Yet another authority question

[Kestrel003]

Let me start by saying that since I discovered this forum a month ago I have greatly enjoyed reading the various responses that have been given to questions I have mulled around in my head for years.

As is said in many of the various discussions on these boards, many questions seem to frequently come down to the issue of authority. I have been shocked and VERY challenged by the many writings of the very early Church fathers when it comes to things like apostolic succession and the authority of the Church, but there is one hurdle I’m have trouble getting over: the apparent change in official Catholic Church teaching when it comes to the state of a person’s soul when they do not believe Catholic Church teaching on certain subjects.

In the Council of Trent:
A whole litany of beliefs that the Church holds, the Canon’s all in the format “If anyone saith ________; let him be anathema.” Now many of the “fill in the blank” parts of these Canons are things the Protestant Church - both at that time and now - held in contradiction to the Catholic Church’s teaching. For example,
“(On Baptism) CANON V.-If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema.”
“(On Justification) CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.”

Now these are both views that are widely held by the majority of those calling themselves Christians in the Protestant Church today - that baptism is not a requirement for salvation, and that good works are simply a sign of salvation and not a requirement of salvation. So it looks (at least to me) like the Catholic Church is saying that if you believe these things, you are anathema.

My research on the term “anathema” has been very confusing, but I think I’m correct in saying that the closest way to describe it under the terms of today would be to say that a person would be under the penalty for heresy, which equals excommunication, which equals not being in a state of grace unless repentance occurs. Thus, if you believe these things, and do not repent before death, you are eternally separated from God.

So to try to make a logical flow here: Official and infallible Catholic Church teaching says if I don’t believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation and I continue in this belief into death, I am eternally separated from God. Am I correct here?

In Vatican II:
DECREE ON ECUMENISM
“3. Even in the beginnings of this one and only Church of God there arose certain rifts,(19) which the Apostle strongly condemned.(20) But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions made their appearance and quite large communities came to be separated from full communion with the Catholic Church-for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame. The children who are born into these Communities and who grow up believing in Christ cannot be accused of the sin involved in the separation, and the Catholic Church embraces upon them as brothers, with respect and affection. For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ’s body,(21) and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”

According to this statement, I am in communion with the Catholic Church, just imperfect communion. I am also to be accepted as a brother by Catholics because of our mutual faith in Christ.

Ok. So here’s where I’m stuck - it looks to me like the Council of Trent basically said that with my current beliefs and without repentance of those beliefs, I am condemned to eternal separation from God. But Vatican II says that with my current beliefs I am simply in imperfect communion with the Catholic Church, and a brother in Christ.

So much of what I have discovered as I really research the Church’s history and Scripture has challenged me to re-think where I stand on the matter of the authority of the Church, but I just can’t get past this point. What am I missing?

Thanks in advance!

 

[geoformeo]

Kestrel003,

Welcome to the forums, and I am very happy that you’ve found some answers to your questions! I applaud you and all of those like you who follow the Truth no matter where it leads. I’m sure you will get some excellent answers with regard to this question, and I guess I’ll give it first crack.

I’m have trouble getting over: the apparent change in official Catholic Church teaching when it comes to the state of a person’s soul when they do not believe Catholic Church teaching on certain subjects.

First and foremost, the Church has never changed any of its officially defined and formally proclaimed infallible dogmas. This is of course true with the topic at hand. Unfortunately, as you are obviously aware of, sometimes this is not so clear.

Where I think the problem lies is the difference between confirmed Catholics and those outside of the Church (separated brethren-Protestants). In my understanding (and someone please correct me if I’m wrong here), the anathema’s given at the Council of Trent were directed to those who profess the Catholic faith. If a confirmed Catholic were to reject the dogmas laid down with Christ’s authority given the Church, then they would be anathema and, as you essentially put it, excommunicated until full repentance. But this would not necessarily apply to Protestants, unless they fully believed in the truth of the Catholic Church yet refrained from becoming Catholic and accepting and adhering to Church dogma. Those “invincibly ignorant” Protestants would still be considered our “brothers in the Lord” as pronounced by Vatican II.

