He didn't say that. He said authority given by men from God, you responded about the authority of God Himself.

It's the Catholic teaching and he is a Catholic Bishop. I will leave the judging to God and will try to be more like Christ with the knowledge that I will fail on a daily basis.

Zobel said:

---

He didn't say that. He said authority given by men from God, you responded about the authority of God Himself.

---

So you don't perceive any potential pitfalls in claiming ones authority comes from God? Particularly when one uses that authority to perform abominable acts?

It is certainly not pride on my part to wonder if any human institution has properly executed that authority throughout history.

KentK93 said:

---

It's the Catholic teaching and he is a Catholic Bishop. I will leave the judging to God and will try to be more like Christ with the knowledge that I will fail on a daily basis.

---

I don't think that interpretation is universal in Catholicism. I'm not Catholic, and never have been, so I'm not going to tell someone what their beliefs are.

I could see this applying to someone whom has never heard of Christ but not someone whom has rejected him altogether.

We all fail daily. That doesn't mean we accept things that should accept things that are wrong.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Zobel said:

---

He didn't say that. He said authority given by men from God, you responded about the authority of God Himself.

---

So you don't perceive any potential pitfalls in claiming ones authority comes from God? Particularly when one uses that authority to perform abominable acts?

It is certainly not pride on my part to wonder if any human institution has properly executed that authority throughout history.

---

It doesn't matter what I think. It is a fact (assuming we accept the witness of scripture) that God does in fact grant real authority to humans.

Accountability for that authority is to God, not to me.

We can ask as to why God thinks this is a good plan, but that He does do it is not debatable. So I suppose you should inquire to Him why about the pitfalls.

Pride is about how you interact with that authority, not the questions you ask.

It is most certainly "debatable." Otherwise we would all belong to the exact same faith tradition.

No, don't be silly. I'm saying it's debatable if any current Church or person today carries that authority.

You judge a tree by the fruit it bears, and every single denomination has produced a pretty mixed bag of fruit. Some of it quite good and admirable, some of it rotten to the core.

For this reason, consolidating power into any one Church Hierarchy can have devastating consequences.

A healthy dose of humility goes a long way in sorting any of this out.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

No, don't be silly. I'm saying it's debatable if any current Church or person today carries that authority.

You judge a tree by the fruit it bears, and every single denomination has produced a pretty mixed bag of fruit. Some of it quite good and admirable, some of it rotten to the core.

For this reason, consolidating power into any one Church Hierarchy can have devastating consequences.

A healthy dose of humility goes a long way in sorting any of this out.

---

Ok, but that's not what he said, and it's not what you said before.

Every person given authority by God was a sinner. Moses was a murderer and didn't circumcise his kids. Lost the kingship and high priesthood and couldn't enter the holy land for his sins. Had authority.

David was a murderer and adulterer. Had authority.

Pharisees were hypocrites. Had authority.

Pilate was a pagan who had ordered the deaths of hundreds, including crucifying men women and children arbitrarily. Had authority.

Your heuristic for authority is a very bad one. Doesn't work. That's not how God has show it to work.

The second part is belied by Moses. There were not two priesthoods. When Moses messed up the people had no recourse to replace him. His judge was God, and he was judged. The sons of Korah asserted a claim to the priesthood. The ground swallowed them up. Miriam rebelled and got sores.

There is one lord, one faith, one baptism - one bread (Eucharist), one body - one God and one church - one flock with one shepherd. The church is one, it can't be multiple, and there is only ONE hierarchy because it all rolls up to One head.

What requires humility is not standing apart and taking authority on yourself to judge, but submission. The Bible says to submit to civil ruling authorities and church authorities. Your argument was always rejected as obviously wrong and contrary to scripture for some 14 centuries. It is not the faith of the apostles.

If you want to talk about devastating consequences, your views have destroyed Christendom in Europe and produced chaos and disorder. Even if consequentialism was the way to evaluate this - which it isn't - your idea is no improvement.

