On the question of Authority

[j_gibbons]

Hello, everyone. I am presently studying both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy trying to discern which preserves more precisely the faith and practice of the early Church and a question arose which of which I am curious of your views.

What exactly is the purpose of authority in the Church (namely the Papacy)?
I ask this because in terms of doctrine it seems sufficient to hold strictly to the rule of St. Vincent of Lérins (“We must hold what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all”) and to the authority of the apostolic succession.
This is particularly troubling as the Papacy has not failed to prevent significant abuses in the administration of the Church (eg. traffic in indulgences, lax attitudes to Catholic discipline), doctrinal innovations unknown to the early Church (eg. the filioque, the particularly Aristotelian philosophy of transsubstantiation) and leaves crucial theological questions unclear (eg. nature of predestination, etc). If the purpose of the teaching Magisterium is to rule on matters of faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra, then why has the Church been so reticent to pronounce on significant theological matters? The few times the rule of infallability has actually been invoked is quite surprising especially in light of its role.

For context, I must say I am not asking this in significant doubt about the possibility of Papal infallibility: so long as the Holy Spirit maintains the witness of Christ and the faith in all times, a clear sense of the catholic and apostolic faith will be preserved with infallibility. However, that does not necessitate an infallible Papacy on matters of faith and morals. Protestants will find such infallibility in sola scriptura, likewise the Orthodox in the preservation of Holy Tradition. Historically, at least in Orthodoxy, it seems as if little doctrinally has been obscured or lost.

The real question seems to be whether there is a need for a continuous, adjudicating authority in the Church. Of that point I remain skeptical. Any suggestions to understand the necessity of such authority or where I might be mistaken on Catholic teaching? Thank you in advance.

 

[pablope]

Hello, everyone. I am presently studying both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy trying to discern which preserves more precisely the faith and practice of the early Church and a question arose which of which I am curious of your views.

The real question seems to be whether there is a need for a continuous, adjudicating authority in the Church. Of that point I remain skeptical. Any suggestions to understand the necessity of such authority or where I might be mistaken on Catholic teaching? Thank you in advance.

I would suggest start here:

chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/authority.pdf

The real question seems to be whether there is a need for a continuous, adjudicating authority in the Church.

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

 

[dmar198]

Hello, everyone. I am presently studying both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy trying to discern which preserves more precisely the faith and practice of the early Church and a question arose which of which I am curious of your views.

What exactly is the purpose of authority in the Church (namely the Papacy)?
I ask this because in terms of doctrine it seems sufficient to hold strictly to the rule of St. Vincent of Lérins (“We must hold what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all”) and to the authority of the apostolic succession.
This is particularly troubling as the Papacy has not failed to prevent significant abuses in the administration of the Church (eg. traffic in indulgences, lax attitudes to Catholic discipline), doctrinal innovations unknown to the early Church (eg. the filioque, the particularly Aristotelian philosophy of transsubstantiation) and leaves crucial theological questions unclear (eg. nature of predestination, etc). If the purpose of the teaching Magisterium is to rule on matters of faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra, then why has the Church been so reticent to pronounce on significant theological matters? The few times the rule of infallability has actually been invoked is quite surprising especially in light of its role.

For context, I must say I am not asking this in significant doubt about the possibility of Papal infallibility: so long as the Holy Spirit maintains the witness of Christ and the faith in all times, a clear sense of the catholic and apostolic faith will be preserved with infallibility. However, that does not necessitate an infallible Papacy on matters of faith and morals. Protestants will find such infallibility in sola scriptura, likewise the Orthodox in the preservation of Holy Tradition. Historically, at least in Orthodoxy, it seems as if little doctrinally has been obscured or lost.

The real question seems to be whether there is a need for a continuous, adjudicating authority in the Church. Of that point I remain skeptical. Any suggestions to understand the necessity of such authority or where I might be mistaken on Catholic teaching? Thank you in advance.

St. Francis de Sales discusses this topic in an incredible way in his book, The Catholic Controversy. I recommend you read Part II, Articles 3 (on the need for authority outside of Scripture and Tradition) and 6 (on the authority of the pope, proved from Scripture and Tradition). You can find them here:

St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy, Part II, Article 3

St. Francis de Sales, The Catholic Controversy, Part II, Article 6

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hello, everyone. I am presently studying both Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy trying to discern which preserves more precisely the faith and practice of the early Church and a question arose which of which I am curious of your views.

