What is the source of the Church’s authority?

The source & nature of Church authority is one of the major issues that beginning Catholics have to examine and come to terms with.

The Catholic Church makes an amazing claim: it teaches, governs, and sanctifies with the authority of Christ himself.

Catholics believe that this gift of Church authority is one of the jewels that Christ has given to us as an aid to our salvation.

There is a large amount of evidence in Scripture to support the Catholic Church’s claim to authority, as well as from early Church history. The nature and scope of Church authority are widely misunderstood. Rejection of this claim is usually based on the common misconception of “misplaced worship” — the accusation that Catholics worship the something else (the Church, the Pope, Mary, the Saints, etc.) instead of God. After briefly stating the Church’s teaching on this subject, we’ll look at some of the major Scriptural sources for this doctrine. Catholic Church authority in brief

The New Testament shows that Christ deliberately created his Church to be the vehicle of his continuing mission in the world. He promised to remain present in his Church for all time, and he lovingly guides it through the presence of the Holy Spirit.

To ensure the success of this mission, Christ gave his Church the ability to teach, govern and sanctify with Christ’s own authority. The Apostles appointed successors to ensure that the Gospel would continue to be handed on faithfully as “the lasting source of all life for the Church” (Vatican II, “Lumen Gentium” 20; also Catechism #860).

The source and guarantee of this Church authority is Christ’s continuing presence in his Church — “Lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age” (Mt 28:20).

The scope of this authority concerns the official teachings of the Church on matters of faith, morals, and worship (liturgy & sacraments). We believe that, because of Christ’s continued presence and guarantee, his Church cannot lead people astray with its official teachings (which are distinct from the individual failings and opinions of its members, priests, bishops, and Popes).

The New Testament bears witness in numerous places to the fact of Church authority. It clearly shows that Christ gave his Apostles his own authority to continue his mission.

(Remember that Catholics view the Bible as one of two definitive witnesses to divine Revelation. Christ taught many other things to the Apostles that are not recorded in Scripture; we call this Catholic Tradition, literally meaning “that which is handed on”. Tradition is the full, living faith of the Apostles as received from Christ.)

Here are some of the more important Scriptural references that address Church authority.

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.” (Mt 28:18-20)

This brief passage contains several critical points about Church authority: Jesus tells the Apostles that the authority he is giving them derives from his own, divine authority. (“All authority…” / “Go therefore”.) The Apostles’ authority and mission comes directly from Christ himself. The nature of this mission is to lead or govern (“make disciples”), sanctify (“baptizing them”), and teach (“teaching them to observe”). Christ promises to remain present with them always in support of this mission (“I am with you always”). Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent Me, even so I send you.” (Jn 20:21)

In this passage, Jesus commissions the Apostles with continuing his own mission. Again, this mission has its source in the divine authority of the Father. (CCC 859) “He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.” (Mt 10:40) And: “He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Lk 10:16)

Here, Christ explicitly identifies himself with the Apostles: this identification is so complete that accepting or rejecting the Apostles is the same as accepting or rejecting Christ. What’s more, both passages compare the union between Christ and his Apostles to that of the Son and the Father within the Holy Trinity.

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.” (Mt 16:18-19)

This is a key passage for understanding the Catholic doctrine of Church authority: Christ’s deliberate intent to establish a new Church (“I will build My Church”) His choice of Peter as the foundation, or head, of this Church Christ confers on Peter his own divine authority (“the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven”) for ruling the Church (“bind” and “loose”). This power to “bind and loose”, repeated also in Mt 18:18 to the Apostles as a whole, is understood as applying first to Peter and his successors (the Pope), and then to the rest of the Apostles and their successors (the other Bishops) in union with Peter. The Acts of the Apostles (a New Testament book) provides abundant evidence of how Church authority was practiced during the Apostolic age (during the lives of the Apostles themselves, after the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ).

In Acts, we see repeated examples of the Apostles teaching, governing, and sanctifying (baptizing and confirming, as well as “breaking the bread”).

