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

[Kristos]

Those churches are elective, and permit the existence of each other. The RCC and EOC make exclusive claims, and came into existence via those claims. Ergo, if their claims are invalid (which they must be), they have no moral or rational right to existence, whereas Lutherans, Methodists, Anglicans do have those rights.

I don't think that is correct wrt EO.

So what authority are we talking about here?

Authority to exist?

Authority to govern themselves?

Authority to make dogma?

Authority to bind and loose sins?

What?

 

[Thekla]

The Anglican Church derives its authority from the same place your church does.

And by the way, your Ecumenical Patriarch cannot do a thing, by law, unless the Turkish government--a Muslim government--permits it. The Queen in England actually has virtually no involvement in Church affairs or rights other than ceremonial ones, and that only refers to one country out of the hundred or so in which there are self-governing Anglican churches, many of them larger than the Church of England.

The apostolic succession of the Anglicans is, iirc, recognised by the EO. As for the situation with the Ecumenical Patriarch, this role of the Turkish Govt. is an oppression which has its origin in "the sword" of conquest. The effect is largely on the local flock served by the EP, as the EP is not like the Pope.

In the article/interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury, it is stated that changes in the British Anglican Church must be approved by a vote of Parliment. I imagine, in this regard, Parliment acts as a sort of representative of the laity who approve or deny the decisions of the bishops. It does seems (though I may be wrong) that the monarch 'permits' the existence of the Church (though imo, should the monarch try to dissolve the Church, the Church would still continue through the bishops and laity).

But I suppose - and here is my confusion - the question of what is in this thread called "authority" begs a definition. Is it the "right to existence", or the "fact of existence" or the "means of existence" ? Or something else.

 

[Musa80]

I'll poke my 2 cents in here. I'm not currently a member of the Orthodox church or clergy of any sort. As has been said, if you want an official response you need to seek out an Orthodox priest and/or bishop. However, I was a catechumen for over a year, and after some time away to look into other churches, have decided I will be going forward with the Orthodox church.

With all that said, I can't presume to answer an unclear question about "authority" in regards to the RCC. I assume you are speaking of a "One True Church" claim. As for the Orthodox, I don't think this claim has ever been made. I've heard the same answer from priests, monks, and bishops in regards to the Orthodox church. They do claim to have the "fullness of the faith" as has been passed down through Tradition. More specifically apostolic succession that can be traced back to the apostles (I have done this myself and you can as well. Google is your friend) as well as the teachings from the early church fathers. The Orthodox do not claim that they are the "One True Church" and that anyone outside the church cannot have the Holy Spirit. Again, as has been told to me from multiple priests, monks, and bishops, the official position is that the Orthodox church knows where the Holy Spirit is but does not presume to say where it isn't.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[Albion]

I don't think that is correct wrt EO.

So what authority are we talking about here?

Authority to exist?

Authority to govern themselves?

Authority to make dogma?

Authority to bind and loose sins?

What?

Those are good questions to ask before we go any further, I agree. As I read the OP, it seems clear to me that it is asking about claims to being the one true church that Jesus founded, to the exclusion of other Christian churches.

It was not asking, IMO, about churches whose claims to validity rest upon the concept that Christ DID NOT create a particular institution but a movement instead.

And it was not asking, IMO, about what force (government, law, etc.) allows the church organization to function where it does.

It seems specifically to refer to what the theological basis is for those churches that maintain that they are the unique institutional embodiment of the Church of Jesus Christ.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Do the Orthodox use a different Bible translation than does the RCC? Just curious.....

Luke 1:50 and the mercy of Him into generations [*and] generations to those fearing/foboumenoiV <5399> (5740) Him [Reve 11:18]

http://www.greeknewtestament.com/index.htm

Textus Rec.)
Luke 1:50 kai to eleoV autou eiV geneaV *** genewn toiV foboumenoiV auton

W-H )
Luke 1:50 kai to eleoV autou eiV geneaV kai geneaV toiV foboumenoiV auton

 

[Albion]

The apostolic succession of the Anglicans is, iirc, recognised by the EO.

Which was my point.

As for the situation with the Ecumenical Patriarch, this role of the Turkish Govt. is an oppression which has its origin in "the sword" of conquest. The effect is largely on the local flock served by the EP, as the EP is not like the Pope.

In the article/interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury, it is stated that changes in the British Anglican Church must be approved by a vote of Parliment. I imagine, in this regard, Parliment acts as a sort of representative of the laity who approve or deny the decisions of the bishops.

Oh no. It doesn't mean that at all.

But I suppose - and here is my confusion - the question of what is in this thread called "authority" begs a definition. Is it the "right to existence", or the "fact of existence" or the "means of existence" ? Or something else.

See my reply in the post just before this one. FWIW, that's what I got from the OP.