Why's interesting to me is this boils down to demanding a justification for agency / free will.

If a person has authority over others he may do bad things. People are sinners, and sinners do bad things.
Therefore people shouldn't have authority.

If a person is free he might do bad things.
People are sinned, and do bad things.
Therefore people shouldn't be free.

The only additional piece of logic is the more authority he has, the more bad he can do. But the more freedom a person has the more bad he can do too. However it's obvious the more good both can do, for one, and for two, this argument doesn't move us for freedom. I see no reason it should work for authority. And, in the end, God gives both freedom and authority, and judges us with how we use it.

I think this is the most important part of what you said.

Quote:

---

What requires humility is not standing apart and taking authority on yourself to judge, but submission.

---

I've often heard that it's hubristic to claim one denomination has it all right. I think it's the opposite, especially for EOs and Catholics. There are many teachings that can be difficult to submit to, both at first and throughout the course of one's life. These two Churches teach a far higher level of standard for how one ought to live, even when you don't feel like it. Even if you intellectually disagree.

It's not pride to say the Church teaches correctly. It's submission to Truth, whether it's convenient or not.

You make some good points here, but where you lose me is jumping from the plurality of authorities recognized by Christ, to the assumption of only one Church authority now. Which one? RCC? EO?

I also think you aren't being fair claiming the religious situation in Europe today is the solely the fault of Protestants. The RCC shoulders considerable blaim for its own self inflicted sins.

Christ says when two or three are joined in my name. That's it. 2 or 3.

I would never claim to be my own judge. I'm not sure why you keep going back to that. I read scripture, I pray, and I very actively listen to a variety of denominations that I respect. Trent Horn and Robert Barron are great. i had a Lutheran pastor who I went through confirmation with that I had tremendous respect for. One of best friends growing up took us to Mission Bend Church of Christ every Wednesday in elementary school and I a wonderful little community of devote believers. In high school I attend River Point Church when it was 75 people at the New Territory rec center and I thought Patrick Kelley was an incredible force for Christ.

So I've seen, first hand, a variety of verifiable powerful men of Christ from a variety of denominations. I simply reject the notion that any single "church" has a monopoly on God granted religious authority. I have seen repeated evidence to the contrary.

Sure, but its kind of pride to say "only MY church teaches truth correctly."

Now, in an attempt to tie all of this back to the OP, while I have tremendous respect for much of the RCC and EO, one fair criticism of both traditions is their complicated history with antisemitism. While I know both institutions have made an effort to rectify that, we have to be cognizant of the Nick Feuntes/Candace Owen's attempts to bring it back and make it cool again.

Fair or not, its difficult for me to decouple complaints about Zionism with an under current of antisemitism, especially when some of the posters on this very board tend to be well versed in Groyperisms.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Now, in an attempt to tie all of this back to the OP, while I have tremendous respect for much of the RCC and EO, one fair criticism of both traditions is their complicated history with antisemitism. While I know both institutions have made an effort to rectify that, we have to be cognizant of the Nick Feuntes/Candace Owen's attempts to bring it back and make it cool again.

Fair or not, its difficult for me to decouple complaints about Zionism with an under current of antisemitism, especially when some of the posters on this very board tend to be well versed in Groyperisms.

---

How do you define antisemitism? Is it against all those who practice Judaism? Or is it against those who have a genetic link to Abraham? If it is the former, why should Christians affirm a religious practice that rejects Jesus as God? If it's the latter, I agree. For example:

There are several covenants where God says Abraham's descendants will occupy a particular spot on the map. If that's what we're talking about, I'm with you. I would never want to prevent Abraham's descendants ( to whatever degree we could even identify that) from occupying the land they were promised.

But the Davidic Covenant is very different. This is the covenant where there will be someone from David's line that will rule forever. This is not a border or nation issue. That covenant was kept whether modern Jews acknowledge it or not.. In that respect, Zionism is not a good thing.

