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

[LittleLambofJesus]

That was unexpected. You are quite learned of the Scriptures.

Daniel 11 was one of the most difficult chapters in the Bible to translate but it turned out to be quite rewarding.

Dan 11:36 And He does as acceptable of Him, the King, and He shall exalt Himself and He shall magnify Himself over every of God/0410 'El and on God/'El of gods/'El He shall speak marvelous things, and He causes to prosper untill Concluding of Menace/za`am that One being decided She is Finished.

Reve 13:6 And opens the mouth of it into blasphemy toward the God to blaspheme the name of Him and the booth of Him *and of the ones in the heaven boothing.

 

[Thekla]

In an attempt to seriously address the OP, I have been plowing through my books. The term "authority" does not occur in the index of some dozen books I consulted. Flipping through the body of the text (the ones with indexes as well as the many without topic index) the only references I have found are to Christ as head, and in an essay that quotes a 1931 essay, "Authority and Freedom in Orthodox Theology" and uses the phrase "harmonious blending of freedom and authority". I cannot, in the essay which quotes this phrase, find a manner in which this phrase might relate to the OP.

Please understand:
1. western terms and categories do not always work when applied to things other than itself
2. the EO is chiefly concerned with the living out of/experience of Christ in the Christian life
3. As I have always been told in the EO, Christ is the head (author and authority are related concepts) - the manner in which the OP is stated and the application of "western terminology and concepts" to a non-western organism effectively, as far as I can tell, preclude EO from discussion in this thread.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

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?

Cool. You answered it and went along with the OP restrictions at the same time. Well done.

I just flat-out said Jesus Christ.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

(double post)

 

[calluna]

FWIW, thought this may be of interest from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The question of authenticity assumes an altogether special aspect in regard to the First Gospel. The early Christian writers assert that St. Matthew wrote a Gospel in Hebrew; this Hebrew Gospel has, however, entirely disappeared, and the Gospel which we have, and from which ecclesiastical writers borrow quotations as coming from the Gospel of Matthew, is in Greek. What connection is there between this Hebrew Gospel and this Greek Gospel, both of which tradition ascribes to St. Matthew? Such is the problem that presents itself for solution. Let us first examine the facts.


Apparently the RCC believe that Matthew was written in Hebrew, which book has "entirely disappeared". So, whatever Doctrine, Dogma, Tradition, etc. comes therefrom is evidently not provable, like the keys, etc.

Or have I missed something?

Joseph Smith's golden plates have never been found, either.

 

[Chesterton]

My wording may have been faulty, but if you reread the post, you'll see that I did not assume you were playing a fool, I wondered if your were "innocently playing ignorant." The use of the word "fools" in my post could have been replace with "tricks/deceives." So, after you've so grossly misunderstood my comment, I am inclined to believe you actually may not get the gist of what Josiah is saying. Forgive me.

No, I didn't misunderstand your comment. I was making a little joke (but truthful) that I wasn't playing, I was saying that what I said was serious, and allowing that if I'm wrong about CJ, maybe I am ignorant of his meaning. That's why I next explained what I thought he was doing, and asked your opinion.

I'm going to ask you a yes or no question--really simple--yes or no--okay? Do you really believe that Josiah is running a smear campaign against the Orthodox and Catholics?

"Running a smear campaign" might be too much, I'll say it looks to me that he's fond of repeating a cheap shot, when such a huge number of his posts in the SS thread contain RC/LDS in comparative conjunction, and then he's starting it again in this thread (I say starting, because he tends to repeat himself - what he says once in a thread, you will again read many times.)

On the other hand, LLOJ in a subsequent post pointed out to me (if I understand correctly) that RC/LDS comparisons are much discussed in some other forums here which I don't visit. So perhaps it's not just CJ, perhaps it's a larger topic, but regardless of that, I see no legitimacy in the topic, and I dismiss the comparison out-of-hand; otherwise I place the disciples of Christ on the same level as Joseph Smith, and if I do that, I might as well include Muhammed, and whoever comes next.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Joseph Smith's golden plates have never been found, either.

Neither has the Ark of the Covenant

Reve 11:19 And was opened the Sanctuary of the God in the heaven and was visioned the Ark of the Covenant of Him in the Sanctuary of Him and became lightnings and voices and thunders and quaking and hail great

 

[calluna]

I just flat-out said Jesus Christ.

But 'many will come in my name'.

So, after all these posts, it's all to do.

 

[racer]

It is crystal clear, as we can see in the history recorded in the Acts of the Apostles,

Trento, bless you, but it's not crystal clear or we would not be having these discussions. However, I can see you at least put some thought in your answer. So, thank you!!

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.

