What's Your Authority?

[pablope]

The Orthodox Catholic Church, yes (as a catechumen)

Which Rite?

 

[SjMelnychuk]

Bottom line is…

Either Peter is the Rock and first Pope or He’s not.

Either Baptism saves or it’s just a symbol

Either there’s Apostolic Authority or there is not.

Which is it? Both can’t be right

How do you you’ve discerned right?

How do you know you weren’t deceived by a different Gospel?

You say God is authority and that God through His Holy Spirit guides us into all truth but all that depends on whether or not you’ve discerned accurately so how do you know that what you discern if from God? And how do you know you’ve discerned accurately when reading the bible and therefore having interpreted Sacred Scripture accurately?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Which Rite?

Sorry if I was unclear…the Orthodox Catholic Church is the official name, but I know that can throw people into thinking Eastern Catholic; mea culpa. Orthodox as in Eastern Orthodox. Orthodox Church in America, by jurisdiction.

 

[Kliska]

Sure…but how do your or how would you show your trust in Him?

How would I trust Him? I’m a bit confused as to the question; is this what you mean; trusting on Him, Who He is, what He has done, and obeying Him with help from the Holy Spirit.

From what you say…you trust Him through yourself…is what I can glean.

How would one “trust Him through yourself?” What I do believe is that the temple veil was torn and we can come boldly to the throne of Grace to have right relationship with the Father, through the Son, with the help and power of the Holy Spirit. We present ourselves as a living sacrifice, and pray to always do the will of the Father, not under our own power, but under our own choice, and that no one else can make that decision for me, and no other human will answer for me when my turn comes before the throne, but will indeed have, and do have, Jesus as a mediator.

 

[Kliska]

How do you you’ve discerned right?

How do you know you weren’t deceived by a different Gospel?

You say God is authority and that God through His Holy Spirit guides us into all truth but all that depends on whether or not you’ve discerned accurately so how do you know that what you discern if from God? And how do you know you’ve discerned accurately when reading the bible and therefore having interpreted Sacred Scripture accurately?

How do you know you’ve discerned right? How do you know you’ve picked the right church to be in? How do you know you can trust the Pope and the Magisterium? How do you know you can trust the Holy Spirit?

We all must answer those questions.

To the thread; this is where I say adieu, as there’s no point talking in circles. Such a mix of opinion is always enlightening. Thanks for your time, those who dialogued with me. As I always say, you pray for me, I’ll pray for you.

Grace and Peace,
K

 

[SteveVH]

No, absolutely not. Truth does not contradict, nor does the Spirit contradict Himself. So, for example, if He guides us, it will not contradict scripture.

Then what do you say to the one with whom you disagree? How do you know that you are guided and the other is not, when you both claim to be led by the Holy Spirit?

Absolutely. Obviously when protestants recite the creed we don’t mean “Roman Catholic” when saying catholic, but rather “universal.”

Nor do we. We mean catholic in the sense of one universal faith (not differing doctrines) which is not dependent on or subject to our personal preferences. We also believe that this Church is apostolic, not a church based upon private interpretations of the Bible.

I asked about the “communion of saints” as well. Do you adhere to that doctrine? Is it okay to profess a creed alongside others while we each hold differing views as to what that creed means?

Well, it depends on the issue, for example;

Romans 14:1 Now accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions. 2 One person has faith that he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats vegetables only. 3 The one who eats is not to regard with contempt the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the one who eats, for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls; and he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.

5 One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God. … 22 The faith which you have, have as your own conviction before God. Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves. 23 But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith; and whatever is not from faith is sin.

I am speaking of doctrine. Paul told them in no uncertain terms that they were not to accept any gospel other than the one they had received from him or one whom he had sent. Doctrinal disagreement was not tolerated in the least.

That’s a whole 'nother thread, and topic (one which you see that there is some agreement on, though not perfect agreement). I have a feeling, though, that the goalposts changed over time, sometimes our of necessity.

Maybe you would like to comment on the thread “Is the Eucharist essential”.

You are certain God exists?

Yes, through both reason and the faith given to me by my Church.

(And, again, a human is never ever the “ultimate authority,” God is.)

Yet it is you who decide whether or not what someone says is true by "studying ourselves to see if what they are saying is true. You end up as the final authority as to what is true and what is not true.

The disputes were inter-congregational disputes, meaning 2 believers from the same congregation were involved, and the matter must be resolved. For example, one believer is not allowed to sue another, and the church acted as the governing body. Back in the day, say your fellow congregant stole your horse. You would go to the person first, then take 2 witnesses, and then to the church, not the gov’t.