What exactly is the purpose of authority in the Church (namely the Papacy)?
I ask this because in terms of doctrine it seems sufficient to hold strictly to the rule of St. Vincent of Lérins (“We must hold what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all”) and to the authority of the apostolic succession.
This is particularly troubling as the Papacy has not failed to prevent significant abuses in the administration of the Church (eg. traffic in indulgences, lax attitudes to Catholic discipline), doctrinal innovations unknown to the early Church (eg. the filioque, the particularly Aristotelian philosophy of transsubstantiation) and leaves crucial theological questions unclear (eg. nature of predestination, etc). If the purpose of the teaching Magisterium is to rule on matters of faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra, then why has the Church been so reticent to pronounce on significant theological matters? The few times the rule of infallability has actually been invoked is quite surprising especially in light of its role.

For context, I must say I am not asking this in significant doubt about the possibility of Papal infallibility: so long as the Holy Spirit maintains the witness of Christ and the faith in all times, a clear sense of the catholic and apostolic faith will be preserved with infallibility. However, that does not necessitate an infallible Papacy on matters of faith and morals. Protestants will find such infallibility in sola scriptura, likewise the Orthodox in the preservation of Holy Tradition. Historically, at least in Orthodoxy, it seems as if little doctrinally has been obscured or lost.

The real question seems to be whether there is a need for a continuous, adjudicating authority in the Church. Of that point I remain skeptical. Any suggestions to understand the necessity of such authority or where I might be mistaken on Catholic teaching? Thank you in advance.

I think your questions are addressed very well in this article by Fr. Brian Harrison:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/why-i-didn%E2%80%99t-convert-to-eastern-orthodoxy

In response, Rev. Pr. Laurent Cleenewerck wrote the following:

orthodoxanswers.org/catholicorthodoxdebate2

Personally, I find Cleenewerck’s points a bit thin and unconvincing, but I would be very interested to discuss this exchange with you once you have read both.

See you tomorrow!

 

[Abu]

j_gibbons #1
What exactly is the purpose of authority in the Church (namely the Papacy)?

From Christ Himself:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven.” ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve]

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

**“Go and teach all nations….teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20). That is the purpose of Christ making St Peter His Supreme Vicar – to safeguard all of His teaching. **

Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter initiated the election of the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

“So great fear came upon all the Church and upon all who heard these things. And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch. Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly.” (Acts 5:11-13).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

 

[Abu]

j_gibbons #1
For context, I must say I am not asking this in significant doubt about the possibility of Papal infallibility: so long as the Holy Spirit maintains the witness of Christ and the faith in all times, a clear sense of the catholic and apostolic faith will be preserved with infallibility. However, that does not necessitate an infallible Papacy on matters of faith and morals. Protestants will find such infallibility in sola scriptura, likewise the Orthodox in the preservation of Holy Tradition. Historically, at least in Orthodoxy, it seems as if little doctrinally has been obscured or lost.

That Protestants lack the Priesthood, the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and all of the seven sacraments except baptism and don’t even realise that there is a Purgatory as they don’t have all of the Bible, is confirmation enough of the lack that results in not following Christ’s Church. Protestant reliance on their own interpretation of Sacred Scripture has resulted in many thousands of sects all teaching variations to suit their own tastes.

Are you unaware of so many modern problems that need the teaching of the Magisterium, which are not considered in the Sacred Scriptures? The Scriptures cannot always guide us on every aspect of contraception, IVF, cloning and many other modern problems. [See *What Catholics Really Believe, by Karl Keating]. The failure to understand and recognise the infallibility bestowed by Christ in faith and morals has produced the acquiescence in the failures in the body politic of divorce, contraception, euthanasia, same-sex marriage to name a few.

St. Paul has counseled as to whom to avoid: “Preach the word. Be urgent in season, out of season; reprove, entreat, rebuke with all patience and teaching. For there will come a time when far from being content with sound teaching, people are avid for the latest novelty and collect themselves a whole series of teachers according to their own tastes.” (2 Tim 4:3).

Why? Because the Church is “the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim 3:15).

“That we should no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men, in the cunning craftiness by which they lie in wait to deceive.” (Eph 4:14).

St John counsels: “We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit.” (1 Jn 4:6 ).

Besides denying Papal Infallibility the Orthodox deny Papal Supremacy. They grant that the Pope has a primacy of honour, but not that he has supreme jurisdiction over the whole Church. In cases even of a valid marriage they permit divorce and remarriage.

It is necessary to be subject to the right authority. Obedience is the very heart of religion. We went from God by disobedience; the road back is by obedience. And the authority of the Pope is that of Christ. Of him Christ said, “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me.” (Lk10:16). Again, Christ said, “If a man will not hear the Church, let him be as the heathen.” (Matt. 18:17). Our Lord could never have commanded men to obey two conflicting authorities.

 

[j_gibbons]

Came home from work to a wealth of articles to read and consider. Thank you so much to everyone who was so generous with their time as to help me to better understand. Mid-way through the articles and can see a number of serious errors already in my initial question.
Will reply once I have had a chance to read them all. Thank you all again!

