Church "authority"

[CopticChristian]

As a practicing Catholic, interested in inter and intrafaith dialogue I find the position of GnosisofThomas and his stance on the authority in his church not too dissimilar from our own and I hope that he or she can correct me on this.

According to the way I’m reading his church’s catechism:

“[The] Gnostic Church is holy because her members aspire to a wholeness and integrity of life; she is also universal, or catholic, because she teaches and practices the faith of Gnosis which is not bound to time or to place… she [the Gnostic Church] is apostolic because her authority proceeds from the apostles and their successors.” 144

and in appendix B:

Q: Does the Gnostic world view uphold or rebel against worldly “establishments”?

It does neither, for its attitude is well stated in one of its scriptures: “Do not put your trust in the potentates, rulers, and the rebels of this world, for their authority passes away and comes to an end and their works are as naught.”

Knowing that they have an episcopate and clergy, I would imagine that they would act as moral and spiritual guides, but for the most part their own perceptions of authority rest in their experiential knowledge of their idea of God.

Granted, again, as churches who are separated from Rome there are bound to be some deficencies from our perspective but I think their alternate approach is something we might be able to learn and grow from in understanding and dialogue.

Also, CopticChristian, I’ve seen a few of your posts and am interested in learning why you can’t accept them as being brothers and sisters on account that they have different gospels? The Ethiopian Church and a number of other churches have different canons of apocrypha and yet that doesn’t stop or prevent them from being part of the Church of the Apostles, even if they don’t accept the primacy of the throne of Saint Peter.

Chevalier,

You are wrong, our Church is Holy because it is the Body of Christ and our God is Holy. Ecclesia Gnostica is not Holy.

 

[Chevalier_IX]

Chevalier,

You are wrong, our Church is Holy because it is the Body of Christ and our God is Holy. Ecclesia Gnostica is not Holy.

CopticChristian, you’re using buzzwords that don’t have any meaning without providing ample context. Ecclesia Gnostica may not be in communion with Rome, but that doesn’t make them not holy anymore than Jewish synagogues or Islamic mosqes aren’t places of holiness for adherents of those faiths which we are likewise called to respect vide Domini Iesus, which I’m sure you’ve read and states:

““The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and teachings, which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men”. Continuing in this line of thought, the Church’s proclamation of Jesus Christ, “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), today also makes use of the practice of inter-religious dialogue. Such dialogue certainly does not replace, but rather accompanies the missio ad gentes, directed toward that “mystery of unity”, from which “it follows that all men and women who are saved share, though differently, in the same mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ through his Spirit”. Inter-religious dialogue, which is part of the Church’s evangelizing mission,6 requires an attitude of understanding and a relationship of mutual knowledge and reciprocal enrichment, in obedience to the truth and with respect for freedom.”

While we ourselves may find some elements of their faith deficient, we can’t lose sight of what is good and true within them in relation to us.

 

[CopticChristian]

CopticChristian, you’re using buzzwords that don’t have any meaning without providing ample context. Ecclesia Gnostica may not be in communion with Rome, but that doesn’t make them not holy anymore than Jewish synagogues or Islamic mosqes aren’t places of holiness for adherents of those faiths which we are likewise called to respect vide Domini Iesus, which I’m sure you’ve read and states:

““The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions. She has a high regard for the manner of life and conduct, the precepts and teachings, which, although differing in many ways from her own teaching, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that truth which enlightens all men”. Continuing in this line of thought, the Church’s proclamation of Jesus Christ, “the way, the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6), today also makes use of the practice of inter-religious dialogue. Such dialogue certainly does not replace, but rather accompanies the missio ad gentes, directed toward that “mystery of unity”, from which “it follows that all men and women who are saved share, though differently, in the same mystery of salvation in Jesus Christ through his Spirit”. Inter-religious dialogue, which is part of the Church’s evangelizing mission,6 requires an attitude of understanding and a relationship of mutual knowledge and reciprocal enrichment, in obedience to the truth and with respect for freedom.”

While we ourselves may find some elements of their faith deficient, we can’t lose sight of what is good and true within them in relation to us.

Chevalier,

When you recite the Creed We believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, what is it you believe that you are professing?

 

[Chevalier_IX]

Chevalier,

When you recite the Creed We believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, what is it you believe that you are professing?

