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

[racer]

[/size]
Jesus Christ

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

How many "LOLs" and reputation points did that comment get you?

 

[racer]

<unsubscribe>

I would love you say that your brilliant insight and invaluable contributions to this thread will be missed . . . . however . . . . . .

 

[Trento]

Why thank you! We know I can use all the help I can get.


.

Chapter 28.— It is Safer to Explain a Doubtful Passage by Other Passages of Scripture Than by Reason.

39. When, however, a meaning is evolved of such a kind that what is doubtful in it cannot be cleared up by indubitable evidence from Scripture, it remains for us to make it clear by the evidence of reason. But this is a dangerous practice. For it is far safer to walk by the light of Holy Scripture; so that when we wish to examine the passages that are obscured by metaphorical expressions, we may either obtain a meaning about which there is no controversy, or if a controversy arises, may settle it by the application of testimonies sought out in every portion of the same Scripture.

Chapter 36.—That Interpretation of Scripture Which Builds Us Up in Love is Not Perniciously Deceptive Nor Mendacious, Even Though It Be Faulty. The Interpreter, However, Should Be Corrected.

41. Whoever takes another meaning out of Scripture than the writer intended, goes astray, but not through any falsehood in Scripture. Nevertheless, as I was going to say, if his mistaken interpretation tends to build up love, which is the end of the commandment, he goes astray in much the same way as a man who by mistake quits the high road, but yet reaches through the fields the same place to which the road leads. He is to be corrected, however, and to be shown how much better it is not to quit the straight road, lest, if he get into a habit of going astray, he may sometimes take cross roads, or even go in the wrong direction altogether.

​

This last quote reminds me of an analogy I used to use showing how the Holy Spirit leads us all the same (I use a master and three dogs), it is we who follow who go astray. Eventually, we all get to the same place, it just takes some of us longer to get there. (just ask me if you want me to repost)

Augustine and Maximinus


Maximinus lived during the time of St. Augustine(A.D. 354-430) and was one of the greatest defenders of the Arian heresy that ever lived. Arians believed that Jesus is of a divine nature, but not that He is fully God because he was created and therefore rejected the orthodox belief in the Trinity. Besides have a great ability to manipulate Scripture to his advantage, Maximinus was a great speaker as well. Just like "Sola Scriptura" believers today, Maximinus refused to use anything other than Scripture alone when defending his heretical views and felt that Scripture alone was the only rule of faith. Maximinus debate with St. Augustine was a "classic" because of the fact that it mirrors so many Catholic/Prot debates today.
Maximinus, Debate with Maximinus, 1 (c.A.D. 428) AAOH. [taken from Not By Scripture Alone pg 430-432]


If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstance accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, 'In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts'(Mt 5:19)
"I state this on the basis of the scriptures. At your bidding, I will follow up with testimonies [from the scriptures]"188
"But if one uses some literary skill or cleverness of mind and makes up words which the holy scriptures do not contain, they are both idle nd superfluous."196
"And I profess in accord with the statement of the divine scriptures..."197
"After all, we are protected not by mere talk, but by the testimonies of the divine scriptures."202
"All divinely inspired scripture is useful for teaching (2Tm3:16). For that reason, 'not one least letter or one particle of a letter will pass away (Mt 5:18). The Lord said, 'Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.' (Mt 24:35)"213

When refuting the arguments of Maximinus in debate, Augustine did appeal to Scripture in formulating his arguments. However, in referring to Scripture authoritatively, Augustine had recourse to a recognized proper interpretative sense of certain passages of Scripture. Augustine in other words had recourse to what Apostolic Christians refer to as "Tradition" for properly explaining the Scriptural data. In the situation with Maximinus, it was as it pertained to the doctrine of the consubstantial (equal in being) nature of the Father and the Son in the Godhead that recourse to Apostolic Tradition was needed. The Bishop of Hippo - in referring to the doctrine of the homoousian and its manifestations - deferred to the authority of the Catholic Church (Council of Nicaea) to render a final decision on matters of doctrine. This was necessary because the doctrine of the Homoousian (Gk. consubstantial) was formulated at the first General Council of Nicaea (in 325 AD) in response to the Arian heresy. It was also at Nicaea that the first elements of the formal doctrine of the Trinity were formulated. Constantinople I (in 381 AD) refined the doctrine further, defining it in the sense that almost all Christians today accept. Both of these councils were held within about 100 years of Augustine's debate with Maximinus and about 400 years after the death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Maximinus was claiming that the understanding of Scripture as proclaimed by the Church concerning the consubstantial nature of the Father and the Son was in error. Maximinus of course "knew" this much the way our Protestant brethren "know" that certain Catholic or Orthodox distinctives are not in Scripture: because they do not see them there. Likewise with Maximinus. The homoousian was not present in Scripture because he did not see it in the Scriptures and thus the claim was made that Augustine and others were "teaching human commands and precepts". Augustine's line of defense in part consisted of telling Maximinus that he did not hold to the correct faith. In short, that his interpretations of Scripture were wrong. The basis for Augustine's claims were three-fold:

