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

[Albion]

And another related observation, with a warning.

I do not introduce this issue with a view to its theological discussion, but because it reveals something about the issue of authority.

While researching the Anglican Worship Service (not altogether fruitful, as it seems the structure is given but the particulars are left to the approval of the local bishop)
I noted that the filioque is retained in the Anglican version of the Nicean/Constaninople Creed.

It is my understanding (I may be wrong) that Latin does not have discreet words for proceed and send, which may have introduced the confusions associated with the filioque. As my above sentence proves, English does not have the same problem.

This raises several questions: the Creed is not to be changed without Conciliar ratification. If language is the issue, the RC stance is less of an issue in this matter.

Why do the Anglicans maintain this change ?

I think you are way off course with this. Anglicans claim and have Apostolic Succession but we do not claim a special status among churches for that reason.

When we turn to the Roman Catholic Church and (apparently but not finally determined) the Eastern Orthodox churches, however, we find that they do claim to be specially valid and consider other churches to be less authentic than themselves. That is what the OP was inquiring into.

 

[Thekla]

I don't know of any others who DO actually challenge or disbelieve it. Whom did you have in mind?

per my research, the RC (at least at one time)

What I'm saying is that to charge such a thing would be like saying that Orthodoxy doesn't care for icons or that the Catholic church doesn't have a Pope. It's so basically looney that it's hard to imagine that anyone but the most uninformed about religious matters could suggest such a thing.

but the Anglicans don't have evidence ...

Just a moment. Now you are moving into different territory, we ought to mention. That is not that we claim A.S. -- which was the issue a moment ago-- but whether it is legitimate.


I'm not a librarian or an archivist, but our claim rests upon the same evidence the Roman Catholic Church uses, since all the early bishops are the same. There are additional lines from the East as well, so whatever documentation your church uses, we also use.

But I think you have challenged the accounting of the lineage of the bishops of Rome - my apology if my memory on this is faulty !

Absolutely not. Never. The charges that we do not are clearly faulty and can be shown to be so (This has been discussed many times on other threads).


It is indeed not in Scripture. We claim it because it is historically factual, i. e. there has been this lineage.

But absent extant historical evidence (which you seem to require from the EO on other matters, like authority) how can the Anglicans claim this except by appealing to history that is not found written, some of which may be considered by others to be " fable" ?

But we do not claim that Christ ordered it or that it is the reason that any particular denomination is valid or invalid--and that's where other churches (yours, maybe, but certainly the RCC) go wrong, in our view. Apostolic Succession arose for the purposes of good order in the Church, which in itself is a good reason for retaining it.

But this would seem to claim that - as its development is seen in the NT - that the apostles enacted this without authority from Christ.

None of those churches, nor mine for that matter, denies that the Roman Church HAS Apostolic Succession.

Apostolic Succession is not the test of whether a church body is valid or not.

But when the "shoe is on the other foot" per other matters, suggestions are made that others are being 'selective' or merely acting to their own advantage in the face of absent evidence : (in this instance) it could be in like manner suggested that perhaps the Anglicans accept Rome's apostolicity because without her the Anglicans have none ?

 

[Thekla]

I think you are way off course with this. Anglicans claim and have Apostolic Succession but we do not claim a special status among churches for that reason.

When we turn to the Roman Catholic Church and (apparently but not finally determined) the Eastern Orthodox churches, however, we find that they do claim to be specially valid and consider other churches to be less authentic than themselves. That is what the OP was inquiring into.

But as I have shown, per her maintaining the filioque, the Anglicans - at least evidence a "special claim" for herself or Rome -- that one or the other are the entire Ecumenical world (as no Council was called to approve the change in defiance of an Ecumenical Council), or that the Ecumenical Council so stating was invalid (like Rome, accepts calls and denies Ecumenical Councils as she wishes ie is the authoritative Church).

 

[Mikeb85]

But many claim that the EOC is a major offender in the teaching of falsehoods, conflicting with apostolic teaching. If is it to deal with these claims in a way that will gain respect and win converts intellectually, it has to do more than just repeat its bare statement of its authority to teach.

This is a thread about authority. The EO has much more to validate its claim of being the true church, but in this thread, we're discussing what the OP wanted to...

 

[Albion]

per my research, the RC (at least at one time)

That's wrong. The Roman Catholic Church knows that we claim Apostolic Succession. It merely ruled that it won't accept it although it is there and in an unbroken lineage.

but the Anglicans don't have evidence

Neither do the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the Oriental Orthodox, the Old Catholics, the Lutherans or any other church claiming Apostolic Succession. What's your point?

But I think you have challenged the accounting of the lineage of the bishops of Rome - my apology if my memory on this is faulty !

Whom are you referring to when saying "you" and what does this have do with the RCC and EOC claiming a special validity not enjoyed by other churches? Are you intending to present an argument that Apostolic Succession IS the reason, and that only the Eastern Orthodox churches possess it? If so, just say it. The question is WHY, not that you have to prove it correct.