When I say the Nicene Creed and state, “I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” I affirm the the apostolic faith concerning the Trinity as confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople. That said, not all religions bound by that having either not entered into the covenant with Christ and His Church or otherwise choosing to not become part of the Catholic Church or remain with the latter for a number of reasons peculiar to their own understanding of Scripture and inspiration of Spirit.

For this reason, it we must remain open to other means by which others may apprehend God in their own ways without forcing our own world-view upon them as that would be and offence to their particular integrity as well as Christian charity. The Catholic Church exists as an umbrella of different communities that may help provide for the spiritual attainment of humanity by whose short-commings it is difficult to attain solely by her or his self.

The Ecclesia Gnostica, though not in communion with Rome, professes in its own peculiar way to be part of the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” having within itself the same qualia as valid though ilicit. In spite of the ilicit nature of their sacraments, that does not in any way affect their holiness and to argue otherwise would be to raise the question of whether or not we ourselves are Catholic for denying their efficacy in helping them in their approach toward holiness.

 

[CopticChristian]

When I say the Nicene Creed and state, “I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” I affirm the the apostolic faith concerning the Trinity as confessed by the second ecumenical council at Constantinople. That said, not all religions bound by that having either not entered into the covenant with Christ and His Church or otherwise choosing to not become part of the Catholic Church or remain with the latter for a number of reasons peculiar to their own understanding of Scripture and inspiration of Spirit.

For this reason, it we must remain open to other means by which others may apprehend God in their own ways without forcing our own world-view upon them as that would be and offence to their particular integrity as well as Christian charity. The Catholic Church exists as an umbrella of different communities that may help provide for the spiritual attainment of humanity by whose short-commings it is difficult to attain solely by her or his self.

The Ecclesia Gnostica, though not in communion with Rome, professes in its own peculiar way to be part of the “One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” having within itself the same qualia as valid though ilicit. In spite of the ilicit nature of their sacraments, that does not in any way affect their holiness and to argue otherwise would be to raise the question of whether or not we ourselves are Catholic for denying their efficacy in helping them in their approach toward holiness.

Chevalier,

Your understanding would include Mormons, Jehovah Witness and others…is this your position?

 

[Chevalier_IX]

I’m unsure what you’re talking about CopticChristian. Could you please elaborate?

 

[Erich]

I’ve never thought of it in terms of a church’s authority to “command” (and maybe I’m misunderstanding the intent of the question), but a person makes certain commitments when he joins a church: exemplifying a godly lifestyle in the community, exercising one’s spiritual gifts in diligent service, contributing financially to the work of the ministry, giving and receiving admonishment with meekness and in love, and faithfully participating in corporate worship. The authority for these expectations is scripture, and several Biblical references are provided in the short article linked to below.

gty.org/resources/distinctives/dd03/church-membership

Authority as this article demonstrates, comes from being appointed by a superior. There are two ways this can come about: by either being commissioned by a superior authority (since no one can confer that which he does not possess himself) who himself had a legitimate claim to his office, or by being called directly by God. If the latter, his mission must be accompanied by miracles, signs and wonders as proof of his Divine vocation. Even Jesus submitted to this proof-test:

“If I bear witness to myself, my testimony is not true; there is another who bears witness to me, and I know that the testimony which he bears to me is true. You sent to John, and he has borne witness to the truth. Not that the testimony which I receive is from man; but I say this that you may be saved. He was a burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father has granted me to accomplish, these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me.” (John 5:31-36)

 

[CopticChristian]

Chevalier,

Your understanding would include Mormons, Jehovah Witness and others…is this your position?

Chevalier,

Earlier you said…

It does neither, for its attitude is well stated in one of its scriptures: “Do not put your trust in the potentates, rulers, and the rebels of this world, for their authority passes away and comes to an end and their works are as naught.”

Knowing that they have an episcopate and clergy, I would imagine that they would act as moral and spiritual guides, but for the most part their own perceptions of authority rest in their experiential knowledge of their idea of God.

you suggest that they have Scripture, and these writings are declared not to be Scripture. They are writings but not inspired or of God. So do you believe that they have Scripture? Even if they have a semblance of the OHCAC does not equate to an ecclesial community.

How would you view the Ecclesia Gnostica if they accepted practicing homsexuals in their community?