One of the most striking passages in Acts tells how the Apostles describe their decision about whether pagan converts should submit to the Jewish laws of circumcision. They say, “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us” that those laws of the Old Covenant should not apply (Acts 15:28). This passage shows:

The Apostles knew that they had the governing power necessary to decide this question (this is a huge point: they’re overriding the ritual law of the Old Covenant!); and They are conscious of the presence of the Holy Spirit who is guiding their decision, so ultimately it is God who has decided the matter. This passage in Acts would be meaningless, even blasphemous, if the Apostles did not in fact possess the authority of Christ, supported and guided by the presence of the Holy Spirit.

Finally, the various Epistles in the New Testament (the letters of Paul, Peter, etc.) likewise give many examples of the Apostles exercising their teaching and governing offices. In fact, those letters only exist because the Apostles knew that it was their role to teach and lead the various local churches!

It is important to repeat that this authority exists so that Christ can continue to guide his Church in the continuing work of salvation. Church authority is entirely at the service of that work.

We believe that Christ desired the Church to have this authority so that we could be sure of essential matters of the Faith.

The scope of this authority is limited to things that are essential to our salvation: faith, morals, and worship (the sacraments and liturgy). Additionally, since the Church’s authority is at the service of Christ’s gift of divine Revelation, the Church takes care to show how its declarations about faith and morals are consistent with that Revelation (Scripture and Tradition).

It’s important to see this authority as something other than a simplistic being able to “boss you around.” Actually, most Catholics experience Church authority in the form of straightforward declarations regarding faith & morals:

That something is or is not a part of the Faith; and That living in accordance with the Faith requires or forbids certain actions. You always retain the freedom to decide whether or not to remain in the Faith by following those teachings.

(In the Gospels, there are many cases where people hear Christ but evidently decide not to follow him. By definition, his disciples are those who seek to follow him closely and learn from him. Even when it’s hard. Catholics see the Church as continuing in Christ’s role of teaching the truth: “He who hears you hears me.”)

Non-Catholics usually base their rejection of Church authority on the common misconception of “misplaced worship”: it is claimed that Catholics worship the Church instead of God.

Opponents of this authority sometimes also accuse the Catholic Church of claiming power that is only proper to God.

The best argument for the Catholic doctrine of Church authority comes from the New Testament itself: the Acts of the Apostles reveals the Church’s self-image as a body at the service of Christ’s saving Gospel, acting in the ways and structures taught to them by Christ himself. The Apostles are keenly aware of the authority that has been given to them by Christ, and of their own need to remain ever faithful to Christ as they exercise that authority.

Additionally, this same Church authority is the only thing that guarantees the accuracy and inerrancy of the Bible itself. It was the Church that selected the books of New Testament and defined the canon of the Bible. Those who believe that the Bible is reliable, are in fact relying on the Church’s testimony that the New Testament books accurately reflect the faith & teachings of the Apostles, which is in turn grounded in the faith & teachings of Christ.

(There were many other writings available that were not selected to be a part of the Bible because their contents were flawed in some way. The Church itself made the selection many years after the death of the Apostles, based on its living witness to the Faith, guaranteed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.)

What is the source of the Church’s authority?

You must know that the supplied answers are elitist, and provocative. Since this is allowed, it infers responses also are that challenge it, all of it, and which is a purose pof a forum, and which type of exchange forum rules provide for and regulate.

The source & nature of Church authority is one of the major issues that beginning Catholics have to examine and come to terms with.

One her autocratically defined terms.

It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine.... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness...The only Divine evidence to us of what was primitive is the witness and voice of the Church at this hour. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation”

The Catholic Church makes an amazing claim: it teaches, governs, and sanctifies with the authority of Christ himself.

There is a large amount of evidence in Scripture to support the Catholic Church’s claim to authority, as well as from early Church history. Rather, there is a large amount of lack of evidence, and contrary in Scripture to support the Catholic Church’s claim to authority , as well as from early Church history.

Christ himself is the source of the Church’s authority.

So say the Mormons who likewise operate under sola ecclesia and hold to additional books of fantasy, and autocratically defines what is truth.

Rejection of this claim is usually based on the common misconception of “misplaced worship” — the accusation that Catholics worship the something else (the Church, the Pope, Mary, the Saints, etc.) instead of God.

Indeed. Despite the attempts and corruptions of men, and of Rome in particular , the body of Christ has endured, and it is Scripture, not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, that the Spirit abundantly manifests is the transcendent supreme standard for Truth and obedience.