• • Maximinus' claims were as a result of misunderstanding the Scriptures in their authentic sense.
  • Maximinus' Arian position was not the faith that he Augustine had received from his teacher St. Ambrose of Milan. Nor was it the faith that any of the other bishops who were his contemporaries had received from the Fathers who preceded them (Gal. 1:8-9).
  • The rule of faith that the whole Church confessed was in opposition to Maximinus' positions and always had been; a point witnessed to by the General Council of Nicaea. As the Church had pronounced definitively on this matter; the issue was settled and Maximinus and his allies were in error anathema sit.

In Augustine's understanding of properly ascertaining orthodoxy, Scripture provided the data, Tradition the sense of interpretation and the authority of the Church the definitive word on the subject when needed. This approach by the Bishop of Hippo was not by any means an irregular one. In fact, the Fathers to a man (and without known exception) appealed to all three sources in defense of their doctrines from Church schismatics and heretics. Which authority of course depended for the most part on the particular adversary they were confronting. At no time was the idea of any book (even the Bible) as the final authority over and apart from an active enforcing authority ever considered as a viable option.

JND Kelly was an Protestant (Anglican) historian at Oxford - Principal of St. Edmund Hall, to be exact. He was a scholar of the Church Fathers, and wrote several books on Church History, including: The Oxford Dictionary of Popes
Early Christian Doctrines
Early Christian Creeds
Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom
Jerome: His Life, Writings and Controversies
I've read the second book in that list, and I find his admissions absolutely shocking and refreshing. For a Protestant to admit so many points of Catholic teaching in the history of the Early Church is truly remarkable, not to mention useful for Catholics who want to defend their faith from history. This work of his is entirely thorough, and overflowing with references to original patristic documents.




J.N.D. Kelly, AnotherProtestant patristic scholar, wrote:


The three letters [Epistles 175-177] relating to Pelagianism which the African church sent to innocent I in 416, and of which Augustine was the draughtsman, suggested that he attributed to the Pope a pastoral and teaching authority extending over the whole Church, and found a basis for it in Scripture.
(Ibid., 419)


According to Augustine [De doct. christ. 3,2], its Scripture's doubtful or ambiguous passages need to be cleared up by 'the rule of faith'; it was, moreover, the authority of the Church alone which in his eyesguranteed it's veractiy.

[ C. ep. Manich. 6: cf. de doct. christ. 2,12; c. Faust Manich, 22, 79](Ibid., 47)

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Article:
Identifying the Church of Christ
By John L. Stoddard

LINK: CLICK HERE

 

[calluna]

Article:
Identifying the Church of Christ
By John L. Stoddard

LINK: CLICK HERE

Reminiscent of Mormon or JW hype.

Same theology, as it happens.

 

[prodromos]

Article:
Identifying the Church of Christ
By John L. Stoddard

LINK: CLICK HERE

Stoddard appears to be 'invincibly ignorant' of the OO and the EO. Catholic apologetics always come unstuck once they go beyond the Protestants.

John

 

[racer]

Augustine and Maximinus

Maximinus lived during the time of St. Augustine(A.D. 354-430) and was one of the greatest defenders of the Arian heresy that ever lived. Arians believed that Jesus is of a divine nature, but not that He is fully God because he was created and therefore rejected the orthodox belief in the Trinity. Besides have a great ability to manipulate Scripture to his advantage, Maximinus was a great speaker as well. Just like "Sola Scriptura" believers today, Maximinus refused to use anything other than Scripture alone when defending his heretical views and felt that Scripture alone was the only rule of faith. Maximinus debate with St. Augustine was a "classic" because of the fact that it mirrors so many Catholic/Prot debates today.
Maximinus, Debate with Maximinus, 1 (c.A.D. 428) AAOH. [taken from Not By Scripture Alone pg 430-432]

Trento, we know that Scripture can be twisted and distorted to fit what people want to believe. You know what the first clue is? Scripture. It warns us against that very thing.

Was your omission of the name of the author of Not By Scripture Alone intentional or an innocent oversight. You really should be careful, when you make a point to note when you are citing Protestant Scholars, then slip a Catholic apologist in the mix. People could be lead to believe that you&#8217;re quoting another Protestant.

