For our special issue on Sola Scriptura, Michael Horton, editor-in-chief of Modern Reformation and a co-host of the White Horse Inn, shared in the following exchange with Bryan Cross (M.Div., Covenant Theological Seminary), who was raised Pentecostal, became Presbyterian and then Anglican, and in 2006 was received into full communion with the Roman Catholic Church.
Michael Horton:
I'm assuming that we agree on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. The Reformation debate was never over the nature of Scripture (aside from the question of the Apocrypha) but rather its relation to tradition: the sufficiency of Scripture as the norm of Christian faith and practice. The Reformers affirmed the ministerial role of the church's teaching office (and tradition), especially the ecumenical creeds. However, it was because these creeds summarize the teaching of Scripture (magisterial authority), not because of the authority of the church. Could you lead off by offering a Roman Catholic response to this distinction between the ministerial and magisterial authority of the church in relation to Scripture?
Bryan Cross:
We do agree on the inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture, which is important common ground to keep in view when discussing our disagreements. To answer your question, let me back up a bit. In Catholic doctrine, Christ gave teaching authority to the apostles. That is why he could say to them, "The one who listens to you listens to me, and the one who rejects you rejects me; and he who rejects me rejects the One who sent me" (Luke 10:16). The apostles handed down that teaching authority to their successors, and they to their successors, down to the Catholic bishops of the present day. This living teaching authority of the church is the servant of Scripture, teaching only what has been handed on to her, explicating Scripture faithfully by the guidance of the Holy Spirit and guarding Scripture from misinterpretation.
In that respect, we agree that the church has a ministerial role, serving both the Word of God and the flock of Christ. But from the Catholic point of view, the reason the creeds have authority is not because they summarize the teaching of Scripture. Many systematic theology books also summarize the teaching of Scripture, and yet they are not thereby something that all Christians should affirm, as are the ancient creeds. The creeds have a higher authority than do systematic theology texts. The reason for that is precisely because the creeds were taught by the church's living teaching authority, and that is how we know that they rightly summarize Scripture. It is to this living teaching authority that St. Augustine refers when he says, "For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." Scripture and the church's living teaching authority are never to be separated, nor do they ever compete against each other. They work together and only together—one as source and the other as steward. In order to interpret and understand Scripture rightly, we should do so in the church in humble obedience to her living teaching authority that was given to her by Christ. And in order for the church to follow Christ, she must believe and obey the Scripture that was divinely entrusted to her.
So from a Catholic point of view, the deficiency in the Reformers' distinction between the authority of Scripture and the ministerial role of the church is that it left out the teaching authority of the successors of the apostles. If that authority is set aside, then the practical result is first that the church is thought to be serving Scripture only when she is conforming to one's own interpretation of Scripture and that of those who share one's interpretation of Scripture. And second, when living magisterial authority is left out, the "church" comes to be defined as those who sufficiently agree with one's own interpretation of Scripture regarding what are the marks of the church. So from a Catholic point of view, those who lose sight of the church's divinely established living teaching authority lose sight of the church, and this leads to the fragmentation of denominationalism, even where the authority of Scripture is affirmed. There cannot be living ministerial authority without living magisterial authority, because without living magisterial authority the basis for ministerial authority is reduced to sufficient agreement with one's own interpretation of Scripture.
Michael Horton:
You raise other important issues (for example, Augustine's comment, which the Reformers interpreted—rightly, I believe—as his way of saying that it was through the church and its teaching authority that he came to faith, not on the basis of that authority itself). How-ever, I'd like to focus on the magisterial-ministerial distinction. Ultimately, it rests on a distinction between the extraordinary office of the apostles and the ordinary office of ministers. So I'd appreciate your take on the following response.