In reality, there were no apostolic successors after Judas, which was (in order to maintain foundational number of apostles (cf. Rv. 21:14) and which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots. (cf. Prov. 16:33) The only continuously perpetuated pastoral office (unless deacons are included) by way of formal ordination was that of presbuteros (senior/elder) or episkopos (superintendent/overseer), both of which refer to those in the same office. (Titus 1:5-7)

The purpose of this authority is to give the Church the ability to teach without error about the essentials of salvation: “On this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18). The scope of this authority concerns the official teachings of the Church on matters of faith, morals, and worship (liturgy & sacraments). We believe that, because of Christ’s continued presence and guarantee, his Church cannot lead people astray with its official teachings (which are distinct from the individual failings and opinions of its members, priests, bishops, and Popes).

More erroneous extrapolation. God's promises of His presence and preservation, as well as providing teaching authority, NEVER required or inferred ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome, leaving it unseen and unnecessary in Scripture. The NT magisterium flows from the OT magisterium, to which general obedience was enjoined, and disobedience to which could mean death. (Dt. 17:8-13; cf. Mt. 23:2) But which did not require or promise ensured formulaic infallibility as per Rome,

Pt. 2.

Likewise the Mormons, for whom history etc. is also what they say it is. And in reality, this effectively makes the magisterium the supreme authority, under which fables can be deemed binding doctrine, even an extraScriptural event which is lacking even in early evidence , and was opposed by the Rome's own scholars, but decreed as fact under the premise that Rome cannot err on such and can remember what no one else seems to have for centuries.

Before Mary's bodily Assumption into heaven was defined, all theological faculties in the world were consulted for their opinion. Our teachers' answer was emphatically negative . What here became evident was the one-sidedness, not only of the historical, but of the historicist method in theology. “Tradition” was identified with what could be proved on the basis of texts. Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared .

>But,

subsequent “remembering” (cf. Jn 16:4, for instance) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [because the needed evidence was absent] and was already handed down in the original Word” [via invisible, amorphous oral tradition] - J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59 .

“the mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.

The famous Protestant historian Philip Schaff also writes,

"It [the Assumption of Mary] rests, however, on a purely apocryphal foundation. The entire silence of the apostles and the primitive church teachers respecting the departure of Mary stirred idle curiosity to all sorts of inventions, until a translation like Enoch's and Elijah's was attributed to her. In the time of Origen some were inferring from Luke ii. 35, that she had suffered martyrdom. Epiphanius will not decide whether she died and was buried, or not. Two apocryphal Greek writings de transitu Mariae, of the end of the fourth or beginning of the fifth century, and afterward pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite and Gregory of Tours († 595), for the first time contain the legend that the soul of the mother of God was transported to the heavenly paradise by Christ and His angels in presence of all the apostles, and on the following morning her body also was translated thither on a cloud and there united with the soul. Subsequently the legend was still further embellished, and, besides the apostles, the angels and patriarchs also, even Adam and Eve, were made witnesses of the wonderful spectacle" (section 83).

Here are some of the more important Scriptural references that address Church authority... (Mt 28:18-20)..(Jn 20:21)

Which commission does not require what Rome uniquely presumes of herself. Evangelicals have been preaching the gospel Peter preached, (Acts 10:36-43,47) and teaching the only comprehensive wholly inspired body of Truth that the Lord provided.

If Peter was called the Rock upon whom the church was continually built and was thus looked as that, rather than “this rock” in Mt. 16:18 referring to the truth of Peters confession and by extension Christ, then we most certainly would see this affirmed in the rest of the NT. However, in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.

This power to “bind and loose”, repeated also in Mt 18:18 to the Apostles as a whole, is understood as applying first to Peter and his successors (the Pope), and then to the rest of the Apostles and their successors (the other Bishops) in union with Peter. The Acts of the Apostles (a New Testament book) provides abundant evidence of how Church authority was practiced during the Apostolic age (during the lives of the Apostles themselves, after the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ). Indeed the latter does ) provides abundant evidence of how Church authority was practiced during the Apostolic age, and which never examples or teaches that souls were to come to the apostles or leadership to obtain forgiveness, which is the primary use Rome claims for its presumed binding and loosing power.