There was a dispute at the Council of Jerusalem and it wasn’t over a stolen horse. Where would you take a dispute concerning something as important as whether or not we are required to be Baptized? Do we just make our own determination based upon our particular interpretation of Scripture or is there a higher authority to which we should appeal?

I don’t believe in private opinion or interpretation either.

Who’s interpretation do you follow?

Peace.

Steve

Grace and peace,
K

 

[SjMelnychuk]

How do you know you’ve discerned right? How do you know you’ve picked the right church to be in? How do you know you can trust the Pope and the Magisterium? How do you know you can trust the Holy Spirit?

We all must answer those questions.

To the thread; this is where I say adieu, as there’s no point talking in circles. Such a mix of opinion is always enlightening. Thanks for your time, those who dialogued with me. As I always say, you pray for me, I’ll pray for you.

Grace and Peace,
K

YES! These are the questions we should all answer and the point to this thread. But it’s very typical that when the hard questions are asked for some to go running away instead of actually answering the questions.

For the Catholic Church we have the writings of the Apostles and historical teachings of the Early Church Fathers. What do people within the Protestant tradition have? Certainly not historical teachings as many ignore the Early Church Fathers. So how can we trust the Early Church Fathers? Some were discipled by the Apostles and such teachings were consistent throughout Church history until Martin Luther came around. However, Catholic Churches teachings are consistent with the Early Church Fathers, a FACT that many Protestants ignore saying the Early Church Fathers teachings are insignificant but on the contrary Early Church Fathers teachings are very significant because through that you see what has been taught historically in the Christian faith.

 

[LionHeart777]

That would be an extreme example. He wouldn’t, because he knows it would fly in the face of tradition. However, strictly speaking, according to Vatican I, he very well could change it (as it was, in fact, changed vis a vie the filioque).

Do you believe that, according to the First Vatican Council, the Pope can ordain women to the priesthood? Also, is it possible that you, as an Orthodox Catechumen, and myself as a Catholic laymen, that either of us could misrepresent/misinterpret Catholic teaching?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Do you believe that, according to the First Vatican Council, the Pope can ordain women to the priesthood?

Can, yes; Will, no. Can you name or cite an official magisterial source that points to those things which the Pope can not change?

 

[LionHeart777]

Can an Ecumenical Council reach a decision and enforce it, even if the Pope disagrees with the Council?

If the head is at odds with the members, upon what basis is the council deemed ecumenical? If I may answer a question with a question (in which you answer from Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology)?: “Can an Ecumenical Council reach a decision and enforce it, even if [the Orthodox faithful scattered throughout the earth disagree] with the Council?”

 

[LionHeart777]

Can, yes; Will, no. Can you name or cite an official magisterial source that points to those things which the Pope can not change?

I would point to “ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS”

St. John Paul II wrote:

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

Source: w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html

Again, I’m no theologian, but if, as St. John Paul II wrote: “…the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women…” , do you really think he views the Roman Pontiff as having this authority?

 

[LionHeart777]

Can, yes; Will, no. Can you name or cite an official magisterial source that points to those things which the Pope can not change?

Does it have to be that? Are Orthodox apologists held to that standard?

 

[Per_Crucem]

If the head is at odds with the members, upon what basis is the council deemed ecumenical?

The way we would approach that would be different, since we do not believe that there is a “head.” What made a council ecumenical in the first millennium was whether the council was imperial. There is a common misunderstanding that it was ecumenical “because everyone attended and agreed.” That wasn’t the criteria.

However, if the Pope is the head of the ecumenical council, then the council only has authority inasmuch as the Pope grants it authority. Which only belabors the point that I’ve been stressing, that the only true authority that is independent in such a system is the Pope. All other authorities; ecumenical councils, bishops, local synods et al. exist only at the discretion of the Pope. Compare this with the ecclesiology and practice of the first millennium and one quickly sees the problems inherent in such a view.

If I may answer a question with a question (in which you answer from Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology)?: “Can an Ecumenical Council reach a decision and enforce it, even if [the Orthodox faithful scattered throughout the earth disagree] with the Council?”

Can it enforce it? Yes, on an ecclesiastical and spiritual level, at least. There is nothing distinct there from Catholicism, because the same question could be asked of you. However, you cannot compare our understanding of ecclesiology with the Catholic one. Bishops have a responsibility to witness to the truth but they do not have a unique charism to do so.

