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

[Gwenyfur]

If I might suggest, that if you truly have a wish to know more about Orthodoxy, let me suggest the following books
The Life of the World

The Faith: Understanding Orthodox Christianity

 

[calluna]

the authority still resides with Christ: not in a man, not in a book

...but in an organisation. One that cannot prove a single thing in its favor. It pontificates, it legislates, but has no authority to do so.

 

[racer]

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).

All very interesting . . . .

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.

Is it really that confusing? When have we ever discussed a churches "authority to exist?" Why would that pop into your mind (seems someone else in this thread already tossed that in here somewhere)? That's absurd.

Please tell me you are not intentionally trying to confuse the issue. Would it not be common courtesy to attempt to address the question as the SS proponents have attemted to do repeatedly in the SS thread? Do you think that it is not obvious you guys are drawing the same circles you are drawing in the other thread? You can't explain, justify or refute assertions or arguments, so you avoid them and cloud them over with ridiculous non-arguments and questions.

 

[calluna]

I can't address the OP, because the OP excludes the only answer - Jesus Christ. What other possible authority could any church which calls itself Christian have?

The devil, according to the Bible.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Thekla 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.

Greetings Thekla. That is another thing I admire about the EO is they debate the Muslims more often than not on CF and other forums.
Hats off to ye!!

Matt 24:9 then they shall be delivering ye up into tribulation, and they shall be Killing/apoktenousin <615> (5692) Ye, and ye shall be being hated by all of the nations thru/because-of the Name of Me; [Future Active 3]

 

[racer]

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.

I'm not requiring an official response. I believe there are many members of these churches who participate here who are qualified to explain this to me. They certainly find themselves qualified to mock and fight against Sola Scriptura.

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.

Not just the true church claim, the claim to sole interpretative authority of Scripture, infallbility of the Pope and Magisterium, the authority to declare extra-biblical dogmas and doctrine, etc . . . .

As for the Orthodox, I don't think this claim has ever been made.

Which claim? The "one true church" claim? I have certainly had other Orthodox people tell me that it is the Orthodox Church which possesses the "fullness of truth."

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

Yes, and the RCC makes this same claim.

(I have done this myself and you can as well. Google is your friend) as well as the teachings from the early church fathers.

Yes, I have found the teachings of the Church fathers to be very informative, but not necessarily always in line with the RCC/EOC. This is an issue on which the RCC and EOC don't always concur. Some church fathers are not as well respected in one church as in the other.

The Orthodox do not claim that they are the "One True Church" and that anyone outside the church cannot have the Holy Spirit.

That is very nice to know.

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.

Yes, it was helpful and thank you for giving the OP serious consideration and thought.

 

[Trento]

So, for you guys who belong to these faiths, please explain to us where the authority of your originated from and provide evidence or substantiation.

Simple one word comments like "Jesus," "Tradition," "Scripture," won't suffice so don't waste your time, please.

And, since I am the originator of the OP, I will define the limits of what is considered off topic and what is not, if you don't like the direction the discussion goes, feel free to "unsubscribe."

It is crystal clear, as we can see in the history recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, that there did exist in the Apostolic age a visible authority to which the early Christians were to go in order to resolve doctrinal and moral uncertainties. And when that authority was resisted, or deceived as in the case of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5) drastic chastisements fell from heaven.
Authority was explicitly promised by the Savior to His apostles when he said, "he that heareth you, heareth me." (Luke 10:16) We Believe our Bishops through Apostolic sucession still hold that authority.

 

[racer]

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.

Thank you, Albion. I really did not think the question would be found to be so confusing.

 

[racer]

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.

That is interesting. I've not heard that assertion before. I'll have to do some reading up on that. Thank you.

There are one or two books difference but they are deuterocanonical and neither church uses them as a basis for dogma.

I for one have never understood the big to do over the deuterocanonicals myself. Some people say that the RCCs use them for substantiating Purgatory and one or two other issues. I may be wrong.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Authority was explicitly promised by the Savior to His apostles when he said, "he that heareth you, heareth me." (Luke 10:16) We Believe our Bishops through Apostolic sucession still hold that authority.

1. Authority to TEACH is not a promise of infalliblity or an exemption from accountability; nor does it place the teacher above or equal to the teaching.

2. Jesus said no such thing to the RCC (or any other denomination). Nor to any Apostle or any successor thereof.



.