Quote:

---

You make some good points here, but where you lose me is jumping from the plurality of authorities recognized by Christ, to the assumption of only one Church authority now. Which one? RCC? EO?

---

I think we shouldn't have motivated reasoning here. Forget which one, since that obviously bothers you and you don't agree with it in principle, you having a personal philosophical view that opposes it. Let's focus instead on the form of the argument.

So far we have agreed that God does, in fact, give authority to humans. Wide ranging authority, everything from civil authority to religious authority. I think you'll also agree that God gives interpretive authority to His chosen religious leaders, as demonstrated in the text where Moses expands, adapts, and applies God's commandments, sometimes in very different language than what God uses. And this is affirmed by Christ Jesus saying the Jews must listen to the Pharisees because they sit in Moses' seat, simultaneously affirming that authority both exists and is transferred in time, and that it is not dependent on the quality of the one wielding it (due to their hypocrisy).

I think we can also agree that because there is one God, there is one Church - because there is only one head who is Jesus Christ.

Quote:

---

I also think you aren't being fair claiming the religious situation in Europe today is the solely the fault of Protestants. The RCC shoulders considerable blaim for its own self inflicted sins.

---

Slow down. The religious situation in Europe today is not what I said. I said your views destroyed (past tense) Christendom and produced chaos and disorder. That is historical fact. They went from a united Christendom to a fragmented structure in a period of unprecedented war, following by the rise of state absolutism - which is 100% a result of the philosophy of the enlightenment and protestantism. In fact, the very first thing that states did once freed from a religious hierarchy that exceeded their control was subordinate the religion to the state. The second thing they did was use it as a pretense for war. Nothing about this exonerates the corruption in the Roman church, or excuses any particular sect or faction or group for their sins.

Quote:

---

Christ says when two or three are joined in my name. That's it. 2 or 3.

---

I'm a bit surprised you would quote this because it actually is a fantastic example of how authority works. This is not a throwaway verse. It's part of a chapter on church discipline. When a person errs, you go to them in private, then take two or three others as witnesses, then take it to the church. After this Christ says - "I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them." This isn't a statement about oh if there are two people having a bible study Jesus is totally there. This is Christ saying that if you follow the commandments (in this case, Deuteronomy 19:15) your judgments are my judgments. What the Church decides in righteousness is ratified by God. That is true authority, and that's exactly how it works.

Quote:

---

I would never claim to be my own judge. I'm not sure why you keep going back to that....I simply reject the notion that any single "church" has a monopoly on God granted religious authority. I have seen repeated evidence to the contrary.

---

I keep going back to it because you keep doing it.

I think it is much more productive to work instead of from philosophical assumptions about the risk, or your own perception of what God does with people, and instead look at scripture. Which is conspicuously absent from your argument.

How does authority function in the scripture? How did it function in Israel? The was the premise of the thread, right?

Quote:

---

There are several covenants where God says Abraham's descendants will occupy a particular spot on the map. If that's what we're talking about, I'm with you. I would never want to prevent Abraham's descendants ( to whatever degree we could even identify that) from occupying the land they were promised.

---

One, that includes other heirs of Abraham. Like Ishmael. Israel was not the sole heir - Esau and other Abrahamites inherited land promised to Abraham as well, and the scriptures imply Israel was the last piece when Joshua crosses the Jordan as other Abrahamites had already driven out the giant clans.

Two, these promises are conditioned on faithfulness. Many times in the Torah God tells them if they do the same horrible things the Canaanites were doing, the land would vomit them up. So these promises are not permanent and absolute, else His warnings would be empty. Just as we become heirs and part of the house of the Master through His inheritance, all heirs are conditioned on faithfulness - which is why the Northern Tribes are destroyed, why Edom was destroyed, and ultimately why Judah was exiled from the land. Faithlessness gets you cut off. They are not faithful to the Heir, who is Christ.

