BIG substantiation. Catholics require it of all others (including the LDS), but perhaps you are saying there's one exception: the RCC.

It is no wonder that we all, descendants as it were of the ECFs, would squabble over claim to the truth.

Now, I follow you. Truth matters! Claims need to be substantiated. Especially HUGE, divisive ones. IF I said to you, "Whatever Josiah says, Jesus says - and if you don't agree, you are a heretic whose salvation is very much in question!" I have a hunch you'd regard that as a significant statement and that I'd need to substantiate it, and I have a hunch you'd not accept, "But I alone honestly think it's true and when I speak Jesus speaks so what I said MUST be what Jesus says."

I personally find relativism to be equivalent to lukewarmness and softheadedness.

I agree. And while I accept that ALL matters of faith involve that "leap" which is fundamentally trust, I also reject your earlier implication that if someone beleives it, that's more than sufficient for it to be accepted as dogma. You are the expert in early Christian history, not me, but from what I know, those early Christians did NOT accept a teaching as DOGMA purely because someone thought it right. In fact, I think they rejected the absolute institutionalism, individualism, "whoever hears ME alone hears Jesus" issue that this thread is about.





.

 

[Thekla]

But, CaliforniaJosiah,

I do not understand where you hear the claims of "sole authority" that you indicate the EO makes ... likely because I still don't understand what the term authority means in this thread.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But, CaliforniaJosiah, I do not understand where you hear the claims of "sole authority" that you indicate the EO makes ... likely because I still don't understand what the term authority means in this thread.

IF I specifically included the EO in this, I apologize. Such was not intentional. My focus has been the RCC and LDS.

Again, perhaps you are telling us that the EO radically disagrees with the CC on this, and the EO does not regard that Jesus founded it, that Jesus did not give it any authority, promises, guarentees, etc. That the EO is not the sole interpreter or sole authority or sole arbiter, that these are all in the hands of the whole communion of saints TOGETHER. IF so, make that clear. IF not, then we are back to the issue of the opening poster. IF the authority lies NOT with CHRISTIANS, not with PEOPLE but with the EO - then tells us from where did IT get this?


IMHO, "authority" in the opening post refers to all the remarkable self claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone, such as that it alone is the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture, that it alone is the only one to choose authoritatively what is and is not Tradition and to interpret what it chose means, that it is the sole arbiter and sole authority, that whoever hears IT hears Jesus, etc. All these things flow from its foundational self-claim that Jesus founded IT and promised that IT would be infallible/unaccountable in faith and morals.



.

 

[calluna]

Korah was a Levite who tried to usurp the authority of the High Priest Aaron and of Moses. For the NT, the believer is also a priest.

Also? As well as who? Is this anything to do with the claims of the RCC/EOC to succession? Does Rome reckon that its priests are the sons of Aaron, or successors to the apostles, who were not priests?

What little I know about the claimed line of authority from the various parts of the body (RCC, EO, OO, Protestant) is twofold. One is the 'keys of the kingdom'. Two is the 'feed My sheep'.

Protestants say that the keys are given to all Christians, and that Peter was told to feed Jesus' sheep three times because he denied Jesus three times. No special responsibility was given either to him as a person or to an imagined successor.

 

[Thekla]

Again, perhaps you are telling us that the EO radically disagrees with the CC on this, and the EO does not regard that Jesus founded it, that Jesus did not give it any authority, promises, guarentees, etc. That the EO is not the sole interpreter or sole authority or sole arbiter, that these are all in the hands of the whole communion of saints TOGETHER. IF so, make that clear. IF not, then we are back to the issue of the opening poster. IF the authority lies NOT with CHRISTIANS, not with PEOPLE but with the EO - then tells us from where did IT get this?

.

I'll start here: the EO is a Church with an ecclesial synodal structure. A look at history will confirm that (in the EO) the Church is the people. You will also hear repeated that "we do not know where the Holy Spirit is not". Basically, this aligns with another typical EO statement, "we don't know who will be 'saved". Yesterday, a Saint was commemorated who was falsely accused by government officials and even fellow monks and some of the Church heirarchy. It was the laity who acknowledged and appreciated his Christ-bearing way. This example is not isolated, but occurs throughout our history: in the EO it is the Church entire which is charged to "keeping" the true faith in Christ.

What is clear is that God does not change; therefore to keep the understanding once received through worship, walk etc. is essential. Does the EO claim that false teachings have arisen ? Yes. And it is the responsibility of the Church to battle these, and descriptively work to iterate what is true in language that exposes the error of false teachings.

