Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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.
[/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.
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.
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.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!
I like the "church" in California the uses that Genesis references to plants as an excuse to smoke marijuana as part as their service..
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."[/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,
Right. We all receive that information because it is in Scripture and we have convinced ourselves that Scripture is what it says it is.We have no original copies of scripture signed and notarized, and no video footage of either a burning bush nor Jesus walking on water.
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.Ergo, there is no "proof" of our faith.
I think that this is the heart of the issue.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.
How do these passages impinge on succession or Korah?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?
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.
.
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 ?
Welcome to Protestantism....
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.
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
Ergo, there is no "proof" of our faith.
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").
It is no wonder that we all, descendants as it were of the ECFs, would squabble over claim to the truth.
I personally find relativism to be equivalent to lukewarmness and softheadedness.
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.
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?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.
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.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'.
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?
.
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 ?
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.
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 don't know of any others who DO actually challenge or disbelieve it. Whom did you have in mind?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.
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.So the points per this become:
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.1. can the Anglican Church show extant original documents to support this claim ?
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).2. do they capitulate to claims that they do not have a.s. ?
It is indeed not in Scripture. We claim it because it is historically factual, i. e. there has been this lineage.By what authority does the Anglican Church claim such a thing, as this claim cannot be explicitly shown in scripture ?
None of those churches, nor mine for that matter, denies that the Roman Church HAS Apostolic Succession.(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. ?)
Majorities can be wrong, and often have been in any matter that is not one of common sense.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.
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.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.
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.Does the EO claim to "precede" the writing of NT scripture ? Yes; look at the location of our oldest Churches for a start.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?