Jesus excoriated the Pharisees for elevating the tradition of the elders alongside Scripture: "So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God" (Matt. 15:6; Mark 7:8). And yet Paul exhorted the Thessalonians to "stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter" (2 Thess. 2:15; cf. 2 Thess. 3:6). Paul commends the Corinthians "because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2). Jesus and Paul are talking about two different types of tradition: one is the inspired speech of prophets and apostles, which forms the foundation of the church (Eph. 2:20), and the other is the interpretation of this speech. Jews and Protestants hold that the Old Testament canon closed with Malachi, so "the traditions of the elders" was non-inspired teaching. With the apostles, however, we have further revelation from God. Yet that apostolic office, too, came to an end and the result was our New Testament canon.
Paul said that he had "laid a foundation, and someone else is building upon it" (1 Cor. 3:10). That is the order: apostolic foundation followed by the ordinary ministry of the church on that basis. "For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (v. 11, emphasis added). There is the foundation-laying period and then the building phase. Paul implies that he was the last apostle (1 Cor. 15:7-8), and instructs Timothy to receive and pass on what he has heard from him. In fact, Paul warns the Corinthians "not to go beyond what is written" (1 Cor. 4:6), even while he and the other apostles were still living. "The faith once and for all delivered to the saints" is something the post-apostolic ministers are called to "contend for," not to add to (Jude 3). So the extraordinary ministry of the apostles (mediating divine revelation) is qualitatively distinct from the ordinary ministry of pastors and teachers (interpreting divine revelation). The post-prophetic "teaching of the elders" in Jesus' day was not divinely inspired, nor is the post-apostolic teaching of the church. It would seem that this distinction is denied by the Roman Catholic Church, which insists upon an ongoing apostolic office, with Scripture and Tradition as two forms of the one Word of God. How would you respond to this argument?
Bryan Cross:
I agree that when Jesus criticized the Pharisees for putting the traditions of men above the word of God, he was talking about a different type of tradition than St. Paul was talking about in the passages you cited. But I don't see any justification from Scripture (or elsewhere) for assuming that the traditions St. Paul commends are only those that are divinely inspired or only those that are written. He specifically exhorts the believers to "hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us" (2 Thess. 2:15). We need not assume that every time St. Paul taught he was divinely inspired.
The reason for that is that in Catholic theology, as in Protestant theology, "inspiration" is a technical term meaning that God is the principal author of the inspired words, not just their editor or providential cause. We agree that all of Scripture is divinely inspired. But in Catholic theology, inspiration is to be distinguished from another category—speech or writing that is not inspired, yet is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Over the course of their lives after Pentecost, the apostles taught many things not written down in Scripture, and these teachings are part of the single deposit of faith because they came originally either from Christ or from the Holy Spirit speaking through the apostles. These unwritten teachings and practices informed the belief and practice of the early church long before the canon was collected. While we don't assume that this unwritten tradition of the apostles was divinely inspired, we do believe it was protected from error by the Holy Spirit and is part of the authoritative deposit of faith. St. Paul says that his oral preaching is the Word of God when he writes, "And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as what it really is, the word of God" (1 Thess. 2:13).
From a Catholic point of view, the notion that whatever is not divinely inspired is a mere tradition of men is a false dilemma. The unwritten tradition is neither divinely inspired nor a mere tradition of men, and yet it is authoritative because it came from Christ or from his Spirit through those men whom Christ authorized and equipped to teach and lead his church.
Regarding Ephesians 2:20, St. Paul there says that the household of God is built on the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus being the cornerstone. The church then is built on authorized persons, having a divine Person as its cornerstone. We can see that also in Revelation 21:14, where the twelve apostles are shown to be the twelve foundation stones of the church. But eight of the twelve apostles never wrote anything that was canonized. So Revelation 21:14 cannot be referring to their writings.
We are discussing here the nature and relation of three things: the written tradition (i.e., Scripture), the unwritten tradition, and the Magisterium (i.e., the church's living teaching authority). From the Catholic point of view, each of the three is authoritative in its own way, yet they function rightly only in concert, as Dei Verbum notes. "It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God's most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls" (DV, 10).
