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

[racer]

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

Okay, but the best support you can give for this is to skip scripture and the first three (3) Popes, and cite Clement of Rome?

Here is some strong evidence for that authority.

What--in your mind--makes Clement an authority?

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

This point I think I addressed in the other post.

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

He never claims sole authority. He states "us, we, our" in his address to the Corinthians.

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

Here is where I see more logic in Orthodoxy than Catholicism. When speaking of the episcopate, it's always in a plural sense.

 

[racer]

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

Okay, I already suspended Rick's YouTube privileges, are we going to have to suspend yours for a while?

 

[chestertonrules]

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.]

Clement was writing as Bishop of Rome. This method of address it typical in early christian writings.

Why would they consult the Church of Rome for guidance?

 

[racer]

Clement was writing as Bishop of Rome. This method of address it typical in early christian writings.

Why would they consult the Church of Rome for guidance?

If you and I have a disagreement, we would have to look elsewhere for advice to settle the dispute would we not?

 

[chestertonrules]

Okay, but the best support you can give for this is to skip scripture and the first three (3) Popes, and cite Clement of Rome?

Start with the book of Acts. When the Christians at Antioch had a disacreement as to the necessity of circumcision for gentile converts, they didn't just split into two churches. The sent representatives to the Church leaders to get the truth, as directed by the Holy Spirit, thus maintaining unity.



Here are some specific cases where the church and/or the apostles are granted authority in scripture:

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.


This passage makes no sense unless all the disagreeing parties are in agreement as to what is meant by "the church".

Luke 10
16"He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me."

Jesus is granting his authority to the apostles.

John 20
21Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

Jesus again grants his authority to the apostles.

1 Timothy 3
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God's household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.

Paul calls the church the pillar and foundation of the truth. In order for this to have meaning, there must be one church and one truth.

2 Thes 2
15So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

Paul taught his followers to stand firm to the teachings they received. This rules out schisms as being ordained by Paul.

Matthew 16

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."


This is clear to me, although I'm sure you will find much to argue with in this one!

 

[chestertonrules]

What--in your mind--makes Clement an authority?

He is regarded by tradition and history as the fourth pope.
The Corinthians sought his council.
The Corinthians accepted his decision.
The Corinthians read his letter aloud with joy hundreds of years. We find this in the writings of Ireneaus.

This point I think I addressed in the other post.

He never claims sole authority. He states "us, we, our" in his address to the Corinthians.

He is writing for the Church. He is not a dictator. He is the head among the servants of Christ. This is common practice for papal letters.

Here is where I see more logic in Orthodoxy than Catholicism. When speaking of the episcopate, it's always in a plural sense.

There is much to admire in Orthodoxy. Unfortunately for them, many of their early patriarchs were quite open in the acceptance and understanding of both the primacy of Peter and the authority of the Church at Rome.

Their later change of heart on this matters is undermined by their own history.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

racer,

I am wondering if you have reached any conclusions from this thread.

PM me if you don't want to respond here.

Forgive me...

 

[racer]

Start with the book of Acts. When the Christians at Antioch had a disacreement as to the necessity of circumcision for gentile converts, they didn't just split into two churches. The sent representatives to the Church leaders to get the truth, as directed by the Holy Spirit, thus maintaining unity.

Church leaders--plural. And, were they in Rome?

Here are some specific cases where the church and/or the apostles are granted authority in scripture:

Thank you!

Matthew 18

17If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Was that church at Rome? And this is referring to individual churches.

This passage makes no sense unless all the disagreeing parties are n agreement as to what is meant by "the church".

It meant the church where they worshipped. They definitely didn't take every dispute to Rome.

This is clear to me, although I'm sure you will find much to argue with in this one!

I'm running out of time, so I'm going to end today with this:

NTRMin.org
5/21/02

Irenaeus said that the Roman church is the greatest church, and that all other churches must agree with the Roman church. Because of a papacy? No, but because of non-papal factors, such as the Roman church's location in the capital of the empire. Irenaeus viewed the Roman church as authoritative *not* because of any papacy, but because of practical factors such as the fact that Christians from around the world traveled to Rome, thereby making the Roman church representative of worldwide Christian consensus. Thus, the Roman primacy of Irenaeus was practical rather than jurisdictional. Since Rome is no longer the capital of a major empire, and many Roman bishops since Irenaeus' time have been unfaithful to apostolic teaching, Irenaeus' argument doesn't apply today as it did in the second century. Not only does Irenaeus give non-papal reasons for the Roman church's importance, but he also suggests that the apostles, not just Peter, appointed Linus as bishop of Rome *while Peter was still alive*. After mentioning the Roman church, Irenaeus goes on to say that Christians can also turn to the churches of Smyrna and Ephesus for sound doctrine. When's the last time you heard a Catholic appeal to the authority and infallibility of Smyrna or Ephesus? They only follow the portions of Irenaeus that seem to support Roman Catholicism, while rejecting the rest. For more about the meaning and significance of this passage in Irenaeus, see:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-61.htm#P7966_2192965

Here's Irenaeus explaining the non-papal reasons for the Roman church's importance:

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; we do this, I say, by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority -- that is, the faithful everywhere -- inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate....But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried on earth a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time -- a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics....There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles." (Against Heresies, 3:3:2-4)

 

[racer]

racer,

I wondering if you have reached any conclusions from this thread.

