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

[Thekla]

Interesting to see that you, as a Catholic, agree with me. You might want to review your Catechism # 87 before you do that again...

Of course, as you know, NO Lutheran denomination claims any spiritual authority. Jerry Kieschnick does not insist that he and he alone is the Vicar of Christ or that it is absolutely essential for salvation that every human creature be subject to him. NO Lutheran denomination claims that Jesus personally founded it or that it is infallible or that it is the sole authoritative interpreter of Scripture and Tradition, or what whenever it's clergy speaks, Jesus is speaking, or that all must accept whatever it says "with docility." I think the remarkable claims of which we are addressing are those made by the RCC and LDS, each by self exclusively for self exclusively.

.

Isn't the act of baptizing a claim of "spiritual authority" ?

Isn't the manner (requirements for age, the method, the prayers said) of baptism an interpretation of scripture ? (Also true for those Churches who find their authority and method in scripture, not Tradition.)

Isn't the meaning taught about baptism an interpretation of scripture ?

Which Church does not claim the authority to baptize ?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Isn't the act of baptizing a claim of "spiritual authority" ?

Which Church does not claim the authority to baptize ?

No. (And I wonder why you choose to not discuss the topic of this thread?)

NO Lutheran denomination claims any unique authority to Baptize - in fact, none claims any authority to baptize AT ALL. It's CHRISTIANS that have the authority to Baptize, not the exclusive Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (USA). Now, in PUBLIC (and baptism is NORMALLY a public rite), the people ask the Pastor to act in their stead to Baptize, but the command, responsibiliy and authority to baptize rests with CHRISTIANS and not with ANY denomination - exclusively or otherwise.



Now, could we return to the issue of the thread? And HOW the RCC substantiate the remarkable claim it exclusively makes for it exclusively and the validity and credibility of that substantiation?





.

 

[Thekla]

No. (And I wonder why you choose to not discuss the topic of this thread?)

NO Lutheran denomination claims any unique authority to Baptize - in fact, none claims any authority to baptize AT ALL. It's CHRISTIANS that have the authority to Baptize, not the exclusive Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (USA). Now, in PUBLIC (and baptism is NORMALLY a public rite), the people ask the Pastor to act in their stead to Baptize, but the command, responsibiliy and authority to baptize rests with CHRISTIANS and not with ANY denomination - exclusively or otherwise.



Now, could we return to the issue of the thread? And HOW the RCC substantiate the remarkable claim it exclusively makes for it exclusively and the validity and credibility of that substantiation?





.

This is indeed the topic of the thread.

Every Church claims the authority to baptize. The Churches who derive authority to do so from scripture interpret scripture in baptizing.

Both the RC and EO accept baptism by other Churches when receiving converts.

If the RC and the EO had waited for scripture to claim the authority to baptize, there would be no baptizing until the scriptures (NT) had been written and disseminated.

The scriptures record the apostles being granted the authority to baptize from Christ, and then granting that authority to others in advance of this being described in scripture. The act always precedes the recording of the act.

 

[Chesterton]

(And I wonder why you choose to not discuss the topic of this thread?)

I finally get it - -the running "off-topic" gag - you're a comedian - very funny.

But what should be happening is the RCC and LDS...

<unsubscribe>

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by CaliforniaJosiah But what should be happening is the RCC and LDS...

<unsubscribe>

Funny I never hear the Orthodox being compared to the LDS

Exodus 12:29 And is becoming mid/02677 chetsiy of the night and YHWH smote every of firstborn in land of Egypt, from firstborn of Pharaoh, the one sitting on his Throne, unto firstborn of the captive which in house of cistern and every of firstborn of beast.[Matt 25:5/Reve 16:10]

Matt 25:5 Of tarrying yet the Bridegroom they nod all and are slept.
6 Of middle yet of night a cry has occured "behold! the Bridegroom. Be ye coming out! into meeting of Him". [Exodus 12:29/Reve 16:10]

Reve 16:10 And the fifth *Messenger pours out the bowl of him upon the Throne of the beast, and became the Kingdom of it having been Darkened and they gnawed the tongues of them out of the misery.

