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

[calluna]

Thanks for helping keep the discussion on the real point of the OP (as opposed to it being viewed as nothing but an invitation to people of different denominations to throw verbal stones at each other).

One answer has been offered by Kolya:

"I could quote you the genealogies of the Current Bishops back to the Apostles. But I doubt the likes of you would attribute any significance to that."

But I don't see how that answers the question since there are all kinds of churches that can trace their bishops back to the Apostles, both Catholic and Protestant.

But no Protestant denom relies upon succession for its internal authority, and neither does any make claims to outsiders on that basis.

The reason Methodists and Lutherans (already mentioned) and other churches claim validity is because they feel that ALL who truly preach the Gospel and administer the Sacraments are the Church of Christ. If a church doesn't do that, then it follows that it is not valid, but if a thousand church bodies do indeed teach and practice the essentials of what Jesus taught, they are naturally going to feel validated by his intention.

Quite so. The gospel is what converts, and the gospel is not the exclusive product of anyone, or of any group. Where there is conversion, there is the Holy Spirit. And where 'two or three' are gathered in the power of the Holy Spirit, there is the church, wherever in the world, in whatever circumstances, that may be.

 

[Musa80]

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

Right you are. Just went back and re-read the preceding posts. Still my curiosity was piqued, even if I ran another direction with it.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

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.

Ok thks. I have never used the Vulgate as I am more interested in the Koine/Biblical Greek......

John 19:20 This then the title many read of the Judeans that near was the place of the City the where was crucified/estaurwqh <4717> (5681) the Jesus and it was having been written to Hebrew, to Roman, to Greek.

Reve 11:8 and the bodies of them upon the broadplace of the City the great which-any is being called spiritually Sodom and Egypt the-where also the Lord of them was crucified/estaurwqh <4717> (5681)

 

[racer]

What is your experience of these 'faiths' (ex. worshiping in their community, research etc.) ?

As for the Orthodox, I haven't done much study. Just what I learn in our discusions.

Regarding Catholicism, how about 6-8 years of study and participation here on the boards with other Catholics. I have learned much and had many of my misunderstandings corrected and changed. I no longer argue against my "misperceptions" of Catholic teachings. I now argue against a correct understanding regarding particular Catholic teachings.

Example as I stated before, I no longer argue that Jesus had "brothers and sisters" (that I think that it is implied Scripturally) because it is rather vague. So, I don't believe any church has the authority to declare it "doctrine or dogma" either way. Since Scripture is silent on the Immaculate Conception and Mary's bodily assumption. We simply can not say, so I don't think it should be declared "doctrine or dogma." We should be free to believe what we want about the teachings which Scripture is silent and vague. If it had a bearing on our salvation, I believe it would be included in the Bible.

So, how does my addressing this question apply to you address the OP?

 

[racer]

Thekla,

I have stated in times past, that, if I were to decide to convert to Catholocism or Orthodoxy, that Orthodoxy would be my choice.

 

[Albion]

But no Protestant denom relies upon succession for its internal authority, and neither does any make claims to outsiders on that basis.

That's right...and I made that point myself. But if the EO or RC are said to claim validity on the basis of Apostolic Succession )as someone here suggested), then my point is that there are Protestant churches (Anglicans, for one) which also can make that same claim. This means that this basis is nothing special to either the EO or RC.

But it is not presented as the reason why the Anglicans or other non-EO, non-RC churches feel themselves valid, that's true.

Quite so. The gospel is what converts, and the gospel is not the exclusive product of anyone, or of any group. Where there is conversion, there is the Holy Spirit. And where 'two or three' are gathered in the power of the Holy Spirit, there is the church, wherever in the world, in whatever circumstances, that may be.

Well, that is not the basis of the claim made by most of these churches. While I understand that some Christians feel that the Spirit validates and two or three are gathered, etc. that normally is not the argument. Rather, it is that all churches which do what a church should do are thereby valid...and that is to preach the Gospel correctly and administer the sacraments properly. Either way, it is not a claim to exclusive validity and does not focus upon the institution itself rather than what it does.

 

[Heber]

LLOJ - Hendricksons Hebrew/Greek/English is a good interlinear used by a number of folk on this site.

 

[racer]

The fact that one needs to ask is conclusive.

Those who know me, know there is a point to my question. In other OPs if I make certain statements that do not wish to address, I'm reminded that I am off topic. So, I started my own OP.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Quite so. The gospel is what converts, and the gospel is not the exclusive product of anyone, or of any group. Where there is conversion, there is the Holy Spirit. And where 'two or three' are gathered in the power of the Holy Spirit, there is the church, wherever in the world, in whatever circumstances, that may be.

Mark 1:15 And saying, "Has been filled the time and has neared/hggiken <1448> (5758) the Kingdom of the God. Be ye reforming! and be ye believing! in the Good-Message."

Luke 21:31 Thus also ye whenever ye may be seeing these-things becoming ye are knowing that nigh/egguV <1451> is the Kingdom of the God.

 

[racer]

OH, now I get this. Pardon my ignorance, I thought this was going to be some kind of actual theological discussion, but it is evidently a pulpit from which to defecate on Catholics.

Thanks for the clarification, kids.

Well, I think crass comments are quite unnecessary, but if this thread devolves into slandering of the Orthodox or Catholics, I will be the first to say so. It is my intention as the--OP--to have a theological discussion. And the comments made thus far are not without justification. I've started this thread because of the 3300 posts + in the Sola Scriptura thread where some SS proponents have sincerely sought to help others understand, only to be accused 3300+ posts later that they have failed to address the OP.