With regard to the apostolic office, the Catholic Church makes a distinction. To be an apostle, one had to have seen the Lord. This gave the apostles the unique authority that comes from being an eyewitness of the incarnate Christ. But being an eyewitness was not sufficient to be an apostle. One also had to be sent by Christ. This conferred a different kind of authority from the authority of an eyewitness. The two kinds of authority do not compete; they are fully compatible and were both present in the first apostles. This second kind of authority we call "Holy Orders." Eyewitness authority could only endure for seventy years or so after the resurrection of Christ, and in that sense the apostolic office came to an end and with it the possibility of further revelation. But, Holy Orders is not limited to eyewitnesses, because the authorization of commission and stewardship could be handed down by the apostles, and it endures to this day by a continuous succession from the apostles. These successors of the apostles are not apostles in the eyewitness sense but possess the apostolic authority the apostles themselves received from Christ through Holy Orders—that is, the divine authorization to teach and govern the church in Christ's name as his representatives, binding and loosing with his authority.
So while I agree with you that the successors of the apostles are not themselves apostles in that same sense, it does not follow that the successors of the apostles do not have magisterial authority to provide the authoritative interpretation of the deposit of faith. In other words, the end of the apostolic office in the eyewitness sense of apostle does not entail the termination of the authority of commission, by which the successors of the apostles preserve and authoritatively interpret the deposit of faith entrusted to them by the apostles.
Michael Horton:
As a Reformed minister, I can agree (with some qualification) with your comments on three points: (1) it was not the apostles who were inspired but their writings that became part of the canon; (2) the oral proclamation and instruction of the apostles was as much the Word of God as written texts; and (3) even preaching today is the Word of God and the church has a delegated authority from Christ today to teach, preach, absolve, baptize, and administer Communion in his name. The ecumenical creeds and Reformed confession and catechism are binding because they summarize the teaching of Scripture. Yet this authority to proclaim the Word, forgive sins, baptize and discipline resides in the office, never the person. To be sure, early Christians had no reason to feel compelled to follow Peter's opinions about sports or politics. In 1 Corinthians 7 Paul could even distinguish between his apostolic command and his moral advice as a father in the faith. But when the apostles died, so did their office. The scriptural canon is the constitution of the church and the church's communal interpretation of Scripture in broader assemblies (synods and councils) is analogous to judicial courts. Case precedent is to be weighed heavily, but only the constitution is normative.
Tradition is still important. At its best, it is illumined (not inspired) by the Spirit. But tradition can go wrong in the post-apostolic era just as it could and did in the post-prophetic era of Jesus' day. The medieval church was widely influenced by the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, supposedly the figure mentioned in Acts 17 as a convert of Paul's in Athens. As it turns out, they were the writings of a seventh-century Christian Neo-Platonist. A huge number of traditions allegedly passed on from the apostles have been exposed as forgeries. Furthermore, councils have sometimes contradicted each other. The same church that embraced the conclusions of one council condemned those conclusions in another council. I know you're aware of examples. For instance, there were three popes in the fourteenth century who anathematized each other and their sees. That means that everyone in Christendom was excommunicated by at least one pope. Even Benedict XVI (as Cardinal Ratzinger) admitted that the Western Schism in the fourteenth century shattered the confidence of millions in the church as the bearer of salvation. So the church has erred even on matters vital to the matter of salvation. The church has Christ's authorization for its ministry of Word, Sacra-ment, and discipline. Yet the church can and does err and always stands under the canonical Word that corrects and reforms it. It receives its authority from the Word; the Word does not receive its authority from the church.
Paul places even himself and the other apostles under the authority of God's Word when he warns the Galatians, "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9). The Reformers believed that Pope Leo and the Council of Trent were in fact preaching "a gospel contrary to the one [we] received" from the apostles, and confessional churches in this heritage maintain that Rome continues to do so. Doesn't Paul warn us to reject the promulgation of another gospel even if an apostle or angel from heaven is its source? And if so, doesn't this imply that (1) the post-apostolic church is even more subordinate to the Word and (2) the gospel is the criterion for valid ministry, not vice versa?