But this would seem to claim that - as its development is seen in the NT - that the apostles enacted this without authority from Christ.

I hate to disappoint you, but the Apostles didn't enact it at all.

it could be in like manner suggested that perhaps the Anglicans accept Rome's apostolicity because without her the Anglicans have none ?

I am thinking that you missed the point entirely. WE DO NOT CLAIM ANY SPECIAL STATUS merely for having Apostolic Succession. THEY DO (and, apparently, so does your church)!

 

[Albion]

But as I have shown, per her maintaining the filioque, the Anglicans - at least evidence a "special claim" for herself or Rome

No, we don't. You think you have a slant on the subject, but we accept the filioque without dogmatizing on it, and some churches don't use it, as a matter of fact. We consider other churches to be as valid as ours, which the churches in question here (RC and EO) apparently do not.

As I wrote before, if you are working up to answering what your church bases its claims on...just tell us. It's not necessary to go into some convoluted denunciation of any other churches, nor do you have to prove your basis is correct in order to state what it is.

 

[calluna]

This is a thread about authority.

It's a thread about the source of authority, of the RCC and EOC. So far, the nearest we have got is evidence from three hundred years or so after the church began, which is not very compelling. Now if any poster wishing to defend RCC/EOC authority wants to contribute here in a useful way, he might make an attempt to improve on that.

The EO has much more to validate its claim of being the true church,

Then why does it keep it hidden? This question has gone unanswered for a long time before the internet was even dreamed of.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Mikeb85 This is a thread about authority.

Seems to be a few threads on that now

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7329418
"What's Your Authority?"

 

[Thekla]

That's wrong. The Roman Catholic Church knows that we claim Apostolic Succession. It merely ruled that it won't accept it although it is there and in an unbroken lineage.

It was my impression that the RC does not accept the AC as having a.s - I must have read amiss.

Neither do the Eastern Orthodox, the Roman Catholics, the Oriental Orthodox, the Old Catholics, the Lutherans or any other church claiming Apostolic Succession. What's your point?

That this claim is not supported by evidence, yet is made just the same.
If it is evidence that supports a claim, the Anglicans as well do not resort to evidence but something else.

Whom are you referring to when saying "you" and what does this have do with the RCC and EOC claiming a special validity not enjoyed by other churches? Are you intending to present an argument that Apostolic Succession IS the reason, and that only the Eastern Orthodox churches possess it? If so, just say it. The question is WHY, not that you have to prove it correct.

No, I am exploring whether Churches in general claim things for themselves that are not explicit in scripture. To claim something, to assert something about yourself is to resort to an authority that in this case is not necessarily corroborated (since the Churches who accept the apostolic succession of other Churches have no firm evidence for their own claims; unless the AC accepts as valid all extant documents that Rome references to exhibit her own apostolicity).

Was the Anglican Church founded before or after she had the NT or parts of it ?

I hate to disappoint you, but the Apostles didn't enact it at all.

Is this the interpretation of the Anglicans or yourself ?

I am thinking that you missed the point entirely. WE DO NOT CLAIM ANY SPECIAL STATUS merely for having Apostolic Succession. THEY DO (and, apparently, so does your church)!

So, if not by apostolic succession, how did the Anglican Church become a Church ? What gives her the authority to call herself "Church" ?

I have yet to see a quote and citation for this "special status" it is said the EO claims for itself, or what such a status means.

I have seen evidence that the Anglican Church claims for herself or for Rome a "special status" to abrogate an Ecumenical Council at whim or will.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

So, if not by apostolic succession, how did the Anglican Church become a Church ? What gives her the authority to call herself "Church" ?

I have yet to see a quote and citation for this "special status" it is said the EO claims for itself, or what such a status means.

I have seen evidence that the Anglican Church claims for herself or for Rome a "special status" to abrogate an Ecumenical Council at whim or will.

Greetings Thekla. Do the Orthodox, RCs and Protestants all go by the same Ecumenical Council? Thanks.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Was the Anglican Church founded before or after she had the NT or parts of it ?

Anglicans were founded in a sense long after because the Anglican Church is really just a part of the wider Western Church, but a part which does not accept the claims of Papal Supremacy.
That's the Anglican view from the top down. From the bottom up almost every view is represented in the ranks of the Anglicans because it is representative of the religious diversity of the nation of england developing without much to reign it in or force it all into one set of ideas.

In England at any rate. Possibly in the rest of the world its firmer.

 

[Thekla]

No, we don't. You think you have a slant on the subject, but we accept the filioque without dogmatizing on it, and some churches don't use it, as a matter of fact. We consider other churches to be as valid as ours, which the churches in question here (RC and EO) apparently do not.

Josiah tells me the Lutherans have no dogma. Is this the case with the Anglicans, too ?

