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

[Thekla]

As I was involved in the Sola Scriptura thread, I must be one of the mockers: I am sorry. I wasn't intending to mock. I just didn't and don't understand aspects and implications of the praxis. Nor the need for more than a definition of something that is only praxis and cannot be measured.

 

[racer]

As I was involved in the Sola Scriptura thread, I must be one of the mockers: I am sorry. I wasn't intending to mock. I just didn't and don't understand aspects and implications of the praxis. Nor the need for more than a definition of something that is only praxis and cannot be measured.

Maybe or maybe not. Sometimes it's just hard to tell if someone is just being funny or if they are being snide. I think that I determined somewhere in that thread that you and I were misunderstanding quite a bit. So, please don't take it personally. I just sometimes feel that nobody takes us seriously when we genuinely try to clarify something.

 

[Chesterton]

I guess you could be talking partly about me. I got carried away and I'm sure I've been snide or worse in these threads. I want to apologize to CJ, Albion, Racer and anyone else I may have offended. Forgive me.

 

[Thekla]

Thanks, Racer

to be honest, I still don't understand what exactly is the "unique and special authority" of the OP ('ruling meanings out' based on what other Churches do/claim has been the bulk of my posting here). So, maybe a clarification or definition would help ...


Actually, if it will be helpful, it seems the following things are "ruled out"; apostolic succession (claimed by many Churches), claims not supported by primary source evidence (applies to any Church claiming apostolic succession), possibly - pronouncing dogma.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I just don't understand you willingness to expend so much effort in decrying insult! Slander! heckling! Oh, oh, and this one is funny: Condescencion! Yet, you are completely unwiling to put a little effort into answering the OP. Why is that?

Actually, I put significant effort into it. Did you miss this?
http://christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=50101485&postcount=287

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

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.

Lord knows Anglicans would never do that.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I guess you could be talking partly about me. I got carried away and I'm sure I've been snide or worse in these threads. I want to apologize to CJ, Albion, Racer and anyone else I may have offended. Forgive me.

I forgive thee

 

[namericanboy]

Originally Posted by Thekla

And this does point out one difference; Orthodoxy is a way of life, which is partially why the EO is oft thought of as "ethnic"

Ans I would point out for us "regular" christians who've had born anew " experiences biblical christianity is a way of life...Allowing the Holy Spirit to work with the word that is hid in our heart...Letting it change our desire to live in the flesh to letting Christ be seen in our every word and deed..It becomes a daily life style...I am amazed at those who mock those who desire to follow biblical standards...The Bride will rise us one day and you can bet tares will be left in each of out churches...It's a HEART" decision not a CHURCH decison. Nab


​

 

[Chesterton]

I forgive thee

That new avatar lends some "authority" to your forgiveness. I think I'm especially absolved now.

 

[Thekla]

Originally Posted by Thekla

And this does point out one difference; Orthodoxy is a way of life, which is partially why the EO is oft thought of as "ethnic"

Ans I would point out for us "regular" christians who've had born anew " experiences biblical christianity is a way of life...Allowing the Holy Spirit to work with the word that is hid in our heart...Letting it change our desire to live in the flesh to letting Christ be seen in our every word and deed..It becomes a daily life style...I am amazed at those who mock those who desire to follow biblical standards...The Bride will rise us one day and you can bet tares will be left in each of out churches...It's a HEART" decision not a CHURCH decison. Nab


​

I do think it is, and in EO it is always is a matter of "heart". I think the difference I was trying to point out is that "way of life" saturated the cultures of the EO Churches, to the extent that the culture becomes Christianized - the language references, the days and holidays, etc. The "way of life" becomes writ large and the culture becomes a "pointing to" Christ - for those who will see it.

But I don't understand how this is a mockery of Biblical standards.

Christ is always the head of the Church.

 

[nestoj]

Originally Posted by Thekla

And this does point out one difference; Orthodoxy is a way of life, which is partially why the EO is oft thought of as "ethnic"

Ans I would point out for us "regular" christians who've had born anew " experiences biblical christianity is a way of life...Allowing the Holy Spirit to work with the word that is hid in our heart...Letting it change our desire to live in the flesh to letting Christ be seen in our every word and deed..It becomes a daily life style...I am amazed at those who mock those who desire to follow biblical standards...The Bride will rise us one day and you can bet tares will be left in each of out churches...It's a HEART" decision not a CHURCH decison. Nab


​

We are ordered not to mock anyone, especially not those who desire to follow biblical standards. If some of us did that - they did it against their own Christian faith, faith of all before us, against God and His Church.