If you produce from the divine scriptures something that we all share, we shall have to listen. But those words which are not found in the scriptures are under no circumstance accepted by us, especially since the Lord warns us, saying, 'In vain they worship me, teaching human commandments and precepts'(Mt 5:19)

"I state this on the basis of the scriptures. At your bidding, I will follow up with testimonies [from the scriptures]"188
"But if one uses some literary skill or cleverness of mind and makes up words which the holy scriptures do not contain, they are both idle nd superfluous."196
"And I profess in accord with the statement of the divine scriptures..."197
"After all, we are protected not by mere talk, but by the testimonies of the divine scriptures."202
"All divinely inspired scripture is useful for teaching (2Tm3:16). For that reason, 'not one least letter or one particle of a letter will pass away (Mt 5:18). The Lord said, 'Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.' (Mt 24:35)"213

Are these snippets quoted directly from St. Augustine&#8217;s writings? Because, clearly the II Tim 3:16 citation has been distorted. It does not say as you have cited above, &#8220;All divinely inspired Scripture . . .&#8221; It says, &#8220;All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:&#8221;


All Scripture is divinely inspired. But, your discussion tactics sure make one pause and wonder who truly manipulates Scripture.

When refuting the arguments of Maximinus in debate, Augustine did appeal to Scripture in formulating his arguments. However, in referring to Scripture authoritatively, Augustine had recourse to a recognized proper interpretative sense of certain passages of Scripture. Augustine in other words had recourse to what Apostolic Christians refer to as "Tradition" for properly explaining the Scriptural data. In the situation with Maximinus, it was as it pertained to the doctrine of the consubstantial (equal in being) nature of the Father and the Son in the Godhead that recourse to Apostolic Tradition was needed. The Bishop of Hippo - in referring to the doctrine of the homoousian and its manifestations - deferred to the authority of the Catholic Church (Council of Nicaea) to render a final decision on matters of doctrine. This was necessary because the doctrine of the Homoousian (Gk. consubstantial) was formulated at the first General Council of Nicaea (in 325 AD) in response to the Arian heresy. It was also at Nicaea that the first elements of the formal doctrine of the Trinity were formulated. Constantinople I (in 381 AD) refined the doctrine further, defining it in the sense that almost all Christians today accept. Both of these councils were held within about 100 years of Augustine's debate with Maximinus and about 400 years after the death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

***sigh*** Now you&#8217;re just rambling. By the way, are these your words or are you quoting somebody else?

Maximinus was claiming that the understanding of Scripture as proclaimed by the Church concerning the consubstantial nature of the Father and the Son was in error. Maximinus of course "knew" this much the way our Protestant brethren "know" that certain Catholic or Orthodox distinctives are not in Scripture: because they do not see them there. Likewise with Maximinus. The homoousian was not present in Scripture because he did not see it in the Scriptures and thus the claim was made that Augustine and others were "teaching human commands and precepts". Augustine's line of defense in part consisted of telling Maximinus that he did not hold to the correct faith. In short, that his interpretations of Scripture were wrong. The basis for Augustine's claims were three-fold:


·

• • Maximinus' claims were as a result of misunderstanding the Scriptures in their authentic sense.
  • Maximinus' Arian position was not the faith that he Augustine had received from his teacher St. Ambrose of Milan. Nor was it the faith that any of the other bishops who were his contemporaries had received from the Fathers who preceded them (Gal. 1:8-9).
  • The rule of faith that the whole Church confessed was in opposition to Maximinus' positions and always had been; a point witnessed to by the General Council of Nicaea. As the Church had pronounced definitively on this matter; the issue was settled and Maximinus and his allies were in error anathema sit.

In Augustine's understanding of properly ascertaining orthodoxy, Scripture provided the data, Tradition the sense of interpretation and the authority of the Church the definitive word on the subject when needed. This approach by the Bishop of Hippo was not by any means an irregular one. In fact, the Fathers to a man (and without known exception) appealed to all three sources in defense of their doctrines from Church schismatics and heretics. Which authority of course depended for the most part on the particular adversary they were confronting. At no time was the idea of any book (even the Bible) as the final authority over and apart from an active enforcing authority ever considered as a viable option.

And you are still rambling! Do you ever have an original thought? Your failure to address my assertions and successfully refute them only exposes your inability to do so.

JND Kelly was an Protestant (Anglican) historian at Oxford - Principal of St. Edmund Hall, to be exact. He was a scholar of the Church Fathers, and wrote several books on Church History, including: The Oxford Dictionary of Popes

Early Christian Doctrines
Early Christian Creeds
Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom
Jerome: His Life, Writings and Controversies

So?