PM me if you don't want to respond here.

Forgive me...

Well, I have learned that the Orthodox are much more humble than I used to consider them to be! But, naw, either I've got a big misunderstanding or nobody really wants to dig in and explain things.

 

[prodromos]

Clement was writing as Bishop of Rome. This method of address it typical in early christian writings.

Perhaps you could provide some examples of such.

Why would they consult the Church of Rome for guidance?

Corinth was under the Church of Rome as the population of Corinth was almost entirely Roman in character and not Greek. Corinth had access to the Ionian Sea and had regular trade with Rome, and as a consequence, regular communication. As their church had been established by Paul, they naturally had stronger ties with those who had been close to Paul. Clement was certainly one of those people. Thus there were several factors which caused the Church in Corinth to seek guidance from Rome.

John

 

[chestertonrules]

Perhaps you could provide some examples of such.
.

John

Here are two:
Gregory the Great, Pope (c. 540-604)

To all the Bishops of Sicily.
Gregory, servant of the servants of God , to all the bishops constituted throughout Sicily.
We have plainly perceived it to be very necessary that, even as our predecessors thought fit to do, we should commit all things to one and the same person; and that, where we cannot be present ourselves, our authority should be represented through him to whom we send our instructions. Wherefore, with the help of God, we have appointed Peter, subdeacon of our See, our delegate in the province of Sicily. Nor can we doubt as to the conduct of him to whom, with the help of God, we are known to have committed the charge of the whole patrimony of our church.



Leo the Great, Pope (c. 395-461) WE admonish you also to restore to full working that part of the discipline of the Church whereby the holy Fathers and we have often in former times decreed that neither in the grade of the priesthood

 

[chestertonrules]

Perhaps you could provide some examples of such.
Corinth was under the Church of Rome as the population of Corinth was almost entirely Roman in character and not Greek. Corinth had access to the Ionian Sea and had regular trade with Rome, and as a consequence, regular communication. As their church had been established by Paul, they naturally had stronger ties with those who had been close to Paul. Clement was certainly one of those people. Thus there were several factors which caused the Church in Corinth to seek guidance from Rome.

John

This is true, and therefore not conclusive support of the papacy. I would argue that it does lend support to the primacy of Rome and the papacy.

However, that wasn't the point I was trying to make.

I was responding to the OP which asked where we got our authority. Clement explains it well in a way that both Orthodox and Catholic Christians could support.

 

[racer]

"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." - The Seventh Council of Carthage (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm)

 

[chestertonrules]

"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." - The Seventh Council of Carthage (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm)

That's absolutely true. This was a regional council of Bishops and the Pope was not present.


Here's what Cyprian, who organized the council above, thought about the papacy:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times] [/FONT]

"There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is One and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another." (Cyprian, Letter 66 (69), 8 to Florentius Pupianus, c. AD 254)​

 

[prodromos]

That's absolutely true. This was a regional council of Bishops and the Pope was not present.


Here's what Cyprian, who organized the council above, thought about the papacy:

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times]"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times] [/FONT]

"There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is One and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another." (Cyprian, Letter 66 (69), 8 to Florentius Pupianus, c. AD 254)​

Cyprian is not speaking of the Papacy.

 

[chestertonrules]

Cyprian is not speaking of the Papacy.

Are you joking?

What else could this be?


He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.

If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Are you joking?

What else could this be?

He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity.

If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?"

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=7321693&highlight=chair+peter
Chair of Peter question

 

[prodromos]

Are you joking?

What else could this be?

No I am not joking. As is typical of Catholic apologists you have quoted the first edition of "The Unity of the Catholic Church". Cyprian later revised this work, presumably because Rome began to interpret his work in a manner which he had not intended it to be understood. Below is his revised text.

It is on the one man that He builds the Church; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection, when He says, 'As the Father has sent me, so also do I send you; receive the Holy Spirit: If you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any man's sins, they shall be retained" (John 20: 21-23) Nevertheless, in order that unity might be clearly shown, He established by His own authority a source for that unity, which takes its beginning from one man alone. Indeed, the other Apostles were that also which Peter was, being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; but the origin is grounded in unity, so that it may be made clear that there is but one Church of Christ. Indeed this oneness of the Church is indicated in the Song of Songs, when the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Lord's name, says, 'One is my dove, my perfect one, to her mother the only one, the chosen of her that bore her." If someone does not hold fast to this unity of the Church, can he imagine that he holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, can he still be confident that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul teaches this very thing and displays the sacred sign of unity when he says: 'One body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God' (Eph 4:4-6). Let no one mislead the brotherhood with a lie, let no one corrupt the faith by a faithless perversion of the truth. The episcopate is one, of which each bishop holds his part within the undivided structure. The Church also is one, however widely she has spread among the multitude through her fruitful increase. . . . The Church is bathed in the light of the Lord , and pours her rays over the whole world; but it is one light that is spread everywhere , and the unity of her structure is undivided.​

This is completely Orthodox ecclesiology and is precisely what the Orthodox Church teaches today.

John

 

[Rick Otto]

All bishops are limited in their power because they can only move diagonaly.

 

[chestertonrules]

All bishops are limited in their power because they can only move diagonaly.

True.

Queens often go both ways.