God helps

 

[racer]

Greetings. Have you ever watched EO's debating Muslims and their Koran on the NCR board?

I am sure they educate themselves on that religion much like I did on Judaism when debating Orthodox Jews on the Bible......Knowledge is power in these cases.....

No I've never seen those debates. I bet it is interesting. I agree that Knowledge is power when engaging in "discussions." That way we are more likely to be arguing against a true representation of what others believe instead of what we think they believe.

 

[racer]

FYI, in the OP when I mentioned that as the originator I would determine the limits of the thread, I did not mean to sound like I was going to police the topic and constantly point out when someone makes a comment that is "off topic." My intention is to allow more leeway and freedom to make comments or points that they may believe to be relevant even tho others may not.

So, sorry if I came off sounding like an uppity tyrant.

 

[racer]

Also, I want to apologize for being lax on participating in my own thread. I've just been extremely busy and haven't had a chance to get back to you guys.

A lady that I've worked with for 13 years (She's the warden's secretary and has worked here for nearly 30 years) was just recently diagnosed with cancer in at least three different areas--lungs, tumor on her spine, and bone cancer. All pretty much inoperable. You know how doctors are, they've given her about a year to live. She is in so much pain. It was the craziest thing, one day she's beebopping down the hallway petite and perky as she's always been, the next day she's complaining about her back hurting. Two months later this is what she finds out. I know this isn't the prayer thread--but I know you guys will offer up prayers for her.

 

[Thekla]

Lord have mercy !

 

[prodromos]

Lord have mercy!

 

[Gwenyfur]

Lord Have Mercy!

 

[racer]

I will help you with this point here.

Why thank you! We know I can use all the help I can get.

And if a man in searching the Scriptures endeavors to get at the intention of the author through whom the Holy Spirit spoke, whether he succeeds in this endeavor, or whether he draws a different meaning from the words, but one that is not opposed to sound doctrine, he is free from blame so long as he is supported by the testimony of some other passage of Scripture. For the author perhaps saw that this very meaning lay in the words which we are trying to interpret; and assuredly the Holy Spirit, who through him spoke these words, foresaw that this interpretation would occur to the reader, nay, made provision that it should occur to him, seeing that it too is founded on truth. For what more liberal and more fruitful provision could God have made in regard to the Sacred Scriptures than that the same words might be understood in several senses, all of which are sanctioned by the concurring testimony of other passages equally divine?"
Augustine,Christian Instruction,3,27:38(A.D. 426),in NPNF1,II:567

Yes, well you left this part off:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.vi.xxvii.html?highlight=scripture#highlight

Chapter 27.—One Passage Susceptible of Various Interpretations.

38. When, again, not some one interpretation, but two or more interpretations are put upon the same words of Scripture, even though the meaning the writer intended remain undiscovered, there is no danger if it can be shown from other passages of Scripture that any of the interpretations put on the words is in harmony with the truth.
​

It helps to keep it all in proper context and perspective.

"For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it."
Augustine,To Jerome,Epistle 82,1:3(A.D. 405),in NPNF1,I:350

I find the text I highlighted in red telling. Have you ever heard him say anything about "Sacred Tradition" being "completely free from error?" That's not the same as saying common teachings can be trustworthy and accurate.

'What more shall I teach you than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought.'
De Bono Viduitatis 2

I'm really confused as to how this comment furthers your argument. Perhaps you could give me a little more help.

'Let us search for the church in the sacred Scriptures'
Epis 105

Hah! Are you sure you're not trying to make my argument for me? The question posed here does say, "Let us search for the church in the sacred Scriptures" doesn't it? Or am I reading it wrong. Because if it says what it appears to say, that sort contradicts what the RCs have been arguing doesn't it?

But Augustine illustratates heretics' fatal flaw in interpreting Scripture apart from Church and Tradition.

Oh, I see your point now--I think.