How is it we fail to see how much we actually agree upon?. But, if I quote for you from St. Augustine what he said regarding Scripture and what he said regarding those through whom it was despensed being mortal and passing away. You will either miss or ignore my point.

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.

From Augustines Confessions:

Chapter XV.—Allegorical Explanation of the Firmament and Upper Works, Ver. 6.

16. Or who but Thou, our God, made for us that firmament1260of authority over us in Thy divine Scripture?12611261 As http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npn...pensed,underwent,mortality#highlighthighlightit is said, For heaven shall be folded up like a scroll; and now it is extended over us like a skin. For Thy divine Scripture is of more sublime authority, since those mortals through whom Thou didst dispense it unto us underwent mortality. And Thou knowest, O Lord, Thou knowest, how Thou with skins didst clothe menwhen by sin they became mortal. Whence as a skin hast Thou stretched out the firmament of Thy Book; that is to say, Thy harmonious words, which by the ministry of mortals Thou hast spread over us. For by their very death is that solid firmament of authority in Thy discourses set forth by them more sublimely extended above all things that are under it, the which, while they were living here, was not so eminently extended. Thou hadst not as yet spread abroad the heaven like a skin; Thou hadst not as yet noised everywhere the report of their deaths.
17. Let us look, O Lord, “upon the heavens, the work of Thy fingers;”1267clear from our eyes that mist with which Thou hast covered them. There is that testimony of Thine which giveth wisdom unto the little ones. Perfect, O my God, Thy praise out of the mouth of babes and sucklings. Nor have we known any other books so destructive to pride, so destructive to the enemy and the defender,1270who resisteth Thy reconciliation in defence of his own sins. I know not, O Lord, I know not other such “pure”words which so persuade me to confession, and make my neck submissive to Thy yoke, and invite me to serve Thee for nought. Let me understand these things, good Father. Grant this to me, placed under them; because Thou hast established these things for those placed under them.

 

[racer]

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.

Thank you for clearing this up.

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.

Thank you again for giving a sincere and thought out response. It's amazing how things can be differently understood when an explanation is offered.

 

[racer]

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.

No, I do not deny that we all have the right to accept what we perceive to be the truth. In fact, I don't think its just a right, I do not believe we have that much control over what we do or don't believe. Some things are not within our grasp, there are things I'd like to believe, but my congnition and rationalization patterns make them unbelievable to me. I don't just radomly pick and choose what I do and don't believe. I don't believe any Christian does. The things that I flat out reject, are the doctrines and dogmas that I find to be contradictory to specific Scriptural teaching.

 

[racer]

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.

I don't know about all of that, but thank you for trying to help. I guess I should spend some time educating myself on EO. It's not likely that I'll ever convert to either. I do not see myself ever agreeing with the teachings of Transubstantiation or consubstantiation--among a few other issues I have.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I don't know about all of that, but thank you for trying to help. I guess I should spend some time educating myself on EO. It's not likely that I'll ever convert to either. I do not see myself ever agreeing with the teachings of Transubstantiation or consubstantiation--among a few other issues I have.

Greetings. Have you ever watched EO's debating Muslims and their Koran on the NCR board?

I am sure they educate themselves on that religion much like I did on Judaism when debating Orthodox Jews on the Bible......Knowledge is power in these cases.....

 

[racer]

No, I didn't misunderstand your comment. I was making a little joke (but truthful) that I wasn't playing, I was saying that what I said was serious, and allowing that if I'm wrong about CJ, maybe I am ignorant of his meaning. That's why I next explained what I thought he was doing, and asked your opinion.



"Running a smear campaign" might be too much, I'll say it looks to me that he's fond of repeating a cheap shot, when such a huge number of his posts in the SS thread contain RC/LDS in comparative conjunction, and then he's starting it again in this thread (I say starting, because he tends to repeat himself - what he says once in a thread, you will again read many times.)

On the other hand, LLOJ in a subsequent post pointed out to me (if I understand correctly) that RC/LDS comparisons are much discussed in some other forums here which I don't visit. So perhaps it's not just CJ, perhaps it's a larger topic, but regardless of that, I see no legitimacy in the topic, and I dismiss the comparison out-of-hand; otherwise I place the disciples of Christ on the same level as Joseph Smith, and if I do that, I might as well include Muhammed, and whoever comes next.

His point is that both groups (since we don't actually acknowledge LDS as Christians) base their assertions on the same unprovable premise. He (Josiah) is not trying to reduce Catholicism to the level of LDS, he is simply showing that claiming self-authority and infallibility can be just as distorted and misapplied as can Sola Scriptura. Josiah actually holds the Catholic Church in high esteem. He just objects to some of its self-claims to authority.