A related question was actually asked of Tim Staples on CAL this afternoon with regard to some evangelical Protestants claiming that everyone who does not believe what they believe (including Catholics) are going to hell. Tim pointed out that in John 15:22-24 Jesus speaks of the world (Jews) as not being culpable of sin had they not heard Jesus speak about it, but now that they have heard it they will be guilty should they not follow His commands. Tim also pointed out that in Acts 10 God accepted Cornelius’ (a non-Christian) prayers. It is a matter of the state of the heart and knowledge. If one fully believes they are following God as they should (even if they are not in full communion with the Church), then that is acceptable to God. And if one honestly does not know the truth of the Church, then they are invincibly ignorant and just imperfectly in communion with the Church.

Hope that helps! Praying for your full entry into the Church, keep learning

 

[promethius]

Ok. So here’s where I’m stuck - it looks to me like the Council of Trent basically said that with my current beliefs and without repentance of those beliefs, I am condemned to eternal separation from God. But Vatican II says that with my current beliefs I am simply in imperfect communion with the Catholic Church, and a brother in Christ.

The problem lies in grave sin. If one is raised OUTSIDE the catholic church, and is therefore never properly catechized, then they are not aware of and therefore not culpable of the mortal sin of heresy. Their “invincible ignorance” protects them from incurring the anathema.

Furthermore, Anathema is an excommunication levied upon catholics. That assumes that the person espousing said view IS catholic, HAS been properly catechized, and subsequently has chosen to leave the truth for an error. Protestants born outside the church are not subject to excommunication since they are not in full communion with the church anyway.

 

[rovimax]

Is it correct to apply Mat 5:18-20 in this situation?

 

[Subrosa]

Hi Kestral and welcome to the forums.

Just a short response for now… I think that the mistake you’re making is in the definition of the word “anathema.” It means separation from the church, or community of christian faithful, and is usually applied to people who have moved away from orthodoxy.

This is true. Consider this - ask any protestant and they will tell you they are not Catholic.Some consider themselves part of the catholic church, but will not worship in a Catholic Church.

It does NOT mean separation from God. Only the individual or God can determine that.

Paul used the term in the New Testament with this same definition.

Here is a detailed article.

Again welcome and God bless.

Subrosa

 

[Kestrel003]

Forgive me as I am new to this and have yet to plumb the mysteries of the great “quote” button

It’s very interesting to hear that anathema is only something that can apply to Catholics - or at least to those who “know better” as it were - any chance you could share a citation for that?

For Subrosa - the article you pointed me to was very interesting, but I’m a little confused. Your post said “It does NOT mean separation from God. Only the individual or God can determine that” but the article stated:

“we deprive N-- himself and all his accomplices and all his abettors of the Communion of the Body and Blood of Our Lord, we separate him from the society of all Christians, we exclude him from the bosom of our Holy Mother the Church in Heaven and on earth, we declare him excommunicated and anathematized and we judge him condemned to eternal fire with Satan and his angels and all the reprobate, so long as he will not burst the fetters of the demon, do penance and satisfy the Church; we deliver him to Satan to mortify his body, that his soul may be saved on the day of judgment.”

Isn’t that separation from God?

Of course the exact definition of anathema is moot if in fact it is only applicable to Catholics who reject Catholic Church teachings. Very much looking forward to a reference on that.

 

[FightingFat]

My research on the term “anathema” has been very confusing, but I think I’m correct in saying that the closest way to describe it under the terms of today would be to say that a person would be under the penalty for heresy, which equals excommunication, which equals not being in a state of grace unless repentance occurs. Thus, if you believe these things, and do not repent before death, you are eternally separated from God.

So to try to make a logical flow here: Official and infallible Catholic Church teaching says if I don’t believe that baptism is a requirement for salvation and I continue in this belief into death, I am eternally separated from God. Am I correct here?

I think it is essential to understand what a council like Trent is, and to realise that Vatican II had some unique differences.

Councils always come about as the result of error. The Church calls councils when a heresy threatens essential beliefs. The purpose of the council is to clarify the correct theological position.

This is important because it can seem narrow if you read it out of context. The anathemas, which come at the end and usually sum up the main points of the councils findings were absent from Vatican II because (I’ve read) many people would just read the anathemas and not the documents. VII wanted you to read the important documents. VII was also unique because it was a council to address the Church in the modern world, more than any specific heresy. As you say, Trent was specifically aimed at the Protestants, and Luther and what they were saying about the Church, and thus it is couched in that language.