 

[Standing Up]

Given this-

Catholic Encyclopedia
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.


Which is to evidently say that the founding document on which the claim of authority lies is in fact believed by the same not to exist, which is to say that such cannot be sure about certain translations such as keys and rocks, and so, one might want to ask the flip side of the authority question, why does one submit to such authority so-called?


Rom. 10:6-7 But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down [from above] Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-


If the RC and the EO had waited for scripture to claim the authority to baptize, there would be no baptizing until the scriptures (NT) had been written and disseminated.

The scriptures record the apostles being granted the authority to baptize from Christ, and then granting that authority to others in advance of this being described in scripture. The act always precedes the recording of the act.

Your last paragraph does not make sense given your first paragraph.

Anyway, the deal is they knew from Christ Jesus what from the OT what baptism was.

 

[Albion]

This is indeed the topic of the thread.

Every Church claims the authority to baptize. The Churches who derive authority to do so from scripture interpret scripture in baptizing.

Both the RC and EO accept baptism by other Churches when receiving converts.

If the RC and the EO had waited for scripture to claim the authority to baptize, there would be no baptizing until the scriptures (NT) had been written and disseminated.

The scriptures record the apostles being granted the authority to baptize from Christ, and then granting that authority to others in advance of this being described in scripture. The act always precedes the recording of the act.

I don't believe that the topic is baptism or the authority of Scripture, Thekla. Isn't it about the claims of some churches to exclusive validity? I think that's it.

 

[Uphill Battle]

After you expend effort correcting me as to how CJ wasn't really making loaded statements, you come up with this gem.

Why do Protestants and satanists do this? (Entirely valid question since I once knew a satanist who asked a loaded question.)

you're disclaimer in brackets notwithstanding, there would be no reason to mention satanists whatsoever if you were not making a deliberate and meanspirited dig.

cute, that.

[/size]
Jesus Christ



The way we get it from Christ is by Christ giving it to us.

The reason I answered in that fashion is be because I already know that the historical roots of the Catholic Church and the lines of apostolic succession have been demonstrated in these forums countless times. I doubt that you would accept those proofs if I demostrated them once again. So what else am I to say? The answers have been given by Catholics and rejected by protestants. What other answer would you have me give?

Frankly, why should we?

let's drop the LDS comparison, because it seems to engender so much antipathy.

let's take for a moment Sedevacanists.

now, we don't take their claims seriously, nor do Catholics, for all intents and purposes they "aren't really Catholics." But they claim, rightly or wrongly, that THEY are the unbroken chain. that you're current line of popes is invalid, and pope such and such or pope whoever is the real, God ordained successor... so on and so forth. The reason? the same as the RCC. Unbroken authority change from Peter until now.


the issue, of course, that remains completely unaddressed, is that the only way you can accept the claim to authority is to accept those self-same people's interpetation (and right to interpret) scripture. You know as well as I that the scriptural passages forwarded don't actually say anything about infallibility, nor do they say anything about an infallible succession. not explicitly, it's a derivation, accepted by those who beleive the people who are claiming it in the first place.

 

[Albion]

The reason I answered in that fashion is be because I already know that the historical roots of the Catholic Church and the lines of apostolic succession have been demonstrated in these forums countless times. I doubt that you would accept those proofs if I demostrated them once again. So what else am I to say? The answers have been given by Catholics and rejected by protestants. What other answer would you have me give?

Well, I don't think saying "Jesus Christ" helps us much. Do I take it, then, that Apostolic Succession is what you feel accounts for or justifies a claim of unique validity? I tried to address that earlier by saying that if this is the case, what do we say about all the other churches which have A S also?

 

[Thekla]

Your last paragraph does not make sense given your first paragraph.

Anyway, the deal is they knew from Christ Jesus what from the OT what baptism was.

Sorry for the confusion !

The apostles had to be taught by Christ how to interpret the OT (as Luke records in the beginning of Acts, of Christ's teaching for the 40 days after His resurrection; and as John records in his Gospel that the apostles did not at the time of certain events understand their link to the OT).

The apostles baptized and then authorized others to baptize. Later, this was recorded in writing. The action preceded the recording of the action.