Three, the promises about the land were fulfilled. "Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there. And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass."

Quote:

---

I keep going back to it because you keep doing it.

---

I absolutely am not. I have told you repeatedly that God is my authority. Scriptute is my authority. The Holy Spirit is my authority. Other religuose leaders who I respect factor into that calculus, but that is sifted through a filter of their own flawed human limitations, as I believe is perfectly appropriate. You are communicating an incredible degree of arrogance here. Stop telling me that I'm doing something that I'm not. I know my own mind, you do not.

I literally just referenced scripture only for you to tell me I'm not referencing scripture. Perhaps you should take a moment to analyze if you are truly approaching this topic in an edifying way if you keep saying things that are demonstrably untrue.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Quote:

---

I keep going back to it because you keep doing it.

---

I absolutely am not. I have told you repeatedly that God is my authority. Scriptute is my authority. The Holy Spirit is my authority. Other religuose leaders who I respect factor into that calculus, but that is sifted through a filter of their own flawed human limitations, as I believe is perfectly appropriate. You are communicating an incredible degree of arrogance here. Stop telling me that I'm doing something that I'm not. I know my own mind, you do not.

I literally just referenced scripture only for you to tell me I'm not referencing scripture. Perhaps you should take a moment to analyze if you are truly approaching this topic in an edifying way if you keep saying things that are demonstrably untrue.

---

How do you know your filter is not flawed?

The quoted portion above is you being the judge. Rejecting the claims to authority from a church because of evidence to the contrary is judgment. Surely you see that, yes? That's what judges do, they examine evidence and make rulings.

When asked why you do it, your answer is - "what I believe is appropriate". You are setting yourself up as subordinate only to God.

Quote:

---

You are communicating an incredible degree of arrogance here. Stop telling me that I'm doing something that I'm not. I know my own mind, you do not.

---

Look, I don't know why it is exactly that you are incapable of having a discussion without making these kind of personal comments, but it really is counterproductive. I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about your words and actions based on nothing more than your own statements in this thread. Nothing about that is arrogant. If I've misunderstood you, or you misspoke, then feel free to correct the record.

But you can't say "all institutions are flawed" and then say you're not standing in judgment of those institutions. That doesn't track.

Quote:

---

I literally just referenced scripture only for you to tell me I'm not referencing scripture.

---

Yes, and I engaged with that scriptural reference, and showed you how that authority functioned within the Torah, which Christ Jesus was referencing. It has nothing to do with the church somehow being comprised of two or three people.

Quote:

---

Perhaps you should take a moment to analyze if you are truly approaching this topic in an edifying way if you keep saying things that are demonstrably untrue.

---

I see we are again at an emotional point where this conversation is unproductive.

Best of luck to you.

Quote:

---

The quoted portion above is you being the judge. Rejecting the claims to authority from a church because of evidence to the contrary is judgment. Surely you see that, yes? That's what judges do, they examine evidence and make rulings.

---

I mean, if that's what you mean as "setting yourself up as judge" then sure, I guess, but you've clearly demonstrated you do the exact same thing. So when you say "setting yourself up as judge" what you really mean is "using your brain?"

If you came across your bishop raping a child, I would hope your reaction wouldn't be "well God set him up as an authority so who am I to judge?" I would hope you would immediately report him. This obviously isn't some kind of "gotcha" hypothetical because many Christians have been in this exact position and chose poorly.

I think it would be instructive if you can tell me a single thing you submit to the authority of the Church on that you don't actually agree with.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

I mean, if that's what you mean as "setting yourself up as judge" then sure, I guess, but you've clearly demonstrated you do the exact same thing. So when you say "setting yourself up as judge" what you really mean is "using your brain?"

---

No, and honestly this kind of shallow snark is not super helpful.