 

[Musa80]

Yes. As far as the OT the Orthodox use the Septuagint. I believe the RCC use teh Vulgate. I could be wrong but I think the Vulgate was translated from the Masoretic text rather than the Septuagint. There are one or two books difference but they are deuterocanonical and neither church uses them as a basis for dogma.

 

[StreetPreacher82]

I'll poke my 2 cents in here. I'm not currently a member of the Orthodox church or clergy of any sort. As has been said, if you want an official response you need to seek out an Orthodox priest and/or bishop. However, I was a catechumen for over a year, and after some time away to look into other churches, have decided I will be going forward with the Orthodox church.

With all that said, I can't presume to answer an unclear question about "authority" in regards to the RCC. I assume you are speaking of a "One True Church" claim. As for the Orthodox, I don't think this claim has ever been made. I've heard the same answer from priests, monks, and bishops in regards to the Orthodox church. They do claim to have the "fullness of the faith" as has been passed down through Tradition. More specifically apostolic succession that can be traced back to the apostles (I have done this myself and you can as well. Google is your friend) as well as the teachings from the early church fathers. The Orthodox do not claim that they are the "One True Church" and that anyone outside the church cannot have the Holy Spirit. Again, as has been told to me from multiple priests, monks, and bishops, the official position is that the Orthodox church knows where the Holy Spirit is but does not presume to say where it isn't.

Hope this is helpful.

It is very much. I have always had a great respect for the RCC and EO and honestly believe there are as many saved Christians there as in the Protestant church. My question is, why do we as a group of believers who follow roughly the exact same path want to say "I am the only one". Just curious?

 

[Albion]

I'll poke my 2 cents in here. I'm not currently a member of the Orthodox church or clergy of any sort. As has been said, if you want an official response you need to seek out an Orthodox priest and/or bishop. However, I was a catechumen for over a year, and after some time away to look into other churches, have decided I will be going forward with the Orthodox church.

With all that said, I can't presume to answer an unclear question about "authority" in regards to the RCC. I assume you are speaking of a "One True Church" claim. As for the Orthodox, I don't think this claim has ever been made. I've heard the same answer from priests, monks, and bishops in regards to the Orthodox church. They do claim to have the "fullness of the faith" as has been passed down through Tradition. More specifically apostolic succession that can be traced back to the apostles (I have done this myself and you can as well. Google is your friend) as well as the teachings from the early church fathers. The Orthodox do not claim that they are the "One True Church" and that anyone outside the church cannot have the Holy Spirit. Again, as has been told to me from multiple priests, monks, and bishops, the official position is that the Orthodox church knows where the Holy Spirit is but does not presume to say where it isn't.

Hope this is helpful.

Well, I think it's important and something we ought to follow up on.

On the one hand, I seem to remember that the EO position is as you say, but if so it puts Easrtern Orthodoxy into the same category as a number of Protestant churches, doesn't it? I mean--"We've got Apostolic Succession and we claim to teach the true version of the faith."

You see what I mean?

 

[Thekla]

I'll go ahead a bit, though my answer is not exhaustive, nor do I know what is meant here by "authority".

The early Christians (evidenced in Acts) used the term "episkopos" - at the time a political term with a long history of use (as I have described before here in GT). The office of the episkopos has a particular meaning: one appointed who both oversees the citizens (of a region) to ensure compliance and evidences relationship of the citizens to the ruler. The episkopos has an "evidencing relationship to ruler (in the Church, the ruler is Christ) while ensuring fealty of the citizens (in the Church, the flock) through 'right keeping' of the rulers edicts.

Note, that in the EO, the episkopos is ordained by other bishops and must be accepted (verbally, at ordination) by the laity (if they don't shout "axios", its not a done deal).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Yes. As far as the OT the Orthodox use the Septuagint. I believe the RCC use teh Vulgate. I could be wrong but I think the Vulgate was translated from the Masoretic text rather than the Septuagint. There are one or two books difference but they are deuterocanonical and neither church uses them as a basis for dogma.

Greetings. I have just started using the OT LXX to help translate the NT and wish there was an LXX interlinear like the one this site uses for the Greek and Hebrew.

http://www.scripture4all.org/

I currently use this site but it is a pain trying to find exact word forms in the Greek LXX to match up to the NT Greek...

http://www.studylight.org/isb/bible.cgi?query=ruth+4%3A6&section=0&it=kjv&oq=genesis%252018%3A28&ot=lxx&nt=tr&new=1&nb=ge&ng=18&ncc=18

 

[Albion]

I'll go ahead a bit, though my answer is not exhaustive, nor do I know what is meant here by "authority".

The early Christians (evidenced in Acts) used the term "episkopos" - at the time a political term with a long history of use (as I have described before here in GT). The office of the episkopos has a particular meaning: one appointed who both oversees the citizens (of a region) to ensure compliance and evidences relationship of the citizens to the ruler. The episkopos has an "evidencing relationship to ruler (in the Church, the ruler is Christ) while ensuring fealty of the citizens (in the Church, the flock) through 'right keeping' of the rulers edicts.