 

[Per_Crucem]

I would point to “ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS”

St. John Paul II wrote:

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

Source: w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html

Again, I’m no theologian, but if, as St. John Paul II wrote: “…the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women…” , do you really think he views the Roman Pontiff as having this authority?

And what happens if the future Pope makes the case that JP II’s statement was not ex cathedra, and that HIS statement is and changes it?

 

[LionHeart777]

The way we would approach that would be different, since we do not believe that there is a “head.” What made a council ecumenical in the first millennium was whether the council was imperial. There is a common misunderstanding that it was ecumenical “because everyone attended and agreed.” That wasn’t the criteria.

However, if the Pope is the head of the ecumenical council, then the council only has authority inasmuch as the Pope grants it authority. Which only belabors the point that I’ve been stressing, that the only true authority that is independent in such a system is the Pope. All other authorities; ecumenical councils, bishops, local synods et al. exist only at the discretion of the Pope. Compare this with the ecclesiology and practice of the first millennium and one quickly sees the problems inherent in such a view.

Can it enforce it? Yes, on an ecclesiastical and spiritual level, at least. There is nothing distinct there from Catholicism, because the same question could be asked of you. However, you cannot compare our understanding of ecclesiology with the Catholic one. Bishops have a responsibility to witness to the truth but they do not have a unique charism to do so.

(emphasis mine)

I guess my point was, from what I understand of Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, this could not be (that “an Ecumenical Council reach a decision and enforce it, even if the Orthodox faithful scattered throughout the earth disagree”.)

It would not be deemed an “Ecumenical Council” according to Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, as I understand it (no matter what it called itself) as it would not have been accepted by “the whole Church”.

 

[LionHeart777]

And what happens if the future Pope makes the case that JP II’s statement was not ex cathedra, and that HIS statement is and changes it?

What happens if, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view, a future (hypothetical) Ecumenical Council were to overturn Nicaea II and condemn iconophiles?

 

[Per_Crucem]

What happens if, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view, a future (hypothetical) Ecumenical Council were to overturn Nicaea II and condemn iconophiles?

A council of bishops does not have infallible authority simply because it is a council of bishops. That is why I pointed out the charism issue above. The charism resides with the witness of Tradition lived out in the lives of the saints. In the above case, such a decision is against that consensus.

 

[LionHeart777]

A council of bishops does not have infallible authority simply because it is a council of bishops. That is why I pointed out the charism issue above. The charism resides with the witness of Tradition lived out in the lives of the saints. In the above case, such a decision is against that consensus.

I agree that “A council of bishops does not have infallible authority simply because it is a council of bishops.” We can both agree that the latrocinium in the 5th century preceding the Council of Chalcedon is not binding.

But who, according to Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology determines what is, “the witness of Tradition lived out in the lives of the saints”?

I think part of my point in asking “What happens if, from an Eastern Orthodox point of view, a future (hypothetical) Ecumenical Council were to overturn Nicaea II and condemn iconophiles?”, is that you know that is something that is foreign to Orthodox ears. So why can’t you accept that such a though of a hypothetical Bishop of Rome overturning what St. John Paul II said is equally foreign to Catholic ears? Similarly, the question you asked above seems strange: “Can an Ecumenical Council reach a decision and enforce it, even if the Pope disagrees with the Council?”

I could say the same thing you did: “A council of bishops does not have infallible authority simply because it is a council of bishops.” Or, not every council that fancies itself ecumenical, is. True, the Catholic Church rejected Gallicanism/Conciliarism.

Again, from what I have read of Bishops Gasser and Von Ketteler (who were at Vatican I), your understanding of what “Pastor Aeternus” teaches and theirs is not the same. There are some things you are missing, from what I have read. Those two books I recommended to you, I have read. Do you believe this is a possibility (that you may not have a complete understanding of what was being taught?)

 

[LionHeart777]

Can an Ecumenical Council reach a decision and enforce it, even if the Pope disagrees with the Council?

I missed my window for the edit on my subsequent response but:

Just as, from my understanding of Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, a hypothetical council that is claimed to be ecumenical but is not received by the Orthodox faithful as a whole spread throughout the earth, would not be considered ecumenical as it was not received by “the whole Church”, likewise, a hypothetical council that called itself ecumenical that reached a decision and enforced it, when the Pope disagreed with the council would not be deemed ecumenical by the Catholic Church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

And what happens if the future Pope makes the case that JP II’s statement was not ex cathedra, and that HIS statement is and changes it?

Name one, just one Ex-Cathedra declaration approved and confirmed by the Church with the Bishop of Rome.

There are just opinions on where to stamp the definition given at V1.