Bryan Cross:
The problem with claiming that "the Reformed confession and catechism are binding because they summarize the teaching of Scripture" is that it leaves out "according to whom." Lutherans also think that their confession and catechism are binding because they summarize the teaching of Scripture. Any Christian group that wishes to be confessional can make such a claim about its own confession or make its own confession if it wants. I came to believe that the Westminster Confession of Faith has no authority, because the only basis for its "authority" was my own agreement with its interpretation of Scripture. And agreement with oneself cannot be the basis for authority. This is why denominationalism necessarily follows the loss of living teaching authority.
Regarding the apostolic office and its closure, obviously because seeing the incarnate Christ was required in order to be an apostle, there could be no more apostles after the apostle John died at the end of the first century. On that we agree. But the point of disagreement, I think, is what kind of authority their successors had and how these successors acquired this authority. Catholics believe that these successors of the apostles were authorized to be such by the apostles themselves. This authorization gave them the authority to teach and govern, bind and loose. No one could take this authority to himself; it had to be given to him by those already having it. When St. Paul writes to St. Timothy, he tells him to guard the treasure that has been entrusted to him and urges him to entrust the things he has heard from St. Paul to faithful men who will be able to teach others also (2 Tim. 1:14, 2:2). So we see in Scripture this apostolic understanding of handing on the deposit of faith and entrusting it to faithful men. We believe also that this ordination involved the laying on of hands, by those having the authority to confer such authority (cf. Acts 6:6; 1 Tim. 4:14).
Those not having this authorization could not speak for the church or provide the authoritative interpretation of the deposit of faith. Believers who did not have this authority were to be subject to those having this authority. As the author of Hebrews says, "Obey your leaders, and submit to them; for they keep watch over your souls, as those who will give an account" (Heb. 13:17). What is meant by "leaders" here is not "those who agree with your interpretation of Scripture." The "leaders" referred to are only those authorized by the apostles. The laymen's understanding of Scripture was to be conformed to that of those authorized teachers. This shows that it wasn't only Scripture that was normative but also the instruction and teaching by those authorized to explicate the deposit of faith. In that sense, the apostolic office continued after the death of the apostles—not occupied by apostles, of course, but occupied by those authorized by the apostles. This is why the bishops authorized in succession from the apostles sat in the apostles' seats to which Tertullian refers when he says, "Go through the Apostolic Churches, in which the very seats of the Apostles, at this very day, preside over their own places" (Liber de praescriptione haereticorum, 36). And Eusebius tells us that after the martyrdom of St. James the Less (bishop of Jerusalem), Symeon the son of Clopas was found to be worthy of "the episcopal throne of that see" (E.H. 3.11). Eusebius likewise tells us that when Symeon was martyred under the emperor Trajan in A.D. 106 or 107 "his successor on the throne of the Jerusalem bishopric was a Jew named Justus" (E.H. 3.35). The very idea of the successors of the apostles sitting in the seats (or thrones) of the apostles wouldn't make sense unless they understood themselves to possess and carry on their authority.
The notion that when the last apostle died, the only authority left in the church was that of Scripture and whoever or whatever agreed with one's own interpretation of Scripture, is a notion we don't see at all in the writings of the early Church Fathers. Let me point to two examples: St. Clement of Rome and St. Ignatius of Antioch.
In St. Clement of Rome, before the end of the first century, we see him exercising authority when he says to the Corinthian usurpers, "You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue [c. 57]. Receive our counsel, and you shall be without repentance….[H]e who in lowliness of mind, with instant gentleness, and without repentance has observed the ordinances and appointments given by God—the same shall obtain a place and name in the number of those who are being saved through Jesus Christ [c. 58]. If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger" (c. 59).