"For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, becuase they are but men, still without any uncertainty...The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugerated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The SUCCESSION of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the APOSTLE PETER, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present EPISCOPATE...The epistle begins thus:--'Manicheus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are the wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.' Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not beleive Manichues to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to beleive none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manicheus? You will reply, An Apostle of Christ. I do not beleive it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of truth, and here you are forcing me to beleive what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manicheus. But should you meet with a person not yet beleiving in the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not beleive? For MY PART, I should NOT BELEIVE the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to beleive in the gospel tell me not to beleive in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?" C. Epis Mani 5,6

I will make a few of points here. 1) Authority does not necessarily equate to rule or power over. It often speaks to a level of knowledge or expertise. Nobody here denies that any church possesses that. 2) The "c"atholic church of which Augustine speaks is not the "C"atholic Church of today. 3) Now that we have established that Augustine was a faithful follower/teacher/father/doctor of the Church, we can infer quite accurately from his teachings to what regard and esteem the church of His day held Scripture. Can we not? If he is merely teaching what he has learned from the church then we know the Church regarded Scripture to be of a "'sublime authority' than the mortals through whom it was dispensed whiled they yet lived."

"Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it"
Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis

Sure would be nice if you would post links so we don't have to hunt these quotes down. Here's an interesting tidbit:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.vi.xxvii.html?highlight=scripture#highlight

Chapter 31.—Use of Dialectics. Of Fallacies.

49. As, then, valid conclusions may be drawn not only from true but from false propositions, the laws of valid reasoning may easily be learnt in the schools, outside the pale of the Church. But the truth of propositions must be inquired into in the sacred books of the Church. "To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you" C. Cresconius I:33
​

The author is not saying that Scripture does not necessarily address a set of particular examples, only that it may not clearly address them.

"It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true"
Sermon 117:6

Too brief to address and no more time to hunt down the entire quote.

"If therefore, I am going to beleive things I do not know about, why should I not believe those things which are accepted by the common consent of learned and unlearned alike and are established by most weighty authority of all peoples?" C. Letter called Fundamentals 14:18

So, what are you suggesting we infer from this passage, that Augustine thought that it was/is okay to simply accept something at face value of whatever whoever tells us and we know no better?

Here are a couple of other quotes I came across.

Chapter 28.— It is Safer to Explain a Doubtful Passage by Other Passages of Scripture Than by Reason.

39. When, however, a meaning is evolved of such a kind that what is doubtful in it cannot be cleared up by indubitable evidence from Scripture, it remains for us to make it clear by the evidence of reason. But this is a dangerous practice. For it is far safer to walk by the light of Holy Scripture; so that when we wish to examine the passages that are obscured by metaphorical expressions, we may either obtain a meaning about which there is no controversy, or if a controversy arises, may settle it by the application of testimonies sought out in every portion of the same Scripture.

Chapter 36.—That Interpretation of Scripture Which Builds Us Up in Love is Not Perniciously Deceptive Nor Mendacious, Even Though It Be Faulty. The Interpreter, However, Should Be Corrected.

41. Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. Nevertheless, as I was going to say, if his mistaken interpretation tends to build up love, which is the end of the commandment, he goes astray in much the same way as a man who by mistake quits the high road, but yet reaches through the fields the same place to which the road leads. He is to be corrected, however, and to be shown how much better it is not to quit the straight road, lest, if he get into a habit of going astray, he may sometimes take cross roads, or even go in the wrong direction altogether.

​

This last quote reminds me of an analogy I used to use showing how the Holy Spirit leads us all the same (I use a master and three dogs), it is we who follow who go astray. Eventually, we all get to the same place, it just takes some of us longer to get there. (just ask me if you want me to repost)

 

[racer]

To add to this, I see many apparent problems arising within the SS Churches. For example, I was informed on CF that the Lutherans do not have dogma. To wit, the Lutheran Church cannot dogmatically state that "Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior". She may teach such a thing (doctrine), but beyond that she cannot go. I am not sure if this is an organizational, SS, or authority issue. But to me, this inability to pronounce this dogmatically is sad.

Well, I have a problem someone saying a particular faith has no doctrine. If they did, I don't imagine anyone took him/her seriously. All churches have doctrine. Now if you're talking about Josiah stating that Sola Scriptura is not actually a "doctrine" he is correct. Whether one believes in Sola Scriptura is not something that has any bearing on our salvation. So, in that sense it is not a "doctrine."

 

[racer]

Cool. You answered it and went along with the OP restrictions at the same time. Well done.

I just flat-out said Jesus Christ.

But, from whom/what/where did you acquire the knowledge that the authority of your Church came from Jesus?