I agree - with the undivided church. I was referring to this comment about the modern Catholic Church:
“The Protestant view of the Church normally does not understand the consensus patrem. In this type of operation, there are many opinions that may be wide ranging, but there are those that are selected to become Church doctrine and belief.”
It could be I was mixing consensuses between modern and ancient...Protestants also have a hard time setting aside our current understanding when reading about the past.
When I read the Papal proclamation on a feast day for Mary’s Assumption, I was shocked by the ‘this saint said this, this saint said that, my beloved sainted predecessor said this, and painting show that...’ approach to doctrine. It was so far out of my background that I went to the Vatican website to see if I was being spoofed.
The basic governing principle of authority vested in the Church has not changed since Blessed Augustine's writings. What changed is where that authority lies, at least in the Latin Church.
The Church claimed magisterial authority pretty much by the end of the first century, based on what +Ignatius wrote c. AD 105 when he says "where there is a bishop, there is the catholic Church."
And the New Testament speaks of "leaders" and "elders" of the Church in Paul's Epistles, which means the hierarchical authority existed in the late 40's or early 50's of the 1st century.
And +Paul specifically states that God appoints some to be apostles, some presbyters, teachers, etc., suggesting that not even God wanted everyone to be the "royal priesthood." Only some are called to specific duties in the Church. The NT also tells us that Jesus revealed his secrets to the apostles privately, and to no one else (Mar 4:34).*
*Here, of course the issue of translational bias becomes apparent. Protestant versions (KJV, NIV, etc) tend to ignore the private aspect of the message, but the word idios can mean only one thing – to one's own, and no one else.
Also, the elders in the Church during Paul's lifetime took it upon themselves (as their "right" or authority) to commission (ordain) in the name of God by laying of the hands. No one apparently waited for God to appoint anyone as he did with allegedly with +Paul or the prophets of the Old Testament. The choosing now became part of the "authority" vested in the primitive Church in the earliest days of the Church.
So, there is no doubt that the Church hierarchy and authority vested in some individuals existed from the beginning so to say, and that they passed on that authority on those they elected and laid their hands on, in the name and in place of God. The church was a caste-system from the beginning by all accounts.
As the apostolic age drew to a close, the bishops (presbyters) were seen as apostolic successors (office-wise, not inspiration-wise), whose authority has been passed on to them via election of the elders. And it was up to the bishop to oversee doctrine and faith. Naturally, just as the apostles did not lord over each other, neither did the bishops.
They were all of equal dignity, i.e. Peter was not telling Paul what is doctrine, nor did Peter jurisdictionally oversee other apostles. Ecclesial divisions and ranking among bishops began later on, when the diocese grew in size and number of believers, and one bishop could not be a shepherd to all at the same time.
Eventually, the centers of power began to shift from early Churches (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria) to the seat of imperial power and dignity of the Senate of Rome, which was an immensely important symbolic factor of Roman authority (remember that the official title of the Roman State was the Senate and People of Rome, or Senatus Populusque Romanus, otherwise known as the acronym SPQR).
As the Senate moved together with the imperial throne to Constantinople (New Rome) that city (and the bishop';s seat in that city) took on the dignity equal to (the old) Rome, and only second in honor (Canon XXVIII, Council of Chalcedon), eclipsing older, biblical centers of Christianity mentioned earlier).
The evolution of the magisterial power in the Latin Church shifted to the pope, first with +Leo I in the early 5th century, by insisting on the biblical primacy of the successor of Peter, and then, due to historical developments, the western Church de facto began to separate itself from the East liturgically, linguistically and theologically and jurisdictionally by the 6th century.
By then, hardly anyone spoke Greek in the West creating a de facto schism, the filioque was added illegitimately to the Creed, the Traditional Latin Mass was in its final remaining steps of completion, and the popes were seeking alternate sponsors among Frankish kings while still officially being subjects, and owing allegiance (on paper) to the Emperor in Constantinople.
In fact, the "undivided" Church spent decades in actual schism with the East over theological and other issues between the 5th and the 11th century. After the Great Schism in 1054, the imperial papacy became the norm, but it was not until the Vatican I (end of 19th century) that the papal "ex-cathedra infallibility" took on the authority of a dogma.
As the "Viccar of Christ" on earth, the pope is under no obligation to consult with, or receive approval from the College of Cardinals—and can proclaim dogma or doctrine by fiat (i.e. the dogma of Immaculate Conception, c. middle of the 19th century).
While this may seem repulsive to more conciliar-minded Christian communities such as yours of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the truth is that the authority to interpret and to determine doctrine has only been shifted from many bishops to one.
Thus, the authority of the Church as the source of magisterium has not changed from the beginning (and in the beginning it was not based on scripture because the NT has not been written yet); what has changed is only in the number of individuals claiming that absolute authority.
If you are going to question the authority of the Church, you are questioning something that not even the apostles questioned. If you are going to insist that the authority comes from the scripture, scriptures themselves prove you wrong. By accepting the scirputres you accept the hierarchichal authoirty of the Church.
The belief that Mary was assumed into heaven body and soul is as quite old, going back to the early Church. In the East, it was celebrated as the Feast of the Dormition of Theotokos (not exactly sure of the date of this custom).
Although it was never acquired in the West, the Church as a whole believed it by all accounts. So, the Pope wasn't really just pulling rabbits out of a hat. It is a traditional belief in the Church, held by early Christians and apparently approved tacitly or openly by the hierarchy, even if it was not dogmatized until later.
In fact, in the Eastern Orthodox Church, it has never been dogmatized, yet the Feast of the Dormition of the Theotokos has been celebrated without interruption ever since it began.