- May 19, 2015
- 125,550
- 28,531
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
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.
Sorry I must have missed that beforeAnd that's fine. I did not ask for Scriptural support. I simple 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 thought the question was about the EO and RC. Now I am thinking it was really asked of the EO and RC (meaning, its members here).
That's what I was afraid of.They're not going to go beyond the pet words you asked not to be used, you know. They never do, which I think is because they aren't able to. It confuses them when we push into "What does that really mean to you?" territory.
Eastern Orthodoxy, through its false claim to have teaching authority, teaches that justification is by works, particularly fasting; and that Christ's sacrifice was exemplary only, not 'in payment' for sin (the Christus Victor heresy). The latter teaching does not entail true penitence upon members, which even Rome succeeds in doing (in theory, anyway). [Staff Edit] Many people do not realise this, and think of the EOC as closer to Protestantism than Rome. The reverse is true.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.
So am I correct in understanding that you view both the Orthodox and RCC as "cults"?Eastern Orthodoxy, through its false claim to have teaching authority, teaches that justification is by works, particularly fasting; and that Christ's sacrifice was exemplary only, not 'in payment' for sin (the Christus Victor heresy). The latter teaching does not entail true penitence of members, which even Rome succeeds in doing (in theory, anyway). Those teachings make the EOC at least as much a dangerous cult as the RCC and as any modern American cult, imv. Many people do not realise this, and think of the EOC as closer to Protestanism than Rome. The reverse is true.
Pure fable. Alice in Wonderland makes more sense, truly.The problem is that you probably know the answer is Apostolic succession
Various denominations accept the Pope's authority in a variety of ways, as well as the Traditions of the Church (obviously), as well as accepting the authority of priests and bishops to some extent as well. I would venture to guess that some are even in discrete communion with the Church. I would reccomend that such person and organization pay tribute to the Pontiff, to cover an array of trespasses, in whatever capacity that they prudently can.Succinctly delicious.
From Jesus Christ.
Eastern Orthodoxy, through its false claim to have teaching authority, teaches that justification is by works, particularly fasting; and that Christ's sacrifice was exemplary only, not 'in payment' for sin (the Christus Victor heresy). The latter teaching does not entail true penitence upon members, which even Rome succeeds in doing (in theory, anyway). Those teachings make the EOC at least as much a dangerous cult as the RCC and as any modern American cult, imv. Many people do not realise this, and think of the EOC as closer to Protestantism than Rome. The reverse is true.
Why would the "communion" have to be discreet?Various denominations accept the Pope's authority in a variety of ways, as well as the Traditions of the Church (obviously), as well as accepting the authority of priests and bishops to some extent as well. I would venture to guess that some are even in discrete communion with the Church. I would reccomend that such person and organization pay tribute to the Pontiff, to cover an array of trespasses, in whatever capacity that they prudently can.
Anyone can so self-claim for self alone, and anyone can make whatever chain of assumptions flowing from such.
But, of course, it remains such until it is substantiated.......
I just now caught thisOriginally Posted by fatedVarious denominations accept the Pope's authority in a variety of ways, as well as the Traditions of the Church (obviously), as well as accepting the authority of priests and bishops to some extent as well. I would venture to guess that some are even in discrete communion with the Church. I would reccomend that such person and organization pay tribute to the Pontiff, to cover an array of trespasses, in whatever capacity that they prudently can.
Well, you know what that means, don't you? You just canceled out your own post. LOL.Josiah said:Anyone can so self-claim for self alone, and anyone can make whatever chain of assumptions flowing from such.
But, of course, it remains such until it is substantiated.
What I think is notable is that the RCC and EO - wonderful and praiseworthy as they are - are never so much as even mentioned in the Scriptures, about anything. No authorizations are given to them. No promises. Nothing; they aren't even mentioned. About anything.
Now, yes, I think it is reasonable that the clergy in the RCC and LDS have a "line of ordination" going back to the Twelve. The same is true for Lutherans, Anglicans, Reformed and other clergy. However, any significance of such also needs to be substantiated - and why uniquely to the RCC or EO or OO or Anglican or Lutheran? Virtually ALL Christian clergy today have the same likihood of a "line of ordination" back to the Twelve.