 

[gnosisofthomas]

Earlier you said…

It does neither, for its attitude is well stated in one of its scriptures: “Do not put your trust in the potentates, rulers, and the rebels of this world, for their authority passes away and comes to an end and their works are as naught.”

You do realise, don’t you, that that quote actually comes from one of the Psalms? Or has the OHCAC rejected that book as scripture?

 

[Chevalier_IX]

I was simply citing their perspective of authority from the perspective of their catechism.

Regarding their episcopate, they seem to either have or believe they have apostolic succession that exists in the same continuity as our own and that their bishops and clergy function in a similar role as ours. Until their succession is proven or disproven, I’m willing to take them at their word as this type of thing is not unprecedented.

They do have scripture of their own, to deny that would be a gross misunderstanding however the Church has decided in her wisdom not to count those particular scriptures amongst the canon as formulated in canon 825 of the Code "INSTRUMENTS OF SOCIAL COMMUNICATION AND BOOKS IN PARTICULAR " which states:

“Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.”

Their scripture may not be sacred to us or have the same meaning, however from a scholarly perspective, that doesn’t change the fact that it is still scripture - it’s just not ours. I personally have a deep interest in Biblical scholarship and find early apocryphal and pseudoepigraphica interesting for what it tells us of the early Christian communities.

As for having members of their community who may be lesbian or gay, I don’t see anything particularly wrong with that - it doesn’t infringe on me and my wife or child’s rights or liberties and of our lesbian and gay friends, I think they’re great people and deserving of respect.

 

[dontknowitall]

I was simply citing their perspective of authority from the perspective of their catechism.

Regarding their episcopate, they seem to either have or believe they have apostolic succession that exists in the same continuity as our own and that their bishops and clergy function in a similar role as ours. Until their succession is proven or disproven, I’m willing to take them at their word as this type of thing is not unprecedented.

They do have scripture of their own, to deny that would be a gross misunderstanding however the Church has decided in her wisdom not to count those particular scriptures amongst the canon as formulated in canon 825 of the Code "INSTRUMENTS OF SOCIAL COMMUNICATION AND BOOKS IN PARTICULAR " which states:

“Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.”

Their scripture may not be sacred to us or have the same meaning, however from a scholarly perspective, that doesn’t change the fact that it is still scripture - it’s just not ours. I personally have a deep interest in Biblical scholarship and find early apocryphal and pseudoepigraphica interesting for what it tells us of the early Christian communities.

As for having members of their community who may be lesbian or gay, I don’t see anything particularly wrong with that - it doesn’t infringe on me and my wife or child’s rights or liberties and of our lesbian and gay friends, I think they’re great people and deserving of respect.

that was an interesting dialog – a bit over my head-- but – informative–

Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the faith God has distributed to each of you.

Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.

 

[Publisher]

To what degree does your church have authority to command you?

What is the source of this authority?

As a Friend, I have placed myself under “the care of the Meeting”. I have agreed to follow the disipline of the Meeting. It is a mutual decision Friends make to one another…however, I am bound by conscience over and above what any Meeting may wish. When ever differences arise between an individual Friend and the Monthly Meeting, a “Clearness Committee” is formed to seek mutal understanding and resolution directed by prayerful consideration of all parties.

Among Friends, “majority” does not rule…we govern ourselves by consensus…each of us had an equal voice…and sometimes the minority voice among us is the one that hears God speak the clearest…and after much prayer, meditation, discussion it is not unheard of for the Meeting as a whole to embrace the minority position after a time of “Clearness”.

These decisions can take months…and in some case years to come to consensus.

We share equally as each of us bears the Light Within.

 

[MartinJordan]

Hi PMJ,

To me The Church is concerned for each one of it’s members’ Salvation. I will try my very best and not to think of the worldly ways to find a solution to anything that disturbs my way to God in his abode but respectfully wholeheartedly and with full commitment to God and His Church. The Church is all about** OBEDIENCE**.

There is no reason for me to believe that the Church will falter and lose focus to the get us into the Heavenly Kingdom.

The source of this Authority is Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour who picked ordinary men to lead his Church and chose Simon Bar Jona and renamed him the visible Rock who remains obedient to the invisible ROCK who once walked the earth till his Ascension.

The invisible ROCK will return and Peter (The Pope) will be the caretaker till then.