And St. Ignatius (d. A.D. 107) even more strongly describes the authority of the bishops. In his epistle to the Ephesians he writes, "Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God" (c. 5). "For we ought to receive every one whom the Master of the house sends to be over His household (Matt. 24:25) as we would do Him that sent him. It is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord Himself." In his epistle to the Magnesians he writes, "As therefore the Lord did nothing without the Father, being united to Him, neither by Himself nor by the apostles, so neither do ye anything without the bishop and presbyters" (c. 7). That's just a sample, as you know. St. Ignatius's epistles are filled with this notion that the bishops continue in the place of the apostles, as the apostles continued in the place of Christ. So he continually exhorts the believers to obey their bishop as they would obey Jesus Christ, because the bishops have been sent by Christ, through the apostles.
Thus it doesn't seem that the early church had this notion that after the death of the apostles only Scripture had authority and that one should "submit" only to those who shared one's interpretation of Scripture, or only to those teachings that conformed to one's own interpretation of Scripture. It seems instead that the early Church Fathers recognized a living teaching authority in the church. Through humble obedience to this living teaching authority, one finds the true apostolic teaching and interpretation of the deposit of faith.
Regarding the reliability of tradition, there is a fundamental difference between Catholics and Protestants here. Protestants are typically quite suspicious of tradition in the Fathers, judging it by their own interpretation of Scripture. I have referred to this stance as "ecclesial deism." That's the notion that Christ established the church but then withdrew and let it fall into all sorts of doctrinal errors (see http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/). By contrast, Catholics read Scripture in light of the tradition, relying on the Magisterium to guide us in distinguishing authentic tradition from error. Catholics are not ecclesial deists; we believe strongly in providence. Christ is with his church, protecting and guiding her even when it may not seem so to the eye of human reason. We view the Fathers as heroes of faith and bearers of the tradition, not as bearers of a corrupted tradition. So while you apparently see the theological influence of the works of pseudo-Dionysius as a theological disaster, we see it as an act of divine providence. That's because we believe that the church is not a merely human institution but a divine institution, having Christ as its Head. So from a Catholic point of view, whether or not the works attributed to Dionysius were written by him, Christ will never allow the universal church to teach falsehood. Insofar as the works alleged to be those of Dionysius contributed to the church's understanding and penetration of the faith, it is not the church that is threatened or corrupted, but rather those works of Dionysius that are, in those respects, divinely affirmed and elevated.
Also, it is important to distinguish between apostolic tradition (e.g., the canon of Scripture), which is part of the deposit of faith, and ecclesiastical traditions (e.g., fasting on Fridays), which may be good and pious but are not in their specifics from the apostles. Ecclesiastical traditions are not matters of doctrine. They can change, and can be good or not good. But the apostolic tradition cannot change. So when criticizing some Catholic practice or belief, it is important to note whether the church holds it to be part of the apostolic tradition or only an ecclesiastical tradition.
As for councils, it is no problem for a Catholic to acknowledge that local councils can contradict each other; but ecumenical councils cannot and have not done so. As for the Western Schism, there were never actually three simultaneous popes; two were antipopes. An antipope is not the actual pope but an imposter who claims to be the real pope and lives during the reign of the actual pope. There were been quite a few antipopes in the history of the church, going back to St. Hippolytus (yes, "St.") in the early third century. But there can never be two popes at the same time. So if one person is pope, and a conclave tries to elect another pope, the election is null. And that is why the election of Robert of Geneva (who took the name Clement VII) was null and he was an antipope, because Urban VI was already the duly elected pope; and for the same reason Alexander V was an antipope. Of course the Western Schism shattered the confidence of many people, as have many scandals in the church's history. But we have to distinguish between events that cause scandal and the cessation or destruction of living teaching authority. In every century of the church's history there have been sins that caused scandal among many, but in no century of the church has the living teaching authority of the church been lost or destroyed. On Good Friday the confidence of many of Christ's disciples was undoubtedly shattered. But it would be a non sequitur to conclude from this loss of confidence that Christ therefore erred on matters vital to salvation. The doctrine of infallibility is precisely defined. This charism does not guarantee that those having magisterial authority will never act imprudently. It specifies that when exercising her full authority in defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, the church's living teaching authority is divinely protected from error.