We all know the unique interpretation of the RCC for the "keys" issue. It is highly, highly debated - and only one denomination agrees with the RCC's rather self-serving view there, the RCC. And we all know that the LDS also claims to have been founded by Jesus and that too is highly, highly debated - and only denomination agrees with the LDS's rather self-serving view there - the LDS. What seems obvious to ME is that Jesus founded His church. Now, is that church the community of believers, the communion of saints, the mystical union of all belivers or was it the specific, singular, particular CATHOLIC or GREEK ORTHODOX or LDS denomination? All Christian faith has "roots" to the Apostles and all our institutions (including denominations) do - no one denies that, but does that mean that Jesus specificly founded on specific denomination that exists right now - and no other? Did He establish a faith community or a denominational institution?
The RCC exclusively claims for itself exclusively that Jesus gave it all this remarkable authority. The "substantiation" it gives for this is its own unique "interpretation" of a couple of Scriptures that don't so much as even MENTION it, and then statements that it has cherrypicked - often from centuries AFTER it says it was founded - from people who seemed to believe it so. The LDS is the same, and they also use a couple of Scriptures (yes, from the Bible - not just thier unique additional Scriptures) as it itself exclusively interprets them that don't so much as even MENTION it, and then statements that it has cherrypicked - often very close in time to the founding of that specific denomination - from people who seem to believe it so. Now, I'm not implying ANYTHING insincere on the part of the RCC or LDS here. I'm not implying ANYTHING disparaging toward the RCC or LDS here. Only that each "substantiates" it's claim in the same way: by pointing to Scriptures that don't so much as even MENTION it - much less give ANY authority to it, just using the remarkable interpretation of itself alone to support the remarkable claim of itself alone - and each's own "tradition" as it itself chooses and interprets. It really doesn't have a thing to do with "succession" (as if such could be substantiated anyway - it can't prior to the 4th century) since the beginning point of this sucession was PEOPLE, not the RCC or EO or OO or any other denomination.
Here's the simply, unavoidable, historic point: Jesus never authorized or promised any denomination anything. Including the RCC. Nor did He once direct our attention (much less our docility) toward any denominational entity - including the RCC. That's not to say the RCC isn't an orthodox, wonderful, praise-worthy denomination - I think it is, but there is no evidence that Jesus ever authorized IT or promised IT anything.
That's my perspective.
Pax
- Josiah
I didn't miss this part of the OP: Simple one word comments like "Jesus," "Tradition," "Scripture," won't suffice so don't waste your time, please.
so I reposted it for your benefit.
Eastern Orthodoxy, through its false claim to have teaching authority, teaches that justification is by works, particularly fasting; and that Christ's sacrifice was exemplary only, not 'in payment' for sin (the Christus Victor heresy). The latter teaching does not entail true penitence upon members, which even Rome succeeds in doing (in theory, anyway). Those teachings make the EOC at least as much a dangerous cult as the RCC and as any modern American cult, imv. Many people do not realise this, and think of the EOC as closer to Protestantism than Rome. The reverse is true.
Maybe you should go back and reread the entire OP.Interesting thread, the heckling from the termninally nonplussed began even before a single answer had been given by either RC or EO. I note that the OP did not correct same for offering something other than what the OP asked.
I believe you know that the answer for any faith is not that simple.Where does ANY Christian believe that their authority comes from?
Jesus Christ.
Not even going to try to guess?What is the VEHICLE by which authority has come down through time?
Didn't say it was a life-changing question/discussion. If it bores you, feel free to ignore the thread.That is where different sects divide.
So freakin' what.
So, my question is upon what do you base this belief? How do you know this to be the truth?As an aside: as an EO Christian, I believe that the authority still resides with Christ: not in a man, not in a book. Said authority has been given to administrate (read the gospels, folks).
That's not what Josiah does and you know that.I'd like to thank CJ for the auto-generated smarmy comment which equates EO and RC with JWs.
/cue deflections
this is all false.Eastern Orthodoxy, through its false claim to have teaching authority, teaches that justification is by works, particularly fasting; and that Christ's sacrifice was exemplary only, not 'in payment' for sin (the Christus Victor heresy). The latter teaching does not entail true penitence upon members, which even Rome succeeds in doing (in theory, anyway). Those teachings make the EOC at least as much a dangerous cult as the RCC and as any modern American cult, imv. Many people do not realise this, and think of the EOC as closer to Protestantism than Rome. The reverse is true.
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?