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

[Rick Otto]

...we'd be making a huge advance.

And I agree, except it would be at the expense of those who need a strong visible authority figure & structure.

Heaven forbid, Ninevah would be spared. lol

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I don't want to mess with the train of though you were working on but, really, this is a MAJOR problem area here. Many posters think that "the church" is a club with by laws and membership rolls that Jesus set up in opposition to other such clubs, when in reality what he founded was a movement that all true believers belong to. If we could get beyond some of us speaking a totally different language when referring to "church" on these forums, we'd be making a huge advance.

It's been said that Anglicanism isn't so much a church as a "movement"- so it's no surprise that you would express such a sentiment.

Church is no more a "movement" than marriage is a movement.

Scripture teaches about Church as relationship and covenant, not political ideology.

As to "all true believers"- as if any of us is qualified to make such a subjective judgement as is implied by referring to persons as "true"- comprising the Church: this statemewnt bespeaks the Western, Protestant obsession with being approved and affirmed in their beliefs. What does it matter whether Rome thinks you're part of the Church or not? I don't give a whit as to whether you think me or mine are part of what you call Church.

It's just weird and adolescent to insist that others affirm you as (fill in the blank).

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And I agree, except it would be at the expense of those who need a strong visible authority figure & structure.

Heaven forbid, Ninevah would be spared. lol

Interesting. The word used for men in Jonah 4:11 is the hebrew word "adam". Never noticed that before

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Jonah 4:10 And YHWH is saying "thou, thou have had pity over the gourd which not thou toiled in it and not thou made grow which son of night became and son of night it perished.
11 And I, not? I shall pity over Nineveh the City, the great which are in her to many from two ten ten-thousand adam/0120 'adam who not he knows between right of him and to left of him and beast many.

0120 'adam {aw-dawm'} from 0119; TWOT - 25a; n m
AV - man 408, men 121, Adam 13, person(s) 8, common sort + 07230 1, hypocrite 1; 552

Matt 12:41 "Men Ninevites shall be resurrecting/ana-sthsontai <450> (5698) in the judging with the Generation/geneaV <1074>, this and they shall be condemning her, that they reform into the proclamation of Jonah and behold! more of Jonah here.

 

[sunlover1]

What does it matter whether Rome thinks you're part of the Church or not? I don't give a whit as to whether you think me or mine are part of what you call Church.

It's just weird and adolescent to insist that others affirm you as (fill in the blank).

I dont care if rome considers me either, but Albions point was dead on.
It's that one distinction that colors all of our communication... or lack
thereof
We indeed must speak different languages since we see "the church" as
a different creature... I guess one group sees it as a dynamic, living
body of believers and another as an entitiy?

Can't get it together that way dude!

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I dont care if rome considers me either, but Albions point was dead on.
It's that one distinction that colors all of our communication... or lack
thereof
We indeed must speak different languages since we see "the church" as
a different creature... I guess one group sees it as a dynamic, living
body of believers and another as an entitiy?

Can't get it together that way dude!

Now ya know why I have my location as "Babylon"

Genesis 11:4 And they are saying, "grant thou!, we shall build for us a City and a Tower and top of it in heavens and we shall make for us a Name, lest we are scattering over faces/surfaces all of the land.

Matt 21:33 Another parable hear ye! A certain man was home-owner who-any plants a vineyard,and a barrier/fence to it places-about, and excavates in it a winepress and builds a TOWER and granted it to Farmers/Dressers and he travels. [Isaiah 5:1-3/Reve 14:20]

 

[Standing Up]

Interesting. The word used for men in Jonah 4:11 is the hebrew word "adam". Never noticed that before

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Jonah 4:10 And YHWH is saying "thou, thou have had pity over the gourd which not thou toiled in it and not thou made grow which son of night became and son of night it perished.
11 And I, not? I shall pity over Nineveh the City, the great which are in her to many from two ten ten-thousand adam/0120 'adam who not he knows between right of him and to left of him and beast many.

0120 'adam {aw-dawm'} from 0119; TWOT - 25a; n m
AV - man 408, men 121, Adam 13, person(s) 8, common sort + 07230 1, hypocrite 1; 552

Matt 12:41 "Men Ninevites shall be resurrecting/ana-sthsontai <450> (5698) in the judging with the Generation/geneaV <1074>, this and they shall be condemning her, that they reform into the proclamation of Jonah and behold! more of Jonah here.