 

[Kristos]

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.

We don't claim to have infallible authority.

Believing that the fullness of the faith has been well presevered doesn't seem to have anything to do with authority.

I'm not sure what part of "Holy Tradition" you think is exercising authority. I don't think we see an equality. Clearly the Gospel is first and foremost. Everything else must be subject to it. The authority of the Gospel comes from Jesus Christ.

On dogma, the EO only recognizes 7 councils as ecumenical and therefor authoritative. This authority was not preconceived or claimed, rather it was derived by their ecumenical acceptance by the Church miltant and so the authority of the councils was derived from the Holy Spirit as accepted by the people of the Church. So, the Holy Spirit working in the councils made them acceptable to the Church as authoritative and ecumenical. To a certain extent this authority is still somewhat ecumenical in that most Christians accept the 7 councils with a few caveats. The Nicene Creed. The Trinity. Christ as God and Man.

 

[racer]

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?

Very well said. I actually agree with this statement.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Authority was explicitly promised by the Savior to His apostles when he said, "he that heareth you, heareth me." (Luke 10:16) We Believe our Bishops through Apostolic sucession still hold that authority.

So do the EO

 

[Uphill Battle]

It is crystal clear, as we can see in the history recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, that there did exist in the Apostolic age a visible authority to which the early Christians were to go in order to resolve doctrinal and moral uncertainties. And when that authority was resisted, or deceived as in the case of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5) drastic chastisements fell from heaven.
Authority was explicitly promised by the Savior to His apostles when he said, "he that heareth you, heareth me." (Luke 10:16) We Believe our Bishops through Apostolic sucession still hold that authority.

Trento, if drastic chastisements fell from heaven on the decieved or resistors, why then, do no such chastisements fall on us protestants? Has the Papal line lost this power? Lost intrest in doing so? Or never had it to begin with, it was only the Apostles?

or, offer up another scenario as to why the successors who supposedly carry the same authority and mantle as Peter, aren't getting the job done.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

CJ, are Mormons Christians?

1. Whether they are or are not, they are able to claim that Jesus founded their denomination, that the Holy Spirit authorizes it's Leadership to speak authoritatively, and both ultimately protects it from error and causes it to follow correctly. Making claims for self is not limited to Christians.

2. I don't think this is an appropriate forum to discuss whether Mormons, Catholics, Lutherans or whoever are - THEREFORE - Christians. Nor is that relevant to the question of this thread.


.

 

[racer]

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

Maybe my question is more suited for those of the Catholic faith. Myself, I don't understand how the topic of "authority" confuses you so.

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.

My question (and thank you btw for a genuine answer) is from where do you get this information. I agree that some of it is in line with Scripture, but as for asserting that the laity (not fealty) is supposed to keep the "rulers" edicts--I cringe at that/

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).

And, like I've said before, to me, Orthodoxy makes more sense than Catholicism. That's based on what little bit I know about the faith.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And, like I've said before, to me, Orthodoxy makes more sense than Catholicism. That's based on what little bit I know about the faith.

I agree

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=5805969&page=82
What would it take for Orthodoxs to come under Pope

quote: The Pope would renounce his Roman Catholicism and become Orthodox. There is nothing that would cause the Church as a whole to join with him.

 

[Thekla]

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.

I guess you havn't been reading my posts long enough, sorry

But every question suggests a host of related questions; the exploration of all questions (the primary and its related) help to "uncover" both the question and, if you will, the (possible) answer/s.

As for the "infallibility thing" , not sure what you mean ...

To digress a bit, SS can be a hard thing to understand (as its consideration -at least in the last thread - is divorced from the life in Christ and the life of His body, "Church"). 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.

 

[racer]

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

And that's fine. I did not ask for Scriptural support. I simply asked from where the RCC/EOC get their self-proclaimed authority. I'm finding the question may be more suited to the RCs, however, I'm not seeing responses from them. Have I missed them?

 

[fated]

The problem is that you probably know the answer is Apostolic succession, down through time from Jesus Christ and the Apostles, by which we can trace our roots throughout time and history. You've probably seen it displayed using Biblical passages (if you haven't you could look, or I could paste some here), you simply reject the conclusion. The problem, then, is that you reject an easily identifiable... interpretation... of the Sacred Texts, in favor of your own, without accepting that other have, at least, the right to accept them as truth, at least as good as your own.