I do agree with you that the church's living teaching authority receives its authority from the Word, but the Word is the Second Person of the Trinity, not the same thing as the Scripture. The Bible did not authorize the apostles or their successors. Christ authorized the apostles and through them authorizes their successors to continue to guard, interpret, and explicate the deposit of faith handed down to them.
Lastly, St. Paul's point in Galatians 1:8-9 is that the gospel has already been laid down irrevocably. No one has the authority to take it up and lay down a new foundation. The church cannot replace the deposit of faith; it is irreformable because God cannot lie. But St. Paul's statement is not a green light for schism-whenever-the-Magisterium-goes-against-my-interpretation-of-Scripture. That's how it has wrongly been interpreted by some. St. Paul is not calling into question the trustworthiness of the church to guide the faithful into all truth and to remain the pillar and ground of truth until Christ returns. He is not saying that we don't need the church to know what is the deposit of faith, what is the canon of Scripture, and what is the gospel. He is not enjoining each individual to build (or do) church in his or her own interpretive image. Galatians 1:8-9 is not about the authority or infallibility of the church; it is about the established permanence of the deposit of faith within the New Covenant. Because that foundation is fixed forever, the church can never depart from it and can only build upon it.
The Reformers assumed that their own interpretation of Scripture was a better way of determining what is the gospel than what the Magisterium said at Trent. So Reformers, on the basis of their own interpretation, judged the church to be apostate. But, from a Catholic point of view, the church preserved, explained, and deepened her understanding of the gospel at Trent, and the Reformers misinterpreted Scripture, and on the basis of their misinterpretation falsely judged the church to be apostate. Of course this looks like an impasse, and this is precisely why the schism has lasted almost five hundred years. But in order to sort this out, we have to determine how to distinguish the case where one's own interpretation is right and the church is wrong, from the case where the church is right and one's interpretation is wrong. It is not enough to look at the Scripture and judge the church to be wrong, because the person misinterpreting Scripture and falsely judging the church to be wrong does the very same thing. There, various heretics in church history all thought they were rightly interpreting Scripture. And this means that there is a real burden of proof on the person standing on his own interpretation of Scripture and accusing the church of apostasy. He cannot just show that the church could be wrong; he has to show that the church is not possibly right. And in my opinion, no one has yet done that.
Michael Horton:
We all have to answer that "according to whom" question. Why the Church of Rome? Why not the East, Wittenberg, Geneva, or Canterbury? Or, for that matter, Tulsa or Salt Lake City? At some point, you came to believe that the Church of Rome has magisterial authority over the whole body of Christ, but why? Even if you now submit unquestioningly (fides implicita) to everything taught as necessary by the Church of Rome, you still had to make a decision about which side you thought was correct when you left Reformed Christianity.
It's interesting biographically when you say, "I came to believe that the Westminster Confession has no authority, because the only basis for its 'authority' was my own agreement with its interpretation of Scripture. And agreement with oneself cannot be the basis for authority." Sifting out the caricature, I see your point, but as an argument it seems quite dangerous to me. It seems to assume that the Bible is murky, confusing, perhaps even contradictory, requiring the clarity of an infallible teacher. When it comes to Scripture, one has to interpret a lot, but when it comes to the Magisterium, no interpretation is necessary. I don't believe one could find a single respected Roman Catholic theologian or cleric who would agree with you on that one, but it is certainly a radical surrender of one's fate to ecclesial authority. Quite aside from the specifics of actual church history (which renders the assumption of a clear and self-consistent Magisterium implausible), I puzzle over what appears to be a radically postmodern (skeptical) view of the possibility of a faithful interpretation of Scripture coupled with a radically modern (absolutist) view of ecclesial interpretation.