Joshua 3:16 That the waters which came down from above stood [and] rose up upon an heap very far from the city Adam, that [is] beside Zaretan: and those that came down toward the sea of the plain, [even] the salt sea, failed, [and] were cut off: and the people passed over right against Jericho.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Joshua 3:16 That the waters which came down from above stood [and] rose up upon an heap very far from the city Adam, that [is] beside Zaretan: and those that came down toward the sea of the plain, [even] the salt sea, failed, [and] were cut off: and the people passed over right against Jericho.

Zechariah 13:5 And he says "not a-prophet I, man/0376 'iysh tilling ground I, that adam/0120 'adam he caused me to acquire from youth of me".
6 And he says to him "what the smitings, these, between hands of thee?" And he says "which I was smitten House of lovers of me".

 

[prodromos]

There is no proof that was ever not in communion with Rome.

It is an assumption.

No, it is plain historical fact. Forgive me for assuming you were knowledgeable about the various schisms in the early church. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the circumstances of the Antiochian Patriarchate under Meletius and his successor Flavian, neither of whom were recognised by the Pope.

John

 

[JacktheCatholic]

No, it is plain historical fact. Forgive me for assuming you were knowledgeable about the various schisms in the early church. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the circumstances of the Antiochian Patriarchate under Meletius and his successor Flavian, neither of whom were recognised by the Pope.

John

Any chance the Russian Orthodox may reconcile with the RCC?

I was reading an interesting article: http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7336222

Shalom bro

 

[prodromos]

It's not a matter of subservience to Rome, it is a matter of the Unity under the See of Peter. When Peter and the Church leaders were in Jerusalem, that is where the Christians in Antioch turned when they had a question about the faith.(Acts 10-15)

When the Christians in Corinth had a question about the faith in approximately 95 AD, they sent their question to Rome, not because it was Rome, but because that is where the successor of Peter was located.

This is one of the problems when discussing history with Catholics. Once they've accepted the idea of the Papacy, they begin reading it back into every historical reference.
There are a number of reasons why the Church in Corinth sought help from Rome:
They were a Roman colony in the middle of Greece.
Their cultural ties were to Rome.
They had regular trade with Rome and with it, regular communication.
Their church had been established by Paul, of whom Clement had been a close companion.

Your suggestion that they turned to Rome because the successor of Peter was there is pure conjecture.

John

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

There was NEVER a unity of all the Apostolic Churches under the See of Rome.

Never.

There was unity with the See of Rome, never under.

Forgive me...

 

[prodromos]

"'But you say, the Church is founded upon Peter,' and replies: "Although the same is done in another place upon all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church is made solid upon them all equally, yet one of them is elected among the twelve, that by the setting up of a head the occasion of schism may be removed.

The rest of the story.

I know that this was probably not your intention, but whoever posted this quote as you found it was attempting to distort Jerome's view.

I realise that I haven't thanked you for putting this in context. For some reason I had not been able to find the source of this quote but have now been able to.
Here it is:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.vi.vi.I.html#vi.vi.I-Page_366

I'll respond to your comment later, but you still haven't responded to Chrysostom or Augustine.

John

 

[Uphill Battle]

This is one of the problems when discussing history with Catholics. Once they've accepted the idea of the Papacy, they begin reading it back into every historical reference.
There are a number of reasons why the Church in Corinth sought help from Rome:
They were a Roman colony in the middle of Greece.
Their cultural ties were to Rome.
They had regular trade with Rome and with it, regular communication.
Their church had been established by Paul, of whom Clement had been a close companion.

Your suggestion that they turned to Rome because the successor of Peter was there is pure conjecture.

John

I'd just like to take a moment to bask in the fact that this was stated by someone other than a Protestant.................

ah, done now.

thank you!

 

[chestertonrules]

This is one of the problems when discussing history with members of the Orthodox Church. Once they've rejected the idea of the Papacy, they begin reading it out of every historical reference.
There are a number of reasons why the Church in Corinth sought help from Rome:
They recognized in Clement the successor of Peter.
They recognized that the center of the faith had moved to Rome because that's were Peter and Paul ended up.
There was no other Church that claimed authority over other Bishops to whom they could appeal.




Kyle[/quote]

 

[calluna]

There are a number of reasons why the Church in Corinth sought help from Rome

There was a very good reason for rich Romans to make out that those confounded Christians in Corinth sought help from Christians in Rome.