I've read the second book in that list, and I find his admissions absolutely shocking and refreshing. For a Protestant to admit so many points of Catholic teaching in the history of the Early Church is truly remarkable, not to mention useful for Catholics who want to defend their faith from history. This work of his is entirely thorough, and overflowing with references to original patristic documents.

Again . . . So?

J.N.D. Kelly, AnotherProtestant patristic scholar, wrote

:

Another Protestant Scholar? Isn&#8217;t he the one you just sang praises to above?

The three letters [Epistles 175-177] relating to Pelagianism which the African church sent to innocent I in 416, and of which Augustine was the draughtsman, suggested that he attributed to the Pope a pastoral and teaching authority extending over the whole Church, and found a basis for it in Scripture.

(Ibid., 419)

Again, we do not deny the &#8220;teaching authority&#8221; of the church.

According to Augustine [De doct. christ. 3,2], its Scripture's doubtful or ambiguous passages need to be cleared up by 'the rule of faith';

it was, moreover, the authority of the Church alone which in his eyesguranteed it's veractiy.

[ C. ep. Manich. 6: cf. de doct. christ. 2,12; c. Faust Manich, 22, 79](Ibid., 47)

This directly contradicts teachings from Augustine that I have cited for you time and again.

Chapter 28.&#8212; It is Safer to Explain a Doubtful Passage by Other Passages of Scripture Than by Reason.
39. When, however, a meaning is evolved of such a kind that what is doubtful in it cannot be cleared up by indubitable evidence from Scripture, it remains for us to make it clear by the evidence of reason. But this is a dangerous practice. For it is far safer to walk by the light of Holy Scripture; so that when we wish to examine the passages that are obscured by metaphorical expressions, we may either obtain a meaning about which there is no controversy, or if a controversy arises, may settle it by the application of testimonies sought out in every portion of the same Scripture.
Chapter 9.&#8212;How We Should Proceed in Studying Scripture.
14. In all these books those who fear God and are of a meek and pious disposition seek the will of God. And in pursuing this search the first rule to be observed is, as I said, to know these books, if not yet with the understanding, still to read them so as to commit them to memory, or at least so as not to remain wholly ignorant of them. Next, those matters that are plainly laid down in them, whether rules of life or rules of faith, are to be searched into more carefully and more diligently; and the more of these a man discovers, the more capacious does his understanding become. For among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life,&#8212;to wit, hope and love, of which I have spoken in the previous book. After this, when we have made ourselves to a certain extent familiar with the language of Scripture, we may proceed to open up and investigate the obscure passages, and in doing so draw examples from the plainer expressions to throw light upon the more obscure, and use the evidence of passages about which there is no doubt to remove all hesitation in regard to the doubtful passages. And in this matter memory counts for a great deal; but if the memory be defective, no rules can supply the want.

 

[Uphill Battle]

I maintain that if these "Protestant Scholars" were in such agreement with the Catholic Church, they would be Catholic. I'm wondering what it is we are NOT seeing from the scholars, that keep them Protestant!

 

[racer]

I maintain that if these "Protestant Scholars" were in such agreement with the Catholic Church, they would be Catholic.

That's what I keep telling Trento . . . .

 

[racer]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.v.v.html?highlight=scripture#highlight

Chapter 5.—Scripture Translated into Various Languages.

6. And hence it happened that even Holy http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.v.v.html?highlight=scripture#highlightScripture, which brings a remedy for the terrible diseases of the human will, being at first set forth in one language, by means of which it could at the fit season be disseminated through the whole world, was interpreted into various tongues, and spread far and wide, and thus became known to the nations for their salvation. And in reading it, men seek nothing more than to find out the thought and will of those by whom it was written, and 537 through these to find out the will of God, in accordance with which they believe these men to have spoken.
​

It doesn't appear that Augustine was concern that proper meaning or understanding would be lost in the translation of Scripture into languages other than the original versions they were spoken or recorded.

 

[racer]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.iv.xl.html?highlight=scripture#highlight

Chapter 40.—What Manner of Reader http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.v.iv.xl.html?highlight=scripture#highlightScripture Demands.

44. And, therefore, if a man fully understands that “the end of the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned,”17571757 1 Tim. i. 5. and is bent upon making all his understanding of Scripture to bear upon these three graces, he may come to the interpretation of these books with an easy mind. For while the apostle says “love,” he adds “out of a pure heart,” to provide against anything being loved but that which is worthy of love. And he joins with this “a good conscience,” in reference to hope; for, if a man has the burthen of a bad conscience, he despairs of ever reaching that which he believes in and loves. And in the third place he says: “and of faith unfeigned.” For if our faith is free from all hypocrisy, then we both abstain from loving what is unworthy of our love, and by living uprightly we are able to indulge the hope that our hope shall not be in vain.
For these reasons I have been anxious to speak about the objects of faith, as far as I thought it necessary for my present purpose; for much has already been said on this subject in other volumes, either by others or by myself. And so let this be the end of the present book. In the next I shall discuss, as far as God shall give me light, the subject of signs.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Interesting, I've wondered about your screen name, but never occurred to me to ask.So, how do you pronounce Iakovos?