Although there are passages I don't understand, the Bible seems marvelously clear on the essentials of doctrine and life—so clear, in fact, that Christians across all times and places can agree with its summary in the ecumenical creeds. In sharp contrast with Scripture is the massive library of deliverances from councils, counter-councils, counter-counter councils, popes, counter-popes, and so forth. Rome has to require implicit faith in everything that the church teaches. How could one even be aware of everything that the church teaches? The scandal of opposing Protestant denominations and interpretations that weaken public confidence in the ability to arrive at truth is also apparent throughout the history of the church prior to the Reformation—and in Rome ever since.
My concern is that the position you defend is naive both in its confidence in magisterial infallibility and clarity as well as in its interpretation of church history. First, even the presence of the living apostles did not preserve the church from internal strife. The Epistles address a variety of errors and disciplinary issues in the churches, even questioning whether the church in Galatia was a true church. Yet it is the apostolic canon of the New Testament that is the infallible rule, not the apostles themselves. If so, then it is even more certain that the ordinary ministers who followed were subject to the authority of Scripture—even if one's pastor happened to have been a disciple of one of the apostles.
Of course there is a "living teaching authority in the church": normatively, Christ, by his Spirit, speaking in his Word and, subordinately, the common confession of this Word through the instruction of pastors and teachers (held in check by elders). It's not an infallible, fail-proof system. But then, neither is Rome. History simply stands against any claim that the Church of Rome has been as self-consistent or clear as Scripture. And I repeat my earlier point that the anathemas of the Council of Trent (reaffirmed ever since) actually set Rome in opposition to the clear, marvelous, and saving gospel that is taught in Scripture. So even if there were an infallible teaching office in the church today, Rome would fail that crucial test.
When you say concerning contradiction that "ecumenical councils cannot and have not done so," I suppose a lot depends on what you include. Not only Protestants, but Eastern Orthodox bodies, would be unable to endorse Rome's list. In fact, some Western councils anathematized the East, while others anathematized Protestants; and in one, as I mentioned, the medieval church anathematized itself. By definition, an ecumenical council cannot be subordinate to a single pastor. (Indeed, "Roman Catholic" is an oxymoron, since the catholic church is the whole body of Christ in all times and places.)
All of the passages you offered speak of the necessity of submitting to our pastors and elders in the church. Yet not one passage in the New Testament supports the idea that the apostles handed off their apostolic office to their successors. Peter and John emphasize that their apostolic authority derived from their being directly and immediately called by Jesus as eyewitnesses and ambassadors of his ministry. At the beginning of Galatians, Paul also labors this point concerning his office. Yet the apostles speak of their ministerial successors as pastors and elders in each city (Acts 14:23; 1 Tim. 5:17-22; Tit. 1:5; James 5:14; 1 Pet. 5:1; Rev. 4:4), having their authority conferred upon them by Christ indirectly and mediately, through the laying on of hands by the whole presbytery (presbyterion; 1 Tim. 4:14).
Even at the Council of Jerusalem, neither Peter by himself nor even the whole college of apostles decided the matter. On the contrary, the phrase is repeated throughout Acts 15 that "the apostles and elders" arrived at the synod's dogmatic conclusions that were then binding on the whole church. Even with the living apostles, the decision was reached in communion. The official practice of the church was not determined by a single apostle, or even by the college of apostles, but by delegated representatives (apostles and elders). Furthermore, the decision was not delivered from a single church to the rest of the body or left to the judgment of each local church. Rather, it was reached by these representatives from all the churches in assembly together.
