Questions about Authority

[captaincoog]

I had a good talk with a Baptist friend last night who had genuine questions about the Authority of the Catholic Church. At this stage he is not convinced in the same way I am (i.e. Catholic 'til I die), but he admitted that he has not delved too deeply into the thinking through the issues at this stage, such as the canon of scripture or the logical flaws of Sola Scriptura.

One question was:

Jesus instructed the disciples to obey the Pharisees because they sat in Moses’ seat, even if they did not practice what they preached. Authority to teach was not dependant upon the personal lives of the teachers, but on the office they held. Some apologists have used this passage to apply to a few medieval popes and bishops, who, although they had less than holy lives, retained their authority to bind and loose. My friend pointed out that although Jesus taught his disciples to obey those in authority, he often broke their requirements himself e.g. not washing his hands in the “proper” manner. My friend maintained that Jesus was setting an example by this that one is free to judge the dictates of church leaders and only be bound to obey the instructions that are in line with the truth.

He did present the question much better than I have here, but hopefully you get the drift of what he was asking. He was not being antagonistic at all.

Secondly,

Once a Council decides on a doctrine’s precise definition e.g. the Trinity, then all debate ceases. But up until then, various opinions may be held by different theologians, and they can’t all be right. So how could the church claim it is being “guided into all Truth” by the Holy Spirit, if heretical doctrines can be temporarily believed by men who posess the Spirit of God, sometimes for centuries until a matter is resolved?

I would greatly appreciate some well formed answers to these questions.

We will meet up again in a month or so for more!

Please pray for this guy too, if you would. He is at an evangelical bible college, and he is not afraid to ask tough questions both ways. Hopefully the Lord is leading him to the Catholic Church.

Thanks, cc

 

[Ghosty]

For the first question I’d simply point out that whatever its merit, the Seat of Moses was not the Catholic Church. I wouldn’t even utilize the example of the Pharisees except to point out that even in those times there was a concept of legitimate authority within the Faith. After all, the Seat of Moses still existed at the time of Pentecost (and arguably still does today, as the Orthodox Jews are the descendents of the Pharisees), so it’s clearly not the same exact authority being described.

Your friend may maintain that we are only bound to follow those dictates that are inline with the Truth, but he’s left with the HUGE problem of determining what that Truth is. He can’t use Christ’s actions as an example in this case because Christ IS Truth, so He has a bit of an advantage in that regard. Better to lead your friend back to the fact that Jesus said the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church, rather than persisting in the issue of the Seat of Moses and judging by individual conscience. If Christ had been meaning to set an example on how to behave towards legitimate authority, why wouldn’t He have made it clear in that teaching opportunity, as He did with everything else?

Ultimately it’s your friend who is at a disadvantage here, because you can show him that the Church that Christ was speaking of still exists today as the Catholic Church, and if Jesus promised that it would be free of error…

The second question can be dealt with pretty easily with “without the Law there is no accounting for sin”. While heresies are being developed and debated, they aren’t any less false than they are when condemned, but many times the full extent of the heresy isn’t developed right away. In most cases it begins as a very simple premise, like “God predestines people to Glory”, and only after a lot of wrangling and debate does the hard-edge of heresy begin to appear. Only then can the heresy be dealt with appropriately without potentially cutting off the good along with the bad (God does predestine, but not in a Calvinistic sense). Only once this occurs are people under true pain of sin if they adhere to the false teaching. Also, many heresies indeed begin with very true teachings, just taken in the wrong direction, or emphasised without a proper counterbalance (as in the case of Calvin). It’s a very, very delicate process to disentangle Truth from heresy in such circumstances, which is why Ecumenical Councils have been called, complete with copious referencing of Tradition and Scripture (read the minutes of the Councils sometimes, and you’ll see they can be very intense and very in-depth)). Condemning a heresy without finding a way to preserve the Truthful root is ultimately much more harmful than taking your time in cleaning it up, as it can lead to the growth of an equally strong counter-heresy (as happened in the case of Nestorianism “the Son and the man were totally distinct in Christ”, condemned in the Third Ecumenical Council, versus Eutychianism “the Son fully absorbed the man in Christ, leaving only the Divine”, condemned in the Fourth).

Additionally you could point out Matthew 13:24-30. The weeds are planted and begin to grow first, then they are identified, and only at harvest will they be tied up and burned. The identification of heresy is step two of this process, but even then heresy might persist in the garden of the Church, as Jesus himself said that wicked men would dwell in it until the end when they were seperated. The difference is that once heresy is identified, there is no excuse in being a weed rather than wheat.

Peace and God bless!