Thanks for asking:
EE-Yahk-O-Vose. The Greek has no "J," but uses ia, as the the Hebrews use "Y' ," or 'yah. It is the name 'Jacob,' or in the bad English transliteration, James.

I took the name of James the Brother of our Lord as my Christian name. I was named thus at my (Lutheran) baptism in 1963.

 

[racer]

Thanks for asking:
EE-Yahk-O-Vose. The Greek has no "J," but uses ia, as the the Hebrews use "Y' ," or 'yah. It is the name 'Jacob,' or in the bad English transliteration, James.

I took the name of James the Brother of our Lord as my Christian name. I was named thus at my (Lutheran) baptism in 1963.

Wow! Just saying to myself, guessing actually, I was pronouncing it almost perfect.

 

[chestertonrules]

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."

The authority came from Jesus, but it was conveyed through the apostles.

Here is some strong evidence for that authority.

St. Clement, the fourth pope, was consulted by the Corinthians regarding a dispute. The were attempting to defrock some Bishops.

St. Clement replies as a person in authority and his instructions are followed.

During his response, he lays out apostolic teaching on succession:

Chapter 42. The Order of Ministers in the Church.

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.

Chapter 44. The Ordinances of the Apostles, that There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office.

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

St. Clement, the fourth pope, was consulted by the Corinthians regarding a dispute. The were attempting to defrock some Bishops.

How do you know he was a pope instead of just a Bishop of equals

 

[chestertonrules]

How do you know he was a pope instead of just a Bishop of equals

That's what the Church teaches. In addition, we have the fact that the Corinthians were consulting him. Why wouldn't they consult their own Bishop? Clearly, they viewed Clement as a higher authority.

 

[racer]

The authority came from Jesus, but it was conveyed through the apostles.

Here is some strong evidence for that authority.

St. Clement, the fourth pope, was consulted by the Corinthians regarding a dispute. The were attempting to defrock some Bishops.

St. Clement replies as a person in authority and his instructions are followed.

During his response, he lays out apostolic teaching on succession:

Chapter 42. The Order of Ministers in the Church.

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe.

Chapter 44. The Ordinances of the Apostles, that There Might Be No Contention Respecting the Priestly Office.

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm

Chesterton,

Pardon me for a few moments while I pick myself up off the floor. Seriously, genuine response of substance. Now, that I've caught my breath, I'll read a little closer and try to respond appropriately.

 

[chestertonrules]

FYI, the underlines are not mine, that came through with the copy and paste.

They are links to other topics.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Chesterton,

Pardon me for a few moments while I pick myself up off the floor. Seriously, genuine response of substance. Now, that I've caught my breath, I'll read a little closer and try to respond appropriately.

That reminds of a scene in this movie when Michael Caine fell all over the place laughing from something Sean Connery said. This isn't it in this clip though.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dJf5rO0-BM&feature=related

 

[racer]

That's what the Church teaches. In addition, we have the fact that the Corinthians were consulting him. Why wouldn't they consult their own Bishop? Clearly, they viewed Clement as a higher authority.

I won't argue what the RCC teaches. We already know what it teaches, but I am questioning on what grounds you base your faith in the RCC. So, let's look at the very beginning of Clements letter to the Corinthians before you continue the argument that the Corinthians sought out "Clement's" consultation.

Chapter I.—The salutation. Praise of the Corinthians before the breaking forth of schism among them.

The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.

Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us;33 [Note the fact that the Corinthians asked this of their brethren, the personal friends of their apostle St. Paul. Clement’s own name does not appear in this Epistle.]

Blue emphasis is mine and the read are notes made on the link:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.i.html

Then the closing of the epistle:

Chapter LIX.—The Corinthians are exhorted speedily to send back word that peace has been restored. The benediction.

Send back speedily to us in peace and with joy these our messengers to you: Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito, with Fortunatus: that they may the sooner announce to us the peace and harmony we so earnestly desire and long for [among you], and that we may the more quickly rejoice over the good order re-established among you.

There is a lot being read into this epistle when asserting that Clement was sought out as a lead authority (Pope) of the Church.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ii.ii.lix.html