If this was true in the apostolic church, it is surely to be the case in the post-apostolic era. The apostles laid that foundation by their extraordinary calling and ministry, while the ordinary ministers who follow them will build on that foundation (1 Cor. 3:9-17). The apostles gave us the deposit and now ministers like Timothy are told to "guard the good deposit entrusted to you" (2 Tim. 1:14), "and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2). In the face of heresy and schism, the ordinary ministers and elders are to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). There is a magisterium—a proper teaching authority—in the church after the apostles, but it is representative rather than hierarchical, catholic rather than based on a single pastor or city, fallible rather than infallible, and ministerial rather than magisterial.
Even Pope Benedict XVI, as well as Orthodox theologian John Zizioulas, acknowledge that presbyterian government was the earliest form of polity (see John Zizioulas, Being as Communion [Crestwood, NJ: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1997], 195: "On the one hand [the bishop] was understood as a 'co-presbyter,' i.e. as one—presumably the first one—of the college of the presbyterium. This is clearly indicated by the use of the term presbyters for the bishop by Irenaeus [Haer. IV 26:2]. This should be taken as a survival of an old usage in the West, as it can be inferred from I Clement 44, 1 Peter 5:1, etc." [195, fn. 85]. In Called to Communion [trans. Adrian Walker (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1996)], Pope Benedict [then Cardinal Ratzinger] acknowledges that presbyter and episcopos are used interchangeably in the New Testament [122-23]).
You cite the early Father Clement of Rome: "In St. Clement of Rome, for example, before the end of the first century, we see him exercising authority when he says to the Corinthian usurpers, 'You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue' (c. 57)" (emphasis added). In the New Testament Epistles, the terms elder (presbyteros) and bishop (episkopos) are used interchangeably for the same office. Eventually the bishop became the moderator of presbytery and then, by Irenaeus's day, was a separate office. Regardless of whether one affirms presbyterian or episcopal government, however, none of these early Fathers argued that the bishop of Rome was the universal head of the church, much less endued with infallibility.
The argument of Irenaeus against the Gnostics makes sense. The Gnostics were basing their heretical teachings on spurious writings, and they gathered their own circle of false apostles. Irenaeus, a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of John the Apostle, could appeal to an obvious and publicly recognized circle of pastors in the line of the apostles who walked with Jesus. However, this historical argument became a dogmatic argument that went beyond the church's constitution (Scripture). After Constantine, churches in both the East and the West began to imitate the hierarchical political system of the empire. Yet as late as 597, Pope Gregory the Great famously declared, "I say with confidence that whoever calls or desires to call himself 'universal priest' in self-exaltation of himself is a precursor of the Antichrist" (quoted in Bernard McGinn, Visions of the End: Apocalyptic Traditions in the Middle Ages [NY: Columbia University Press, 1979], 64). The bishops of the East certainly agreed with this statement, but Gregory's successors were less inclined to such pastoral humility.
Of course, the Spirit could have preserved the Jewish elders and Sanhedrin from error, but he did not—which is why Jesus placed the authority of Scripture over the Magisterium in Matthew 15:6 and Paul did as well (1 Cor. 4:6; Gal. 1:8-9). The Spirit could have preserved the Christian elders and teaching office from error, but he has not—although he does lead his true church into all truth through pastors and elders who are instructed, examined, and held accountable to the Scriptures by the wider church in its representative assemblies.
The church was full of all sorts of doctrinal errors during the time of the apostles. In spite of the clarity and power of God's Word, the church is a mess and has always been so. Yet Christ's pledged presence with his church in the power of his Word and Spirit remains in effect. Again, there seems to be a lot of unhistorical nostalgia for a church that never was and a certainty that is absolute and visible in this world that no longer requires interpretation and is no longer susceptible of differences and tragic divisions. But that has never been and will never be until our Savior returns to glorify his ecclesial body and we behold him face to face. "Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly!"
Bryan Cross:
Thank you very much for inviting me to participate and for being gracious. I feel we only scratched the surface. I hope we can pursue this in greater depth at some point in the future. May Christ make us instruments of his peace for the reunion of Protestants and Catholics.