Ok. So here’s where I’m stuck - it looks to me like the Council of Trent basically said that with my current beliefs and without repentance of those beliefs, I am condemned to eternal separation from God. But Vatican II says that with my current beliefs I am simply in imperfect communion with the Catholic Church, and a brother in Christ.

So much of what I have discovered as I really research the Church’s history and Scripture has challenged me to re-think where I stand on the matter of the authority of the Church, but I just can’t get past this point. What am I missing?

Thanks in advance!

Thinking about this in the context of what I said above, Trent retorted against specific threats, Vatican II takes what Trent says and explains it more deeply, like a flower unfolding.

A similar argument exists around LG 8 which states:

This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.

After the council, some thought this contradicted the earlier teaching that no salvation existed outside the Church (I think before this document it was most recently stated in Pius XII’s brilliant Encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi). However, what it in fact achieves is a clarification of this statement that needs to be unpacked. LG 8 goes on to say:

These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity.

In other words, what ever element of the one true faith you hold on to, it is better than nothing, and all these bits of the faith lead each one of us to the truth, and so, of themselves, can only be good things.

The Catholic faith is a faith in Almighty God, who is boundless and eternal. Learning the faith is like discovering a range of mountains. The mountains are the dogma, the solid facts of our faith, these are things you have established (it would appear), like that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, like the fact that God is Trinity, like the Incarnation and Resurrection. When one begins to study these mountains of dogma further, one discovered more and more about the topography: valleys, streams and forests become clear and we never stop learning about these. CCC 11 describes the Catechism as “an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine”. When we think of something organic, we think of something alive and growing, flourishing, deepening, not static and immoveable. Doctrine is like that; it develops, dogma (the mountains) is static and does not move.

 

[Pax]

Kestrel in Christ,

Welcome to the forums!

God bless.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Kestrel!

Greetings in the LORD, my brother!

This is such an important issue and one that is such a struggle for so many people. It was a struggle for me in my return to the Church, so I have sympathy for you.

I have three posts lined up for you. I’m basically giving you all that I have, so I really hope it helps! If it does, praise God!

Yes, the Apostle Paul makes it clear that if you embrace the false gospel of one placed under anathema (cf. Galatians 1:8-9), then “[y]ou are severed from Christ” and “you have fallen away from grace” (Galatians 5:4); much more perilous, then, is it for the one anathematized! Thankfully, we actually have the words of an Ecumenical Council to tell us what is intended by the Church’s use of “anathema”:

“Are they unaware, or rather pretending to be unaware, that to be judged anathematized is just the same as to be separated from God? The heretic, even though he has not been condemned formally by any individual, in reality brings anathema on himself, having cut himself off from the way of truth by his heresy. What reply can such people make to the Apostle when he writes: ‘As for someone who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned’ (Titus 3:10-11)” ([A.D. 553]).

The anathemas of Ecumenical Councils pertaining to faith and morals are forever, and they apply to anyone in the world who culpably embraces the anathematized proposition. If the person is baptized, then he is known as a heretic. If not, then as an unbeliever. So you were right on with your thinking on this!

After declaring that “There is indeed one universal church of the faithful, outside of which nobody at all is saved,” the IV Council of Lateran went on to say that “the sacrament of baptism is consecrated in water at the invocation of the undivided Trinity – namely Father, Son and holy Spirit – and brings salvation to both children and adults when it is correctly carried out by anyone in the form laid down by the church” (Fourth Lateran Council). This agrees with Vatican II where it says “that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism” have “the life of grace; faith, hope and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit” (Unitatis Redintegratio). The reason why they have all of these things is because they are all bestowed by a valid baptism. The Council of Trent taught that “man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, [the Catholic] faith, hope, and charity,” and that “the instrumental cause [of justification] is the sacrament of baptism” (Decree on Justification, Ch. 7).

Once baptized, we hold the Catholic faith until it is extinguished by one of the sins against faith: doubt, incredulity, heresy, schism, or apostasy.

Schism and heresy are the two we need to deal with here…

 

[Pete_Holter]

The Church defines the sin of schism as “the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him” (, Canon 751CIC).