Note, that in the EO, the episkopos is ordained by other bishops and must be accepted (verbally, at ordination) by the laity (if they don't shout "axios", its not a done deal).

As I noted, to claim Apostolic Succession doesn't make any church a rare species of Christian church. Lots of churches have or claim it, whether Orthodox, Catholic, or Protestant.

Therefore--if it is true that the EO do not claim to be uniquely valid but only to be teaching the truest version of the Gospel and holding right doctrines--it is in the same situation as many, many other churches and ought NOT to be evaluated in the same way we would handle the RCC's claims.

 

[calluna]

The Anglicans, iirc, have as their head their monarch, and changes must pass Parliment - their existence derives from their King or Queen (which would imply that any authority this Church has is granted by their monarch).

As for the others, I'm not sure what you mean ... is it that these others have no authority, or is it something else ?

Anglicanism never claimed to be the whole church. At one time it claimed to be the whole church in England, but has long recognized Methodists, Baptists etc. as being part of the catholic church, in England and worldwide. And likewise, those other churches make no claim to exclusivity. But Mormons recognise only Mormons, JWs recognise only JWs, and EOs recognise only EOs. RCers did likewise until recently, when, in a remarkable volte face, and with extraordinary remaining self-contradiction, they permitted others Christian status (though private RC opinions still vary on that issue). It is a question of claiming to be the organisation sine qua non, or not- "You must belong to us," is the real claim. With that claim comes the responsibility to support it, and if authority is claimed via succession, it is absolutely essential to provide indisputable proof of that sucession. And, as one 19th century Anglican archbishop said, there is not one person alive who can provide that proof.

 

[Musa80]

LLoJ, I'd like to find one myself but as far as I can tell such a thing doesn't currently exist.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Intercisus Yes. As far as the OT the Orthodox use the Septuagint. I believe the RCC use teh Vulgate. I could be wrong but I think the Vulgate was translated from the Masoretic text rather than the Septuagint. There are one or two books difference but they are deuterocanonical and neither church uses them as a basis for dogma.

:o Did the OT Romans speak Latin back in the days of JESUS? Always wondered about that.

John 19:19 Writes yet also a title the Pilate and places on the stauros was yet having been written 'JESUS THE NAZARENE/nazwraioV <3480> THE KING OF THE JUDEANS'. 20 This then the title many read of the Judeans that near was the place of the City the where was crucified the Jesus and it was having been written to Hebrew, to Roman, to Greek.

Reve 9:1 and they are having of them king the Messenger of the Abyss, name to him to Hebrew abaddwn and in the Greecian name is having apolluwn

 

[Yeznik]

The Anglican Church derives its authority from the same place your church does.

And by the way, your Ecumenical Patriarch cannot do a thing, by law, unless the Turkish government--a Muslim government--permits it. The Queen in England actually has virtually no involvement in Church affairs or rights other than ceremonial ones, and that only refers to one country out of the hundred or so in which there are self-governing Anglican churches, many of them larger than the Church of England.

My recommendation is that you read the history between the Turks and the Greeks.

 

[Musa80]

:o Did the OT Romans speak Latin back in the days of JESUS? Always wondered about that.

LOL That's an awesome question. I'd like to know, myself, just what the RCC used officially prior to the Vulgate. I'm no expert on Roman Catholics. I'll freely admit that.

 

[Albion]

:o Did the OT Romans speak Latin back in the days of JESUS? Always wondered about that.

John 19:19 Writes yet also a title the Pilate and places on the stauros was yet having been written 'JESUS THE NAZARENE/nazwraioV <3480> THE KING OF THE JUDEANS'. 20 This then the title many read of the Judeans that near was the place of the City the where was crucified the Jesus and it was having been written to Hebrew, to Roman, to Greek.

Reve 9:1 and they are having of them king the Messenger of the Abyss, name to him to Hebrew abaddwn and in the Greecian name is having apolluwn

Just checked two commonly-used translations and found that the languages used on the cross were Hebrew, Latin, and Greek or--in the other translation--Aramaic, Latin, and Greek.

In any case, yes, Latin was used by the Romans at that time and long had been.

 

[Albion]

LOL That's an awesome question. I'd like to know, myself, just what the RCC used officially prior to the Vulgate. I'm no expert on Roman Catholics. I'll freely admit that.

The question was about what language the Romans spoke at that time, but the books of the Bible were not written in Latin.

 

[Musa80]

According to Wikipedia (and we all know wikipedia never lies right) the source for the Vulgate was the "vetus latina" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vetus_Latina. It looks like it was a hodgepodge of many sources, partially including the LXX.