The writers of scripture recorded what was seen, taught and done. If authority is derived from scripture there would be no baptism of the New Covenant (but only the baptism of John) before the writings of the NT were recorded and disseminated. And in areas that did not yet receive the writings of the NT there would be no baptism of the New Covenant.

 

[Thekla]

I don't believe that the topic is baptism or the authority of Scripture, Thekla. Isn't it about the claims of some churches to exclusive validity? I think that's it.

If the EO and the RC claimed "exclusive validity" they would rebaptize all converts. They don't

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

If the EO and the RC claimed "exclusive validity" they would rebaptize all converts. They don't

Hi Thekla. I was baptized in the RCC when I was young. I left them in '68. For some reason I felt I had to be rebaptized, so I ended up getting it done in the Gulf of Mexico by a Pentecost minister, a friend of my brother. [kept an eye out for shark fins though ]

 

[Albion]

If the EO and the RC claimed "exclusive validity" they would rebaptize all converts. They don't

It's a point, but it still appears that these and perhaps some other churches feel that Christ's commission was given to them in particular, that they are valid and other churches are not valid.

We all know that all it takes for a baptism is the triune formula and water and the right intention, but we cannot deny that in many other ways the EO and the RCC (I'd say especially the RCC) hold that they are the real church to the exclusion of others. The question then is, "where'd they get that idea?"

 

[Standing Up]

Sorry for the confusion !

The apostles had to be taught by Christ how to interpret the OT (as Luke records in the beginning of Acts, of Christ's teaching for the 40 days after His resurrection; and as John records in his Gospel that the apostles did not at the time of certain events understand their link to the OT).

The apostles baptized and then authorized others to baptize. Later, this was recorded in writing. The action preceded the recording of the action.

The writers of scripture recorded what was seen, taught and done. If authority is derived from scripture there would be no baptism of the New Covenant (but only the baptism of John) before the writings of the NT were recorded and disseminated. And in areas that did not yet receive the writings of the NT there would be no baptism of the New Covenant.

Do you see the highlighted areas above? Authority came from scripture first you say, then you say, if authority is from scripture.

Because of such thinking, and nearly everyone does as much, if I understand you/them correctly, we get various teachings on baptism (full, partial, baby, after believing). Why do we baptize, and thus we get: to be saved, as a symbol, to show identification. The truth is back in the OT, which was for an example for the NT as taught by Christ Jesus to the Apostles.

 

[calluna]

If the EO and the RC claimed "exclusive validity" they would rebaptize all converts. They don't

But that assumes a coherent theology, and EO/RC theology lacks coherence, due to having to compromise God's way with its own. That theology discounts personal conversion and replaces it with water baptism, which is said to effect salvation simply due to its form. So this theology has to make compromises that do not make sense without long and involved casuistry.

 

[Albion]

Is any Catholic or Orthodox Christian intending to answer the OP's question...or should we all move along to some other thread?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Every Church claims the authority to baptize.

Actually, I only know of two denominations that claim the authority to baptize: the RCC and LDS.


As I pointed out, Lutherans understand that it's CHRISTIANS that have the command and responsibility to baptize, not The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod - uniquely, solely or especially or even at all - or any other denomination.


Back to the reasoning and substantiation that the RCC uses for the claims of itself exclusively for itself exclusively and if such is regarded as valid. And yes, IMHO, it is appropriate to consider the validity of the same from the other denomination that claims the same things for itself exclusively: the LDS. Because if the argument is unreasonable or invalid, then it's unreasonable and invalid. And vise versa.






.

 

[calluna]

This is indeed the topic of the thread.

Every Church claims the authority to baptize.

But not every church claims exclusive right to teach the truth, to declare, even modify God's commands, as Rome does (and the EOC is complicit is this claim).

And yet, here we are on page 25, and not a squeak from a Catholic/EO to justify this (outrageous) claim.

As was prophesied on page 1!

 

[Albion]

Actually, I only know of two denominations that claim the authority to baptize: the RCC and LDS.

Well, even the RCC doesn't claim that Protestant baptisms are invalid if properly done, so I am mystified at that point.