This definition comes in part from Pope Boniface VIII when he wrote, “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff” (Unam Sanctam). When he gave this definition of our faith, the Pope was drawing from the teaching of Thomas Aquinas who had already held and taught the same thing:

“It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: ‘Therefore, brethren, if we imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.’ And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals says: ‘The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him’ ” (, Part II, Ch. 38Contra Errores Graecorum).

Thomas Aquinas gives us the necessary background to understand the intention of the Pope:

“As Isidore says (Etym. viii, 3), schism takes its name ‘from being a scission of minds,’ and scission is opposed to unity. Wherefore the sin of schism is one that is directly and essentially opposed to unity. For in the moral, as in the physical order, the species is not constituted by that which is accidental. Now, in the moral order, the essential is that which is intended, and that which results beside the intention, is, as it were, accidental. Hence the sin of schism is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity: because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit.

“Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church; for this is the chief unity, and the particular unity of several individuals among themselves is subordinate to the unity of the Church, even as the mutual adaptation of each member of a natural body is subordinate to the unity of the whole body. Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head, according to Colossians 2:18-19: ‘Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God.’ Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy” (, Question 39Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis).

You’ll notice that, not only did Boniface VIII use the language of Aquinas, but the current Code of Canon Law is also essentially borrowing its definition from him. So his explanation will help us understand what is being said in the Code (as well as the Decree on Ecumenism). Because schism is something that is “willfully and intentionally” chosen, it does not apply to those who have not personally made this choice. The person born into a “schismatic group” share in the result of the original schism “accidentally” and are not culpable for this sin until they choose it for themselves by willfully and intentionally rejecting communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[Pete_Holter]

And heresy is defined by the Church as “the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith” (, Canon 751CIC). Obstinacy is essential to the definition of heresy as Augustine explained:

“ ‘A man that is an heretic after the first and second admonition reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted and sins, being condemned of himself’ (Titus 3:10-11). But though the doctrine which men hold be false and perverse, if they do not maintain it with passionate obstinacy, especially when they have not devised it by the rashness of their own presumption, but have accepted it from parents who had been misguided and had fallen into error, and if they are with anxiety seeking the truth, and are prepared to be set right when they have found it, such men are not to be counted heretics” (Letter 43).

Augustine gives his definition again:

“Those, therefore, in the Church of Christ who savor anything morbid and depraved, and, on being corrected that they may savor what is wholesome and right, contumaciously resist, and will not amend their pestiferous and deadly dogmas, but persist in defending them, become heretics, and, going without, are to be reckoned as enemies” (, Bk. 18, Ch. 51City of God).

Thomas Aquinas picks up on both of these definitions in his article on heresy.

Augustine again ponders this point:

“The question, when fairly confronted, is no doubt far from being an unimportant one—how far a man deserves to be described as a heretic… whenever [a casually uttered remark] does touch on a subject which requires dogmatic accuracy of statement, but is thrown out at random or suggested by the passing moment, it is too often pervaded by foolish levity, whether uttered by the mouth or expressed in writing. …] It, however, makes all the difference in the world, to what extent, and from what motive, and whether in fact at all, a man when warned of his fault corrects it, or obstinately clings to it so as to make a dogma and settled opinion of that which he had not at first uttered on purpose, but only in levity. Although, then, it turns out eventually that every heretic is a fool, it does not follow that every fool must immediately be named a heretic” (, Ch. 18On the Proceedings of Pelagius).

Finally, in his letter to the Catholic convert, Vincentius Victor, Augustine points out eleven propositions held by Victor that were opposed to the Catholic faith. He wrote to him that “if these dogmas of yours are severally maintained with pertinacity, they may possibly engender as many heresies as they number opinions.” He then goes on to explain what constitutes heresy:

“I do not by any means wish you to think, that by holding these opinions you have departed from the catholic faith, although they are unquestionably opposed to the catholic faith; if so be you are able, in the presence of that God Whose eye infallibly searches every man’s heart, to look back on your own words as being truly and sincerely expressed, when you said that you were not over-confident in yourself as to the opinions you had broached, that they were all capable of proof; and that your constant aim was not to persist in your own sentiments, if they were shown to be improbable; inasmuch as it was a real pleasure to you, when any judgment of yours was condemned, to adopt and pursue better and truer thoughts. Now such a temper as this, even in relation to what may have been said in an uncatholic form through ignorance, is itself catholic by the very purpose and readiness of amendment which it premeditates” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 23On the Soul and its Origin).