Is the Creed for the Anglicans a matter of "pious opinion", or something that just didn't get the "look over" after the break with Rome ?

Certainly, if the Anglicans accept the filioque, they do not consider it important for themselves to honor the Ecumanical Councils; given the antiquity of the AC, this does seem to be a claim of "special status".

As I wrote before, if you are working up to answering what your church bases its claims on...just tell us. It's not necessary to go into some convoluted denunciation of any other churches, nor do you have to prove your basis is correct in order to state what it is.

It is not my intention to denounce "other Churches" but to explore by what authority they make claims for and about themselves.

As to the AC acceptance of the filioque, the ECouncil was quite clear about additions to and subtractions from the Creed. Not convoluted at all; the AC accepts the change in abrogation of the ECouncil - in doing this she asserts authority that places her above the ECouncil.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

Also prior to the enlightenment the CoE actually did take dogma and theology seriously, although it was divided even then between the more Anglo-Catholic sacramentalist wing and the more Reformed wing.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

As to the AC acceptance of the filioque, the ECouncil was quite clear about additions to and subtractions from the Creed. Not convoluted at all; the AC accepts the change in abrogation of the ECouncil - in doing this she asserts authority that places her above the ECouncil.

Greetings Thekla. How does the Anglican Creed differ from the Orthodox's Creed? Thks.

 

[Thekla]

Greetings Thekla. How does the Anglican Creed differ from the Orthodox's Creed? Thks.

Below is the line where the difference occurs, (section bolded) and beneath the AC version :

And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Creator of life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified,

The AC/CoE has in their version (from their website link to services):

"Who proceeds from the Father and the Son ..."

 

[Thekla]

Greetings Thekla. Do the Orthodox, RCs and Protestants all go by the same Ecumenical Council? Thanks.

Hey

The EO accepts 7, the RC more.
Not sure about the Protestants, as some were 'from Rome' (so may accept or not what the RC does).

 

[Albion]

Josiah tells me the Lutherans have no dogma. Is this the case with the Anglicans, too ?

I'm pretty sure that Josiah didn't tell you that. Anyway, the thread is not about Lutheranism or Anglicanism, which do not claim validity or authority not known to other Christians, but it's "From where do the RC and the EO get the Authority they claim for themselves?" Are you saying that it's because of Apostolic Succession and that the EO are the only ones who have it?

Certainly, if the Anglicans accept the filioque, they do not consider it important for themselves to honor the Ecumanical Councils; given the antiquity of the AC, this does seem to be a claim of "special status".

The question asks where the RC and EO get a special "Authority."

It is not my intention to denounce "other Churches" but to explore by what authority they make claims for and about themselves.

Really? Then I'm to believe that it's just a coincidence that Josiah is a Lutheran and I'm an Anglican, and those are the two you suddenly are interested in? Hmmm.

Well, they not only are not the subject of this thread, but neither of them DOES claim any special Authority, so there isn't a parallel discussion in them to the subject of this thread anyway.

However, I'll gladly discuss any other church's claim to unique Authority--if they do indeed to that--on the appropriate thread.

So far, what we have here looks an awful lot like a studied attempt to avoid answering the question, which surprises me for the reason that most people are not reluctant to explain what their respective churches believe in and why.

.

 

[a.d.ivNonasNovembres]

She's probably interested in them because she has the opportunity to discuss them with you?

 

[Chesterton]

Well, they not only are not the subject of this thread, but neither of them DOES claim any special Authority, so there isn't a parallel discussion in them to the subject of this thread anyway.

No special Authority, or no authority? If Anglicans have no authority, why should I consider them a church? But you're right. We'll have to start a new thread to ask where Anglicans and Lutherans get their Authority.

However, I'll gladly discuss any other church's claim to unique Authority...

Of course, the pot should not have to defend it's blackness from the kettle, even though the pot brought it up.

So far, what we have here looks an awful lot like a studied attempt to avoid answering the question...

Thekla, please stick to the topic. And try to be less "studied".

 

[Albion]

No special Authority, or no authority? If Anglicans have no authority, why should I consider them a church?

It amounts to the same thing, doesn't it? The RC and EO claim an authority they say other churches don't have. How come?

I have already given my answer, but of course it would be nice if Catholics and Orthdox Christians were to offer theirs.

But you're right. We'll have to start a new thread to ask where Anglicans and Lutherans get their Authority.

Even though the answer is easy and uncomplicated, I have welcomed the thread. I wonder why RCs and EOs are averse to this one when we are not afraid of answering about our churches.

Of course, the pot should not have to defend it's blackness from the kettle, even though the pot brought it up.

I have no idea how that makes sense here, sorry.

Thekla, please stick to the topic. And try to be less "studied".

How about YOU answering the question posed by the OP? It was addressed to members of your church no less than members of hers, you know.