Does the EO claim to "precede" the writing of NT scripture ? Yes; look at the location of our oldest Churches for a start. Do we claim to have kept the teachings ? Yes. Do we hear corrections to teachings that are "au courant" and do not line up with what has been taught (we say from the start) ? Yes, this does happen.

Is this what you mean by authority ?

I did ask about Lutherans and accepting the ordination of the RC for service in the Lutheran Church for a reason (because it helps to explain what authority is). Would you mind answering ?

And The question about recognizing apostolic succession in the Anglican Church is important too: do they claim such even if others claim the Anglican Church does not ?

 

[Albion]

And The question about recognizing apostolic succession in the Anglican Church is important too: do they claim such even if others claim the Anglican Church does not ?

I won't tread on your conversation with CaliforniaJosiah which, so it appears, may be getting somewhere.

But on this matter of Anglicans and Apostolic Succession, I have no idea who could have told you something so crazy as that the Anglican churches do not claim Apostolic Succession. We absolutely do and can trace all bishops' lineage to the Apostles, consecrate bishops by a laying on of hands of other bishops, etc. more or less as every other church that has Apostolic Succession does.

This (Apostolic Succession), however, and as I've pointed out several times, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or why the EOC and/or RCC claim a validty that other churches are not regarded, by them, as having.

 

[Mikeb85]

Again, perhaps you are telling us that the EO radically disagrees with the CC on this, and the EO does not regard that Jesus founded it, that Jesus did not give it any authority, promises, guarentees, etc. That the EO is not the sole interpreter or sole authority or sole arbiter, that these are all in the hands of the whole communion of saints TOGETHER. IF so, make that clear. IF not, then we are back to the issue of the opening poster. IF the authority lies NOT with CHRISTIANS, not with PEOPLE but with the EO - then tells us from where did IT get this?

The promises that Jesus made to the apostles were passed down through the Bishops of the Church. Just as authority passed through the Aaronic priesthood in the Old Covenant, so too does authority in the New Covenant, with the successors of the Apostles (all the Bishops) receiving that authority.

IMHO, "authority" in the opening post refers to all the remarkable self claims of the RCC alone for the RCC alone, such as that it alone is the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture, that it alone is the only one to choose authoritatively what is and is not Tradition and to interpret what it chose means, that it is the sole arbiter and sole authority, that whoever hears IT hears Jesus, etc. All these things flow from its foundational self-claim that Jesus founded IT and promised that IT would be infallible/unaccountable in faith and morals.

This is where you likely mixed us up with the RCC. We do not believe that we (or anybody) have authority to change the faith. We merely affirm as doctrine that which has always been believed and revealed. This is why you don't see the same 'development' of doctrine in the Orthodox Church as in the RCC, and why there was never a 'protestant reformation' in the Orthodox Christian world...

We do however believe that the Orthodox Church is THE church that Jesus established on earth. When we talk of THE church, it's always the Orthodox Church (which includes the pre-schism church). While the heterodox (all those who aren't part of the Orthodox Church) are outside of the visible church, they're not (necessarily) devoid of grace or salvation - as God works in all creation as He sees fit.

Still, what is confusing here is what authority you think the Church claims for itself, which makes it very difficult to have an honest conversation...

 

[Thekla]

I won't tread on your conversation with CaliforniaJosiah which, so it appears, may be getting somewhere.

But on this matter of Anglicans and Apostolic Succession, I have no idea who could have told you something so crazy as that the Anglican churches do not claim Apostolic Succession. We absolutely do and can trace all bishops' lineage to the Apostles, consecrate bishops by a laying on of hands of other bishops, etc. more or less as every other church that has Apostolic Succession does.

This (Apostolic Succession), however, and as I've pointed out several times, has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or why the EOC and/or RCC claim a validty that other churches are not regarded, by them, as having.

I think my question was - does the Anglican Church claim apostolic succession in the face of claims by other Churches that they do not have apostolic succession.

At least per my research, they do - as you have noted - claim a.s., despite the fact that this claim is challenged or disbelieved by others.

So the points per this become:
1. can the Anglican Church show extant original documents to support this claim ?
2. do they capitulate to claims that they do not have a.s. ?

By what authority does the Anglican Church claim such a thing, as this claim cannot be explicitly shown in scripture ?

(As the same is true with at least some Lutheran Churches, how can they claim such a thing without accepting the claim by the RC that Rome has a.s. ?)