This understanding of what constitutes heresy passed through the Middle Ages and found its way into the Catechism of the Council of Trent: “a person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith; but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church, maintains impious opinions with pertinacity” (“I believe in the Holy Catholic Church”). In keeping with this understanding, Protestants are not ipso facto heretics incurring the anathemas of Trent, but only such Protestants as fit the accepted definition of a heretic.

Until a baptized person commits the sin of heresy or the sin of schism, or until they are otherwise excommunicated, “it is certain that they still belong to the Church” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, Article IX: “I Believe in the Holy Catholic Church; the Communion of Saints”).

I hope that this helped! May the LORD be with you!

With the grace and love towards man of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Pete

 

[Kestrel003]

Wow - thanks for all the great info. I esp appreciate the citations! For something this important I am trying to make sure my info is straight from the horses mouth as it were.

All this is very thought provoking - I am currently reading through the current catechism (which takes FOREVER given all the citations!) to try and really get a handle on what the Catholic Church teaches and where those teachings come from. Having been raised in a “scripture only” tradition, I have struggled with how to justify a faith that the Bible is complete, perfect and inspired given that it was collected and declared to be such by a group of men I have never considered to be speaking infallibly. It seems one must either decide that this group of people was granted infallibility on the subject of Scripture for that one moment in time but not necessarily again, or else explore the possibility that the Church might just have some pretty good arguments for infallibility and authority.

Wherever this takes me though, I am secure in the knowledge that Christ is my Lord and that He will lead me to where I should be - and in the meantime, His grace is sufficient!

Back to shamelessly lurking on the apologetics board…

 

[Pax]

Wow - thanks for all the great info. I esp appreciate the citations! For something this important I am trying to make sure my info is straight from the horses mouth as it were.

All this is very thought provoking - I am currently reading through the current catechism (which takes FOREVER given all the citations!) to try and really get a handle on what the Catholic Church teaches and where those teachings come from. Having been raised in a “scripture only” tradition, I have struggled with how to justify a faith that the Bible is complete, perfect and inspired given that it was collected and declared to be such by a group of men I have never considered to be speaking infallibly. It seems one must either decide that this group of people was granted infallibility on the subject of Scripture for that one moment in time but not necessarily again, or else explore the possibility that the Church might just have some pretty good arguments for infallibility and authority.

Wherever this takes me though, I am secure in the knowledge that Christ is my Lord and that He will lead me to where I should be - and in the meantime, His grace is sufficient!

Back to shamelessly lurking on the apologetics board…

Kestrel in Christ,

You are a seeker. An open mind and heart is that which Paul sees in the Bereans and thus says that they were more “noble minded” then were the Thessalonian Jews. Both the Thessalonians and Bereans were operating via sola scriptura. Paul, however, brought a new teaching to them. One sola scriptura group accepted it and another did not. Paul represents an example of authority in the Church that goes hand in hand with scripture. The Bereans would never have come to the truth without Paul even though they were deep in scripture.

Paul says:

All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,

Notice that Paul’s statement is not “exclusive”. It does not say that it is scripture alone that is useful or profitable. Likewise, we know that inspiration is not limited only to scripture. Jesus promised to be with his Church until the end of time, and to lead it into all truth. The Holy Spirit guides the body of Christ. That too is a form of inspiration.

Moreover, Paul goes on to say something very important about the Church that is not something that he claims for scripture. In 1 Tim 3:15 Paul says:

…the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.

If it were scripture only, then that claim would be made for scripture and not the Church. The church is absolutely essential in supporting and maintaining the truth. That function is most importantly applied in terms of teaching and doctrine as they are to be properly understood in and from scripture and tradition. Every errant doctrine in the history of Christianity had someone claiming that scripture supported it. These errors were based upon an individual interpretation as opposed to that rendered by the Church which is the “pillar and bulwark of the truth.”