 

[po18guy]

A quick read of Acts 15 will show that the decision on circumcision was not universally believed, everywhere, by all. It was a doctrinal development that occurred 15-20 years after the founding of the Church. But, notice how Peter silenced the assembly by speaking up. No one contradicted him, although there was much discussion.

A review of the Church fathers, specifically Clement of Rome (3rd successor of Peter) and his exercise of Peter’s authority in his letter to the Corinthians regarding the Church insurrection there might be illuminating.

The Fathers, a two-volume, beautifully illustrated set by Benedict XVI is a very handy review and reference. OSV even has them on clearance here and here. Here are reader reviews:

goodreads.com/book/show/3446739-the-fathers?from_search=true

goodreads.com/book/show/8178762-the-fathers-volume-ii?from_search=true

 

[Genesis315]

Per the OP:

Even in St. Vincent’s work, he gives an example where there was a dispute as to what was traditional, and he says it was the Apostolic See/Pope St. Stephen who made the right judgment and kept the Church on the traditional path.

The best way to show the importance of the fixed primacial authority of the Apostlic See is to compare it how the Orthodox operate.

Let’s say there’s some doctrinal dispute with both sides appealing to tradition (much like the case regarding rebaptism) and I am confused as to the true answer. So I await the judgment of the Church as to which side of the dispute is professing the true doctrine. A Council gets together and gives a definitive answer, anathematizing all who disagree (St. Vincent also describes the important role of such judgments–he’s not sola traditio).

So, is this the authoritative answer? Not yet according to modern Orthodox doctrine, it must first be accepted by the whole Church. Who is the whole Church according to Orthodox doctrine? All orthodox believers. But who are the orthodox believers? The one’s that believe the true doctrine. But what is the true doctrine?

With that last question we’re back at square one. The Council was called to definitively settle the debate as to what the true doctrine is–but it must first be accepted by all those that already believe the true doctrine. But since I don’t know the true doctrine, I can’t tell if the people doing the accepting are the group I should look to. What about those that don’t accept it? How do I know they aren’t the ones who are right?

It seems historically this principle of requiring acceptance by the the whole Church was not adhered to. A lot of people didn’t accept the definitions of Ephesus and Chalcedon. Was their lack of acceptance taken into account? Nope, they were excommunicated forthwith. Obviously there will be universal acceptance when you kick out anyone who doesn’t accept it!

It seems this theory of needing acceptance after some period of time was only practiced to reject the reunion Councils of Lyons and Florence (where the Orthodox accepted papal primacy, the orthodoxy of our use of the Filioque, etc.) and certain things taught in subsquent pan-Orthodox Councils (Councils representing the whole Orthodox Church) that they later chose to reject during their popular anti-Latin movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries (**see my next post for more detail and how they used to explicitly teach some of the things you mention, like transubstantiation).

The point is that there is no way to determine whose judgment is right–those that accept the Council or those that don’t?–other than for each individual to figure out every issue on his own. But if that is the case, then that defeats the whole purpose of the decision of the Council which was convened to judge the issue for all of us and threatened us with anathema if we didn’t receive its decision. For this system to make sense, there needs to be a fixed authority that’s always ultimately on the right side of the truth–and that has always been the Apostolic See.

In addition to that, the Catholic Church has been able to evangelize much more of the earth since the primacy ensures we have a well coordinated effort–we don’t have to worry about competing jurisdictions, national ties, and whatnot which have hampered the EO. In addition, the voice of Peter still rises amonf the din (like in Acts)–no other religious leader in the world commands the worlds attention (whether they like it or hate it)–he gives Christ a unique voice in the wold.

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

. . . doctrinal innovations unknown to the early Church (eg. the filioque, the particularly Aristotelian philosophy of transsubstantiation) . . .

The Catechism of the Catholic Church discusses the antiquity of the filioque in articles 246-248.

Regarding transubstantion as illicitly importing Aristotilian philosophy, I would ask, What is the real problem here? If Aristotle’s distinction between substance and accidents is true,why can’t it be used to explore the theological meaning of the Real Presence in the Eucharist? Actually the Council of Trent said substance and appearances (species), not accidents.