 

[chestertonrules]

No, it is plain historical fact. Forgive me for assuming you were knowledgeable about the various schisms in the early church. I suggest you familiarise yourself with the circumstances of the Antiochian Patriarchate under Meletius and his successor Flavian, neither of whom were recognised by the Pope.

John

I will do some research, but as I understand it Chrysostom split with Constantinople, and he had appealed this split to Rome.

Is this inaccurate?

 

[chestertonrules]

I'll do my best.

Matthew 16:19. This is a promise made by Christ which is not fulfilled until all the disciples receive the same, so it is not something unique to Peter.

I disagree. Only Peter was promised the keys to t he kingdom. The other apostles never received this promise.

Christ tells the other disciples the same in Matthew 18:18 but the promise was not realised until Pentecost. Just in case you wish to dispute that Mather 18:18 speaks of the keys, know that you would be going against those whom you consider to be "Doctors" of the Church.
St Jerome

He did not promise the other apostles the keys to the kingdom. This is a reference to Isaiah 22. The keys are only held by one person at a time.

"...elsewhere the same is attributed to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the church depends on them all alike". (Epistle 146.1)


​

I disagree with Jerome on this point, but it doesn't seem to impact his understanding that Peter held primacy among the apostles. The scriptures are clear that only Peter was given the promise of the keys, and they are equally clear in Isaiah 22 that only one person at a time can hold the keys.

St Augustine

"This refers to the keys about which it is said "whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" -(Sermon III/8)
​

St John Chrysostom

"The keys of the heavens, that whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" -(Homily 54.2-3.)
​

I don't equate the keys with binding and loosing. I believe it is clearly a unique granting of authority to Peter. Although from these quotes it seems that Augustine and Chrysostom have a different understanding, it is also clear from other quotes that they recognize that a primacy in authority was granted to Peter.

I really don't see where you want to go with this. I have read and reread the prayer which is John 17 and fail to see anything which supports the Papacy. Of verse 21 which you quote, St John Chrysostom says the following:

I don't believe that the Church can be one without a singular authority to settle disputes. History supports my view. Is there any dispute between Jesus and God as to what is true?

"That they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me and I in You."



​

1 Peter 5:1-4
So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: 2 shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; 3not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory.
​

According to Peter, the chief shepherd is Christ, with many others acting as shepherds

​

I agree that Jesus is the Chief shepherd and high priest, but worth noting here is that Peter is given instructions to his fellow elders.

I think it is worth noting that Peter was not "holder of the Keys" when Christ spoke these words to him. The Keys were not received until Pentecost. Apart from that you have the comments from my earlier response which you haven't answered.

I don't think that is relevant. They were promised to one person. Without a single person holding the keys, they lose their significance.


Best Regards,

Kyle

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

I dont care if rome considers me either, but Albions point was dead on.
It's that one distinction that colors all of our communication... or lack
thereof
We indeed must speak different languages since we see "the church" as
a different creature... I guess one group sees it as a dynamic, living
body of believers and another as an entitiy?

Can't get it together that way dude!

I don't see "movement" as a Body, but rather, a set of ideas. We live in an era of big ideas, and an era when the ideas take precedent over persons.

The question your post begs is this: Who is it that sees church- or rather, the Church- as a club? Boy Scouts of America is a movement. Pentecostalism is a movement.

These are not true "Bodies," but loose affiliations based upon shared ideas.

We all share ideas in common with many. We are in covenant with far fewer.

 

[Standing Up]

There was NEVER a unity of all the Apostolic Churches under the See of Rome.

Never.

There was unity with the See of Rome, never under.

Forgive me...

This unity began to dissolve circa 120ad, again in 150ad, and finally in 180ad.

But I wonder. Is there biblical or extrabiblical evidence of unity with the See of Rome that you might point me to before 150ad?

 

[Standing Up]

I'll do my best.


I disagree. Only Peter was promised the keys to t he kingdom. The other apostles never received this promise.




He did not promise the other apostles the keys to the kingdom. This is a reference to Isaiah 22. The keys are only held by one person at a time.

So, what do you do with this?

Rev. 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;



-snip-

-snip- They were promised to one person. Without a single person holding the keys, they lose their significance.


Best Regards,

Kyle

Ahh, you answer my question.