You remind me of the Bereans, so prayerfully continue searching and studying with an open mind and heart. The Lord rewards those that seek him. The Holy Spirit will guide you as you prayerfully proceed. The Father beckons and you will not be disappointed. God loves us all, and His mercy and grace abound no end. I will pray for you in your study.

God bless.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Wow - thanks for all the great info. I esp appreciate the citations! For something this important I am trying to make sure my info is straight from the horses mouth as it were.

… It seems one must either decide that this group of people was granted infallibility on the subject of Scripture for that one moment in time but not necessarily again, or else explore the possibility that the Church might just have some pretty good arguments for infallibility and authority.

Wherever this takes me though, I am secure in the knowledge that Christ is my Lord and that He will lead me to where I should be - and in the meantime, His grace is sufficient!

I am so grateful to God!

And I was actually just recently involved in a discussion on the authority and infallibility of the Church. I first presented a Biblical case, and then the person asked for an example from the Early Church Fathers. Since God has filled me with great love for his son in Christ, St. Augustine, I chose him as my witness to the fact that this infallible Church is the Catholic Church in union with Rome.

God the Father passed His authority on to Jesus (cf. Matthew 28:18), Who passed it on to the apostles (cf. Luke 10:16 and Matthew 28:19), who passed it on to their successors. The apostles ordained the 7 to ministry in Acts 6:6. Paul and Barnabas “appointed elders… in every church” (Acts 14:23). Paul told Titus to “exhort and rebuke with all authority. Let no one disregard you” (Titus 2:15). And he told him to “appoint elders in every town” (Titus 1:5). Similar instructions about appointing the next generations of leadership within the Church were given to Timothy (cf. 2 Timothy 2:2), who was told to “not be hasty in the laying on of hands” when appointing an elder (1 Timothy 5:22). Timothy’s own gift of authoritative leadership was similarly in himself through the laying on of hands by those already in authority (cf. 1 Timothy 4:14 and 2 Timothy 1:6). Paul tells him to “Command and teach these things. Let no one despise you” (1 Timothy 4:11-12). We see that there was no diminution of authority from Jesus to the successors of the apostles, but that they were to carry out their office, just the same as He, “with all authority,” i.e., they are exercising His authority (compare Matthew 28:18 and Titus 2:15).

We have to present our doctrine to the established authorities to be adjusted by them. If we think that God is calling us to proclaim His message to the world, then we have to proclaim it in unison with the unbroken chain of authoritative leadership established by Jesus while he was here on earth and continuing till today, lest we too “run in vain” and find ourselves proclaiming a Gospel that has already been anathematized by His Church (cf. Matthew 18:17; Gal 1:8-9).

Again, God established a teaching office in the Church that is gifted to teach “with all authority” (Titus 2:15), and which gift is passed on through the laying on of hands in unbroken chain from the apostles and their associates (cf. Acts 6:6, 14:23; 1 Timothy 4:14, 5:22 ; 2 Timothy 1:6, 2:2; Titus 1:5). This teaching office was given the gift of infallibility to determine what is the true interpretation of Sacred Scripture in such a way that whatever the Church binds on earth, we understand to have proceeded from a heavenly binding (cf. Matthew 16:19, 18:18). It is binding on all Christians such that the one who does not submit to this authoritative teaching is no longer a Christian but “a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17). This teaching office is part of the Church (cf. 1 Cor 12:28; Ephesians 4:11), the “body of Christ” (1 Cor 12:27). Therefore, if we are not submitted to this teaching authority through the rejection of it, we are not in the body, we are not in Christ.

Faith not only believes in Jesus, but it believes Jesus (cf. John 4:21, 5:46, 8:45-46, 10:37-38, 14:11). “Truly, truly, I say to you, whoever hears My word and believes Him who sent Me has eternal life” (John 5:24). And the one who hears Jesus’ word, hears it through the Church (cf. Ephesians 3:10) as He taught us: “The one who hears you hears Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me, and the one who rejects Me rejects Him Who sent Me” (Luke 10:16). Therefore, to reject the faith as it is definitively proposed by Christ’s teaching Church is to reject both Christ and God the Father.

The authority is infallible because it binds and looses in the manner of a one-to-one correspondence, as God’s mouthpiece, what He Himself binds and looses, and it relegates to the status of non-Christian whoever rejects this authority, which is God’s own, ministered through the Church.