God bless

MJ

 

[1answer]

As a Friend, I have placed myself under “the care of the Meeting”. I have agreed to follow the disipline of the Meeting. It is a mutual decision Friends make to one another…however, I am bound by conscience over and above what any Meeting may wish. When ever differences arise between an individual Friend and the Monthly Meeting, a “Clearness Committee” is formed to seek mutal understanding and resolution directed by prayerful consideration of all parties.

Among Friends, “majority” does not rule…we govern ourselves by consensus…each of us had an equal voice…and sometimes the minority voice among us is the one that hears God speak the clearest…and after much prayer, meditation, discussion it is not unheard of for the Meeting as a whole to embrace the minority position after a time of “Clearness”.

These decisions can take months…and in some case years to come to consensus.

We share equally as each of us bears the Light Within.

what do you think?

the 1st thing Jesus said to his deciples was don’t leave town w/o the baptism of the Holy Spirit that was comming soon

when that day arrived Peter said be sumersed or baptised in water and you will receive the Gift of the Holy Spirit–

, Jesus explains the meaning of this by using the phrase “born of water and the Spirit” in verse 5.

now each religion uses baptism

for the baptism of idenification -

• for each demonination- each claiming dominion and church authority-

but if you don’t have the Holy Spirit - you are not of his-- or so Saint paul says in Romans

As Paul declares in Romans 8:9 , without the Spirit of Christ he is not His. …

. Jesus declares in John’s Gospel, “unless one is born again he cannot see the … that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, …

 

[Augustus24]

To what degree does your church have authority to command you?

What is the source of this authority?

My church has authority to command me only by the scriptures. If their command is unbiblical, then I am not bound to obey it.

 

[Nicea325]

My church has authority to command me only by the scriptures. If their command is unbiblical, then I am not bound to obey it.

And where does Scripture make such a declaration? And 2 Tim 3:16 is not concrete proof.

 

[pablope]

My church has authority to command me only by the scriptures. If their command is unbiblical, then I am not bound to obey it.

Okay…who determines what is unbiblical or not? Who get to decide what is unbiblical or not?

Scriptures also say this:

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

So if you disobey…then are you then going against this passage…and therefor, being unbiblical?

 

[Nicea325]

Okay…who determines what is unbiblical or not? Who get to decide what is unbiblical or not?

Scriptures also say this:

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

So if you disobey…then are you then going against this passage…and therefor, being unbiblical?

Back to the same issues: Scripture-alone…Bible-only…etc…etc. And…WHO DECIDES?

 

[Augustus24]

And where does Scripture make such a declaration? And 2 Tim 3:16 is not concrete proof.

Hello,

I submit to you that the apostles practiced none other then the praxis of Sola Scriptura in the famous council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 as they used scripture to norm their doctrine concerning gentile believers.

Also when Jesus corrected the Sadduccees by commending them to scripture:
*
29 Jesus replied, “You are in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you, 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.”*

Also I would point you to the closing verses of Romans:
*
25 Now to Him who is able to establish you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery which has been kept secret for long ages past, 26 but now is manifested, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the eternal God, has been made known to all the nations, leading to obedience of faith; 27 to the only wise God, through Jesus Christ, be the glory forever. Amen.*

 

[Augustus24]

Okay…who determines what is unbiblical or not? Who get to decide what is unbiblical or not?

The scriptures are unified on essential doctrine, like the divinity of Christ, his virgin birth, his resurrection, his ascending into heaven, etc. There are plenty of things in scripture that we can debate on, without compromising essential doctrine, like the type of church government we should have, whether babies should be baptized etc.

Scriptures also say this:

1 Samuel 15:22-23
22 But Samuel replied:
“Does the Lord delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
as much as in obeying the Lord?
To obey is better than sacrifice,
and to heed is better than the fat of rams.
23 For rebellion is like the sin of divination,
and arrogance like the evil of idolatry.
Because you have rejected the word of the Lord,
he has rejected you as king.”

So if you disobey…then are you then going against this passage…and therefor, being unbiblical?

If I disobey who? Saul disobeyed God by failing to destroy the Amalekites completely. Sammuel was a prophet and spoke the word of God. Now that there aren’t any more prophets and no more new revelation is being given, everything we need to know and is binding on all Christians is in the scriptures.