Further the doctrine is consistent with patristic teaching and EOC teaching. Any list of the fathers on the real presence will make that clear. One striking example:

Rightly, then, do we believe that now also the bread which is consecrated by the Word of God is changed into the Body of God the Word. For that Body was once, by implication, bread, but has been consecrated by the inhabitation of the Word that tabernacled in the flesh. Therefore, from the same cause as that by which the bread that was transformed (μεταποιούμενος) in that Body was changed to a Divine potency, a similar result takes place now. For as in that case, too, the grace of the Word used to make holy the Body, the substance of which came of the bread, and in a manner was itself bread, so also in this case the bread, as says the Apostle (1 Tim 4:5), “is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer”; not that it advances by the process of eating to the stage of passing into the body of the Word, but it is at once changed into the body by means of the Word, as the Word itself said, “This is My Body.” Seeing, too, that all flesh is nourished by what is moist (for without this combination our earthly part would not continue to live), just as we support by food which is firm and solid the solid part of our body, in like manner we supplement the moist part from the kindred element; and this, when within us, by its faculty of being transmitted, is changed to blood, and especially if through the wine it receives the faculty of being transmuted into heat. Since, then, that God-containing flesh partook for its substance and support of this particular nourishment also, and since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminates Himself in every believer through that flesh, whose substance comes from bread and wine, blending Himself with the bodies of believers, to secure that, by this union with the immortal, man, too, may be a sharer in incorruption. He gives these gifts by virtue of the benediction through which He transelements (μεταστοιχειώσας) the natural quality of these visible things to that immortal thing. [St. Gregory of Nyssa, *The Great Catechism, 37]

The EOC at the Synod of Jerursalem (1672) wrote:
“In the celebration whereof [the Eucharist] we believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be present, not typically, nor figuratively, nor by superabundant grace, as in the other Mysteries, nor by a bare presence, as some of the Fathers have said concerning Baptism, or by impanation, so that the Divinity of the Word is united to the set forth bread of the Eucharist hypostatically, as the followers of Luther most ignorantly and wretchedly suppose, but truly and really,** so that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, the bread is transmuted, transubstantiated, converted and transformed into the true Body Itself of the Lord**, Which was born in Bethlehem of the ever-Virgin . . . . Further [we believe] that after the consecration of the bread and of the wine, there no longer remaineth the substance of the bread and of the wine, but the Body Itself and the Blood of the Lord, under the species and form of bread and wine; that is to say, under the accidents of the bread.

The Longer Catechism of The Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church (1845)
339. Why is this [the words of institution] so essential?
Because at the moment of this act the bread and wine are changed, or transubstantiated, into the very Body of Christ, and into the very Blood of Christ.
340. How are we to understand the word transubstantiation?
In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantiation is not to be taken to define the manner in which the bread and wine are changed into the Body and Blood of the Lord; for this none can understand but God; but only thus much is signified, that the bread truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true Body of the Lord, and the wine the very Blood of the Lord. In like manner John Damascene, treating of the Holy and Immaculate Mysteries of the Lord, writes . . .

 

[Genesis315]

It seems this theory of needing acceptance after some period of time was only practiced to reject the reunion Councils of Lyons and Florence (where the Orthodox accepted papal primacy, the orthodoxy of our use of the Filioque, etc.) and certain things taught in subsquent pan-Orthodox Councils (Councils representing the whole Orthodox Church) that they later chose to reject during their popular anti-Latin movement of the 19th and early 20th centuries (**see my next post for more detail).

Just to follow-up on this point, the modern EO reject our understanding of original sin (reducing it to merely concupiscence and death), when it was not an issue pre-schism and when they themselves taught the same understanding as us at the pan-Orthodox Council of Jerusalen in 1672 (along with definitively numbering the sacraments at 7, using the word “transubstantiation,” teaching the Catholic understanding of temporal punishment and satisfaction after death, mortal sins, the Catholic canon of Scripture, etc.). These pronouncements were used as a binding profession of faith for those who wished to be in communion with the Orthodox Church as late as 1721.

Similarly, they now call indulgences heretical when they issued them and even confirmed their validity at the pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople in 1727. Furthermore, the pan-Orthodox Council of Constantinople in 1838 condemned their use for enrichment–but not the practice, which continued until as late as the 1950s in the Greek Church.

Note, no EO apologist or theologian I know even tries to argue these things taught at pan-Orthodox Councils are legitimate developments. They freely claim they were in error during those times, but that since the Church got rid of them later its ok. Of course, if that’s the case, who knows what they might later think they are in error about and get rid of–there’s no more certainty of faith.

 

[SPH1]

What exactly is the purpose of authority in the Church (namely the Papacy)?
I ask this because in terms of doctrine it seems sufficient to hold strictly to the rule of St. Vincent of Lérins (“We must hold what has been believed everywhere, always, and by all”)

Since there have always been heresies I don’t think that there has ever been a time where something has been believed always and by all. So that statement must be taken within a context. Otherwise, all heretics need do is point out that their opposition means that something isn’t believed by everyone and always.

The real question seems to be whether there is a need for a continuous, adjudicating authority in the Church. Of that point I remain skeptical. Any suggestions to understand the necessity of such authority or where I might be mistaken on Catholic teaching? Thank you in advance.

The state of Christendom and the sheer amount of conflict on even basic teachings (baptism, communion, etc.) shows the continuous need. Christ established an authorative Church to teach Truth. That will only end at the second coming.