 

[Pete_Holter]

Concerning the authority of the Catholic Church, Augustine wrote,

“When therefore we see so great help of God, so great progress and fruit, shall we doubt to hide ourselves in the bosom of that Church, which even unto the confession of the human race from [the] apostolic chair through successions of Bishops, (heretics in vain lurking around her and being condemned, partly by the judgment of the very people, partly by the weight of councils, partly also by the majesty of miracles,) hath held the summit of authority? To be unwilling to grant to her the first place, is either surely the height of impiety, or is headlong arrogance. For, if there be no sure way unto wisdom and health of souls, unless where faith prepare them for reason, what else is it to be ungrateful for the Divine help and aid, than to wish to resist authority furnished with so great labour? And if every system of teaching, however mean and easy, requires, in order to its being received, a teacher or master, what more full of rash pride, than, in the case of books of divine mysteries, both to be unwilling to learn from such as them, and to wish to condemn them unlearned?” (, 17:35On the Profit of Believing)

Augustine elsewhere assigns authority to Catholic bishops in and of themselves when he writes that the bishops of the Church crush heresies “by their authority alone, in addition to what they say” (, Bk.2, Ch. 9Against Julian). Ambrose himself “crushes [Julian] by the vast weight of his authority” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 3Against Julian).

To reiterate, Augustine asserted that the Church established through successions of bishops from the apostolic chair holds “the summit of authority.” He also teaches that the authority of the Western Church alone “should suffice” for us (, Bk. 1, Ch. 4Against Julian) in doctrinal discussions and that the succession of bishops in the Catholic Church finds its greatest confirmation in “the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished” (Letter 43). Now, this bishop of Rome is “higher in place” among other bishops, being “the head” of the Western church (, Bk. 1, Ch. 4Against Julian). Augustine wrote to this Bishop in order that his own teaching might be examined and, if need be, corrected (cf. , Bk. 1, Ch. 3Against Two Letters of the Pelagians): “I have determined to address especially to your sanctity, not so much for your learning as for your examination and, if perchance anything should displease you, for your correction.”

Augustine also held that individual bishops and provincial councils “must yield, beyond all possibility of doubt, to the authority of plenary Councils which are formed for the whole Christian world; and that even of the plenary Councils, the earlier are often corrected by those which follow them, when, by some actual experiment, things are brought to light which were before concealed, and that is known which previously lay hid” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 3On Baptism, Against the Donatists). That previous plenary councils are open to correction on every point to subsequent councils, would not accurately capture Augustine’s thought. It would be better to understand him as saying that some such decisions of plenary councils may be open to such correction. As an example of a decision of a plenary council that was not open to further inquiry, the question of the rebaptism of heretics was decisively brought to a close “by the unanimous authority of the whole Church,” and the “the truth of this question” was thereby “placed beyond dispute by the investigation and decree of a plenary Council” (, Bk. 2, Ch. 4On Baptism, Against the Donatists).

The teaching authority of this Church, the Church in union with the apostolic chair in Rome, suffices for the infallible establishment of doctrinal truth. For “not small is the authority… of the whole Church” (, 3On the Care of the Dead):

“[A]lthough I find something written by Catholics on the subject [of the origin of the soul], yet the defence of the truth had not yet been undertaken against those men, neither was there any anxiety to answer them. But this I say, that according to the Holy Scriptures original sin is so manifest, and that this is put away in infants by the laver of regeneration is confirmed by such antiquity and authority of the catholic faith, notorious by such a clear concurrent testimony of the Church, that what is argued by the inquiry or affirmation of anybody concerning the origin of the soul, if it is contrary to this, cannot be true. Wherefore, whoever builds up, either concerning the soul or any other obscure matter, any edifice whence he may destroy this, which is true, best founded, and best known, whether he is a son or an enemy of the Church, must either be corrected or avoided” (, Bk. 3, Ch. 26Against Two Letters of the Pelagians).

 

[Pete_Holter]

In the previous citation, the fact of original sin is founded by Augustine on the Holy Scriptures themselves; but the fact that original sin “is put away in infants by the laver of regeneration” is not rested by Augustine upon the authority of the Scriptures, but upon the “antiquity and authority of the catholic faith, notorious by such a clear concurrent testimony of the Church.” The teaching is “true, best founded, and best known,” and whatever “is contrary to this, cannot be true.” Augustine says that whoever opposes this teaching “must either be corrected or avoided,” indicating thereby that this is a question of heresy, and one for which Augustine did not feel compelled to appeal to the Scriptures in order to answer definitively, the authority of the Church alone sufficing.