 

[Albion]

I think my question was - does the Anglican Church claim apostolic succession in the face of claims by other Churches that they do not have apostolic succession.

At least per my research, they do - as you have noted - claim a.s., despite the fact that this claim is challenged or disbelieved by others.

I don't know of any others who DO actually challenge or disbelieve it. Whom did you have in mind?

What I'm saying is that to charge such a thing would be like saying that Orthodoxy doesn't care for icons or that the Catholic church doesn't have a Pope. It's so basically looney that it's hard to imagine that anyone but the most uninformed about religious matters could suggest such a thing.

So the points per this become:

Just a moment. Now you are moving into different territory, we ought to mention. That is not that we claim A.S. -- which was the issue a moment ago-- but whether it is legitimate.

1. can the Anglican Church show extant original documents to support this claim ?

I'm not a librarian or an archivist, but our claim rests upon the same evidence the Roman Catholic Church uses, since all the early bishops are the same. There are additional lines from the East as well, so whatever documentation your church uses, we also use.

2. do they capitulate to claims that they do not have a.s. ?

Absolutely not. Never. The charges that we do not are clearly faulty and can be shown to be so (This has been discussed many times on other threads).

By what authority does the Anglican Church claim such a thing, as this claim cannot be explicitly shown in scripture ?

It is indeed not in Scripture. We claim it because it is historically factual, i. e. there has been this lineage.

But we do not claim that Christ ordered it or that it is the reason that any particular denomination is valid or invalid--and that's where other churches (yours, maybe, but certainly the RCC) go wrong, in our view. Apostolic Succession arose for the purposes of good order in the Church, which in itself is a good reason for retaining it.

(As the same is true with at least some Lutheran Churches, how can they claim such a thing without accepting the claim by the RC that Rome has a.s. ?)

None of those churches, nor mine for that matter, denies that the Roman Church HAS Apostolic Succession.

Apostolic Succession is not the test of whether a church body is valid or not.

 

[Thekla]

And another related observation, with a warning.

I do not introduce this issue with a view to its theological discussion, but because it reveals something about the issue of authority.

While researching the Anglican Worship Service (not altogether fruitful, as it seems the structure is given but the particulars are left to the approval of the local bishop)
I noted that the filioque is retained in the Anglican version of the Nicean/Constaninople Creed.

It is my understanding (I may be wrong) that Latin does not have discreet words for proceed and send, which may have introduced the confusions associated with the filioque. As my above sentence proves, English does not have the same problem.

This raises several questions: the Creed is not to be changed without Conciliar ratification. If language is the issue, the RC stance is less of an issue in this matter.

Why do the Anglicans maintain this change ?
By maintaining this change, they either
1. Assent that Rome is the Church entire (as the RC added the filioque absent a Council including all the five ancient Sees, thus implying that Rome is the Council entire, so to speak).
2. Claim that the Anglican Church is the Church entire (and can maintain the filioque because they have so decided - ie, is the Council entire).
3. Do not accept the Ecumenical Councils (do not accept the authority of the five ancient sees from whom, in part, they receive their apostolic succession).

 

[calluna]

I'll start here: the EO is a Church with an ecclesial synodal structure. A look at history will confirm that (in the EO) the Church is the people. You will also hear repeated that "we do not know where the Holy Spirit is not". Basically, this aligns with another typical EO statement, "we don't know who will be 'saved". Yesterday, a Saint was commemorated who was falsely accused by government officials and even fellow monks and some of the Church heirarchy. It was the laity who acknowledged and appreciated his Christ-bearing way. This example is not isolated, but occurs throughout our history: in the EO it is the Church entire which is charged to "keeping" the true faith in Christ.

Majorities can be wrong, and often have been in any matter that is not one of common sense.

What is clear is that God does not change; therefore to keep the understanding once received through worship, walk etc. is essential. Does the EO claim that false teachings have arisen ? Yes. And it is the responsibility of the Church to battle these, and descriptively work to iterate what is true in language that exposes the error of false teachings.

But many claim that the EOC is a major offender in the teaching of falsehoods, conflicting with apostolic teaching. If is it to deal with these claims in a way that will gain respect and win converts intellectually, it has to do more than just repeat its bare statement of its authority to teach.

Does the EO claim to "precede" the writing of NT scripture ? Yes; look at the location of our oldest Churches for a start.

What does that prove? The most common suspects for murders are family members. Propinquity is as much a ground for suspicion as it is a ground for approbation.