Read up a little on that thread before you harshly judge those commenting here.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well, I think crass comments are quite unnecessary, but if this thread devolves into slandering of the Orthodox or Catholics, I will be the first to say so. It is my intention as the--OP--to have a theological discussion.

I really do not see much Scripture being used here though......

Mark 1:15 And saying "has been filled the Time and has-neared the Kingdom of the God.
Be ye reforming/repenting!/metanoeite <3340> (5720) and be ye believing!/pisteuete <4100> (5720) in the Good-Message.

Revelation 16:11 And they blaspheme the God of the heaven out of the miseries of them, and out of the sores of them. And not they repent/reform/metenohsan <3340> (5656) out of the works of them.

 

[Heber]

John 19:20 This then the title many read of the Judeans that near was the place of the City the where was crucified/estaurwqh <4717> (5681) the Jesus and it was having been written to Hebrew, to Roman, to Greek.

This passage then goes on tell us what it says and that the authorities wanted it changed. The reason the authorities wanted it changed, and got quite worked up about it was because it would read like this: Yeshua HaNatzerati V'Melech HaY'hudah - the letters in bold spelling YHVH - the name of G_d (but of course it was in Hebrew, not English!). And they asked Pilate not to write that but to write that 'he said he was the king of the Jews' which would change the lettering considerably.

Interesting what you find out when you read the Bible.

 

[Albion]

Trying to stay on the topic, I'd like to try throwing out a somewhat different answer.

Apostolic Succession was mentioned, but it really is not the rock-bottom answer to why the EO or the RCC claim validity as they do.

I) For the EO, it's continuity. Presumably, that which is least changed and closest to the original is most correct (or likely to be).

II) For the RC, however, there's a more mechanical reason that is offered. It is that Jesus chose Peter out of all the Apostles, commissioned him to lead the whole of his church and, by implication, pass this authority on to every other presiding bishop of the last church (Rome) he served. It's a valid-by-chosen- organization argument, unlike the EO's which is a valid-by-steadfastness argument.

(Note: This RC contention requires reading into the Matt 16 passage what many people say is not there and which, in any case, was not cited by the bishops of Rome as their justification until about 400 years after Christ. Nevertheless, there it is.)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Trying to stay on the topic, I'd like to try throwing out a somewhat different answer.

Apostolic Succession was mentioned, but it really is not the rock-bottom answer to why the EO or the RCC claim validity as they do.

I) For the EO, it's continuity. Presumably, that which is least changed and closest to the original is most correct (or likely to be).

II) For the RC, however, there's a more mechanical reason that is offered. It is that Jesus chose Peter out of all the Apostles, commissioned him to lead the whole of his church and, by implication, pass this authority on to every other presiding bishop of the last church (Rome) he served. It's a valid-by-chosen- organization argument, unlike the EO's which is valid-by-steadfastness argument.

Well, in that case I will bow out of this thread....Peace

 

[racer]

I don't see the point in debating this.

I'm not asking to debate, however, it is generally an inevitability. However, if you can provide a logical and understandable explanation, you are free to do so without being forced into a debate.

If one really wants to know, one either gets up and does their own research,

Which I have done.

and then draw their own conclusions.

Which I did. However, I found that some of my own conclusions were wrong, and thanks to some very gracious, patient, and loving Catholics/Orthodox on this board was corrected and found that my initial understandings were in need of corrections. Not everybody does that, I know. But, I had a vested interest because from the age of 14 my daughter was dating a Catholic and it became clear after a couple of years they would most likely get married--and they did.

Or you stay as you are for the rest of your life.

Study and education, even if you come to a correct understanding won't necessarily change a persons faith or belief system.

I could quote you the genealogies of the Current Bishops back to the Apostles. But I doubt the likes of you would attribute any significance to that.

Do you know me? Or am I over reacting to your use of the phrase "the likes of you?" I am not restricting your arguments to biblical or scriptural basis. But, I don't see how genealogies back to the apostles substantiates is claim to authority. I understand why it is significant to you, however, that fact alone does not substantiate the claims of the RCC or EOC when it comes to the supposed authority of Holy Tradition or Papal Infallibility.

So I rest my case

How does one rest a "case" he/she never made?

and say if you really want a satisfactory answer to the OP, go and ask a RCC or EOC cleric. they have been trained to give significant responses to such queries.

So, in other words, you can't answer the OP? That's fine, don't feel obligated.

 

[racer]

What "authority" are you talking about?

The infallible authority of your Church. Your claim of possession of the "fullness of truth" which extends beyond that which is covered in Scripture. The authority of "Holy Tradition" and its equality to Scripture.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

and say if you really want a satisfactory answer to the OP, go and ask a RCC or EOC cleric. they have been trained to give significant responses to such queries.

For those that might be new and lurking on GT these are Boards for those respective Denominations.....

http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=145
The Ancient Way - Eastern Orthodox

http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26
One Bread, One Body - Catholic

http://christianforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=449
The Voice In The Desert - Oriental Orthodox

 

[racer]

He's not wet behind the ears, is he.

Maybe just new to our discussions.

 

[racer]

This question suggests also the question: where does the Lutheran, Methodist, Anglican etc., etc. Church get its authority ?

No, remember who asked the question? It was me, and I'm not asking about the above mentioned denominations. I am specifically asking about the RCC and EOC. These are the only denominations (I know, they're not really denominations) that claim infallibility and hold Tradition to be equal to Scripture. So, I am specifically addressing those churches.

 

[racer]

CJ, are Mormons Christians?

Honestly, do you really not get the gist of the analogy Josiah uses, or do you think playing innocently ignorant fools anybody?