 

[Trento]

Trento, bless you, but it's not crystal clear or we would not be having these discussions. However, I can see you at least put some thought in your answer. So, thank you!!

How is it we fail to see how much we actually agree upon?. But, if I quote for you from St. Augustine what he said regarding Scripture and what he said regarding those through whom it was despensed being mortal and passing away. You will either miss or ignore my point.

I will help you with this point here.

And if a man in searching the Scriptures endeavors to get at the intention of the author through whom the Holy Spirit spoke, whether he succeeds in this endeavor, or whether he draws a different meaning from the words, but one that is not opposed to sound doctrine, he is free from blame so long as he is supported by the testimony of some other passage of Scripture. For the author perhaps saw that this very meaning lay in the words which we are trying to interpret; and assuredly the Holy Spirit, who through him spoke these words, foresaw that this interpretation would occur to the reader, nay, made provision that it should occur to him, seeing that it too is founded on truth. For what more liberal and more fruitful provision could God have made in regard to the Sacred Scriptures than that the same words might be understood in several senses, all of which are sanctioned by the concurring testimony of other passages equally divine?"
Augustine,Christian Instruction,3,27:38(A.D. 426),in NPNF1,II:567


"For I confess to your Charity that I have learned to yield this respect and honour only to the canonical books of Scripture: of these alone do I most firmly believe that the authors were completely free from error. And if in these writings I am perplexed by anything which appears to me opposed to truth, I do not hesitate to suppose that either the Ms. is faulty, or the translator has not caught the meaning of what was said, or I myself have failed to understand it."
Augustine,To Jerome,Epistle 82,1:3(A.D. 405),in NPNF1,I:350

'What more shall I teach you than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought.'
De Bono Viduitatis 2

'Let us search for the church in the sacred Scriptures'
Epis 105



But Augustine illustratates heretics' fatal flaw in interpreting Scripture apart from Church and Tradition.


"For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, becuase they are but men, still without any uncertainty...The consent of peoples and nations keep me in Church, so does her authority, inaugerated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The SUCCESSION of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the APOSTLE PETER, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave it in charge to feed his sheep, down to the present EPISCOPATE...The epistle begins thus:--'Manicheus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are the wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain.' Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not beleive Manichues to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to beleive none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manicheus? You will reply, An Apostle of Christ. I do not beleive it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of truth, and here you are forcing me to beleive what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manicheus. But should you meet with a person not yet beleiving in the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not beleive? For MY PART, I should NOT BELEIVE the gospel except moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to beleive in the gospel tell me not to beleive in Manicheus, how can I BUT CONSENT?"
C. Epis Mani 5,6

"Wherever this tradition comes from, we must believe that the Church has not believed in vain, even though the express authority of the canonical scriptures is not brought forward for it"
Letter 164 to Evodius of Uzalis

"To be sure, although on this matter, we cannot quote a clear example taken from the canonical Scriptures, at any rate, on this question, we are following the true thought of Scriptures when we observe what has appeared good to the universal Church which the authority of these same Scriptures recommends to you"
C. Cresconius I:33

"It is obvious; the faith allows it; the Catholic Church approves; it is true"
Sermon 117:6

"If therefore, I am going to beleive things I do not know about, why should I not believe those things which are accepted by the common consent of learned and unlearned alike and are established by most weighty authority of all peoples?"
C. Letter called Fundamentals 14:18

"Will you, then, so love your error, into which you have fallen through adolescent overconfidence and human weakness, that you will seperate yourself from these leaders of Catholic unity and truth, from so many different parts of the world who are in agreement among themselves on so important a question, one in which the essence of the Christian religion involved..?"
C. Julian 1:7,34

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

'What more shall I teach you than what we read in the Apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare to be wiser than we ought.'
De Bono Viduitatis 2

'Let us search for the church in the sacred Scriptures'
Epis 105

Sounds good to me

 

[Kristos]

Neither has the Ark of the Covenant

Reve 11:19 And was opened the Sanctuary of the God in the heaven and was visioned the Ark of the Covenant of Him in the Sanctuary of Him and became lightnings and voices and thunders and quaking and hail great

i think the Ethiopians claim they have it...

 

[calluna]

I don't know about all of that

That's my point. The EOC does not go out of its way to make its teaching clear.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

i think the Ethiopians claim they have it...

I saw a program on the History channel concerning that. I am very skeptical of that claim [much like the bones of Peter in Rome] but then the Ethiopians do consider a lot of things sacred much like the Orthodox and RCs. It was an interesting program.

 

[Kristos]

That's my point. The EOC does not go out of its way to make its teaching clear.[/size]

They are very clear and everything you said about them is completely false.