This final point from Augustine provides, not only a witness to the infallibility of the Church, but also to the procedure for the development of doctrine: doctrine not yet decided cannot possibly be formulated in such a way as to contradict doctrine that has already received a final definition from the Church.

And this is not to say that Augustine didn’t draw from the Scriptures in support of this doctrine; but it is to say that Augustine held to a Catholic understanding of sola scriptura, and I see you heading in a similar direction :

“hould you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you—If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;— Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichæus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichæus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichæus. And who the successor of Christ’s betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Acts 1:26); which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me” (, Ch. 5Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus).

 

[Pete_Holter]

Once again, to obstinately defy and reject this teaching authority of the Catholic Church, is to become heretical and separated from the Church and salvation:

“For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same, inasmuch as it loves the neighbor” (, Ch. 10Of Faith and the Creed).

“[Emeritus] cannot have salvation, except in the Catholic Church. Outside the Catholic Church he can have everything except salvation. He can have honor, he can have Sacraments, he can sing alleluia, he can answer amen, he can possess the gospel, he can have and preach faith in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; but never except in the Catholic Church will he be able to find salvation” (Sermo ad Caesariensis Ecclesiae Plebem, translation taken from Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers).

“This is the vision of Daniel which I am relating. This stone which was cut from the hill without hands increased, and ‘became,’ he says, ‘a great mountain, and filled the whole face of the earth’ (Daniel 2:34-35). Let us worship on that great mountain, if we desire to be heard. Heretics do not worship on that mountain, because it has filled the whole earth; they have stuck fast on part of it, and have lost the whole. If they acknowledge the Catholic Church, they will worship on this hill with us. For we already see how that stone that was cut from the mountain without hands has increased, and how great tracts of earth it has prevailed over, and unto what nations it has extended. What is the mountain whence the stone was hewn without hands? The Jewish kingdom, in the first place; since they worshipped one God. Thence was hewn the stone, our Lord Jesus Christ…That stone then was born of the mountain without hands: it increased, and by its increase broke all the kingdoms of the earth. It has become a great mountain, and has filled the whole face of the earth. This is the Catholic Church, in whose communion rejoice that you are. But they who are not in her communion, since they worship and praise God apart from this same mountain, are not heard unto eternal life” (Exposition on Psalm 99).

Again, I hope that this was helpful. You said that His grace is sufficient. Amen! This made me think of Matt Maher’s song, Your Grace Is Enough. I first heard this song at a Protestant service before I was Catholic, and I was immediately drawn to it. I was surprised and really impressed when I found out that it had been written by a Catholic (with help from Chris Tomlin)! If you like contemporary Christian music, check him out: Matt Maher. I highly recommend him.

Happy lurking!

With the love of Christ our LORD,
Pete

 

[Randy_Carson]

Forgive me as I am new to this and have yet to plumb the mysteries of the great “quote” button

How to use the Catholic Answers Forum Quote Function

If you want to respond to something that someone else posted, you can simply hit the “Quote” button on the lower right…not the “Post Reply” button on the lower left. Simply begin typing after the text that the forum automatically copies for you. That’s what I did at the beginning of this post above.

If you want to insert your comments into the middle of something you are quoting, you have to manually insert square brackets. Here is the original passage I want to comment on:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot, and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put.

In order to show you what you need to do, I have to use a different set of brackets for illustrative purposes only. I’ll use { and } instead of and ] so that you can see where the brackets should be located, and I’ll insert my comments in red text.

{quote}Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot,{/quote} I’m inserting my comments here in red. {quote}and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put.{/quote}Hope this helps.

Now, wherever you see the { or } you have to actually use a square bracket or ]. So the paragraph above comes out like this:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot,

I’m inserting my comments here in red.

and everywhere that Mary went his sooty foot he put.

Hope this helps.

One more thing: the quote function will automatically insert the name of the person to whom you are replying so that person can find your response more easily.