Making broad sweeping statements such as no church has authority and placing the justification for that solely in your personal evaluation of their fruits is "setting yourself up as judge" not "using your brain". A lot of people "use their brains" to disagree with your conclusion and your premise. The issue isn't about what you think but how your react after you "use your brain". You can "use your brain" to observe that St Paul was a murderer and a blasphemer, and that St Peter denied and betrayed Jesus on the same night as Judas. Then you have a choice to say "they were sinners their fruits is rotten invalidate them they can't have authority." that's no longer "using your brain" that's judgment of their authority. You say oh but they did good things after. Ok, so you can judge with the benefit of hindsight. In the moment would you let St Paul or St Peter have authority? After David was king and murdered a man and raped his wife, does your "brain" say he shouldn't have authority? Who decides? Nathan, apparently. Not Joe Israelite. Not you. Joe Israelite may correctly say "David is a murderer and a rapist" and also submit to his authority. David's fruit was the chaos of Judah and his household, including more murder and more rape. Objectively bad. Not my or our position to opine on his suitability for office.

In Leviticus 22 there is a comment about the priests violating ritual cleanliness - it says that they should do it so they won't die because it is God who cleanses them. The responsibility is to God, not even the fellow priests.

Quote:

---

ifyou came across your bishop raping a child, I would hope your reaction wouldn't be "well God set him up as an authority so who am I to judge?" I would hope you would immediately report him. This obviously isn't some kind of "gotcha" hypothetical because many Christians have been in this exact position and chose poorly.

---

If it isn't some kind of gotcha what is it? I mean really, this is your best example? That is committing an abominable act and it must be stopped. This is so far from the question of church authority that it's literally dumb. This was a stupid question and you should feel bad.

In the interest of educational responses, the persons obligation is to 1) stop the harm 2) report the crime to the authorities. That bishop would be tried and hopefully sentenced and imprisoned.

But he would still be a bishop because while the temporal authority has rights over him - and a citizen has rights and obligations within the state to stop him - the civil authority has no jurisdiction whatever over his status as bishop.

There are canons for behavior for bishops. He should and would be deposed - bishops are held to a higher standard than priests and laymen, not lower. Bishops have been removed for being drunk in public, for example. But it is not my authority or responsibility to remove the bishop. Nor yours.

And it -STILL- doesn't comment at all on the authority of the church, any more than Pilate crucifying innocent people meant he didn't have authority from God (he did: Jesus said so). Or any more than a citizen committing a crime removes the legitimacy of the state, or even a magistrate or official does. Or the king. The authority isn't derived from the person, so the person can't change it. It's from God. He is the one, ultimately, to whom the guilty will answer. And it will be much, much worse for those in authority as St Paul teaches us.

Quote:

---

I think it would be instructive if you can tell me a single thing you submit to the authority of the Church on that you don't actually agree with.

---

This is sort of like me saying "I love my wife all the time" and you asking me to talk publicly about all the ways she annoys me. Why would I do that? It wouldn't disprove my statement (I submit to the church, and this is proof because I am in the church) and it also is disrespectful.

Where my understanding differs, I'm willing to be wrong and in the church vs right and outside it.

CrackerJackAg said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Quote:

---

The quoted portion above is you being the judge. Rejecting the claims to authority from a church because of evidence to the contrary is judgment. Surely you see that, yes? That's what judges do, they examine evidence and make rulings.

---

If you came across your bishop raping a child, I would hope your reaction wouldn't be "well God set him up as an authority so who am I to judge?"

---

FFS…. Are you well?

---

Probably not.

Are you completely ignorant of the various times in history Christians have been presented with that very scenario and chose to protect the perpetrator instead of the child?

Go research Camp Kanakuk. Or, you know, the extremely well documented abuses perpetrated in the RCC.

Or you can just keep attacking me personally if it makes you feel better about yourself. Like a True Christian.

Has nothing to do with church authority.

You're conflating abuse of power which can and does happen in any and all human organizations with authority, and they're not the same thing. Nobody has authority to sin.