Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
...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.the authority still resides with Christ: not in a man, not in a book
All very interesting . . . .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).
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.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.
The devil, according to the Bible.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?
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.Originally Posted by TheklaThe 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.
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.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.
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 . . . .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.
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."As for the Orthodox, I don't think this claim has ever been made.
Yes, and the RCC makes this same claim.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, 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.(I have done this myself and you can as well. Google is your friend) as well as the teachings from the early church fathers.
That is very nice to know.The Orthodox do not claim that they are the "One True Church" and that anyone outside the church cannot have the Holy Spirit.
Yes, it was helpful and thank you for giving the OP serious consideration and thought.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.
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."
Thank you, Albion. I really did not think the question would be found to be so confusing.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.
That is interesting. I've not heard that assertion before. I'll have to do some reading up on that. Thank you.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.
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.There are one or two books difference but they are deuterocanonical and neither church uses them as a basis for dogma.
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.
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.
Very well said. I actually agree with this statement.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?
So do the EOAuthority 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?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.
CJ, are Mormons Christians?
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.I'll go ahead a bit, though my answer is not exhaustive, nor do I know what is meant here by "authority".
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/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.
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.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).
I agreeAnd, 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 guess you havn't been reading my posts long enough, sorryNo, 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.
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?I really do not see much Scripture being used here though......
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?