Nor is coming regularly to clergy to obtain forgiveness seen or taught in the rest of the NT, while the only application of that aspect is in Ja. 5, in which, while teaching that God has regard to the intercession of others, primarily elders (not Cath "priests ") confession is only exhorted to each other in general, and for which spiritual binding and loosing is provided, as in Mt. 18:19-20. Only judicial binding/loosing requires the magisterium, yet that is to be in union with the church in general. (Mt. 18:15-18; 1Cor. 5)

Moreover, rather than as in Ja. 5, the Cath sacrament of anointing of the sick is usually a precursor of death.

In Acts, we see repeated examples of the Apostles teaching, governing, and sanctifying (baptizing and confirming, as well as “breaking the bread”).

Never is NT church leadership shown officiating over giving bread to be eaten as one of their unique ordained duties, let alone in order that souls may obtain a sacrifice for sins and obtain spiritual life, nor is the NT ever shown doing so in the entire recorded life of the church, nor that the Lord's Supper is "the source and summit of the Christian life," around which all revolves. The only epistle to a church that even describes the Lord's Supper, 1Cor. 10+11 does not teach that, nor does Scripture in its totality .

And in which James provided the Scripturally substantiated judgment on what should be done, confirmatory of the exhortation and testimony of Peter, and that of Paul and Barnabas. But the validity of the magisterial office (which Westminster affirms) is not the issue, but the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility, and the specious claim of Rome to validity of unique magisterial Roman claims. are.

Pt. 3

Finally, the various Epistles in the New Testament (the letters of Paul, Peter, etc.) likewise give many examples of the Apostles exercising their teaching and governing offices. I

Which makes Paul more of a pope than Peter , and refute Cath. distinctives.

. In fact, those letters only exist because the Apostles knew that it was their role to teach and lead the various local churches!

And which, among multiple other things , never show or teach any churches to submit to Peter as their supreme head, or to pastors distinctively titled "priests," or pray to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord.

Catholics see the Church as continuing in Christ’s role of teaching the truth: “He who hears you hears me.”) Why do Protestants reject this claim?

Because that is mere presumption, which Mormons and other elitist cults likewise engage in, who also misappropriate the words of Christ. The fact is that while RCs deny that those without her can preach in the name of the Lord, it is Catholicism which takes His name in vain as it invoked Him to sanction false teachings not seen in in the NT church, while the Lord affirm ministry done in His name even though the apostles censured him as not being part of their company. (Mk. 9:38-41)

Non-Catholics usually base their rejection of Church authority on the common misconception of “misplaced worship”: it is claimed that Catholics worship the Church instead of God.

Since that is what so many RCs mainly preach and manifest cultic devotion to, with Christ being a means to the end of glorifying Rome, the conclusion is warranted.

Opponents of this authority sometimes also accuse the Catholic Church of claiming power that is only proper to God.

From what manner of men would they get that idea from?

With regard to the mystic body of Christ, that is, all the faithful, the priest has the power of the keys, or the power of delivering sinners from hell, of making them worthy of paradise, and of changing them from the slaves of Satan into the children of God. And God himself is obliged to abide by the judgment of his priests, and either not to pardon or to pardon..The sentence of the priest precedes, and God subscribes to it. .” – Dignity and Duties of the Priest, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, Vol. 12, p. 2 (whose writings were declared free from anything meriting censure by Pope Gregory XVL (1839) in the bull of his canonization). http://www.archive.org/stream/alphonsusworks12liguuoft/alphonsusworks12liguuoft_djvu.txt

“The supreme power of the priestly office is the power of consecrating...Indeed, it is equal to that of Jesus Christ...When the priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the sins of man...Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary [who is said to be all but almighty herself]...The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest's command.” - (John A. O'Brien, Ph.D., LL.D., The Faith of Millions, 255-256 , O'Brien. Nihtt obstat: Rev. Lawrence Gollner, Censor Librorum Imprimatur: Leo A. Pursley, Bishop of Fort Wayne,-South Bend, March 16, 1974

The best argument for the Catholic doctrine of Church authority comes from the New Testament itself:

Wrong, as shown and can be shown further, the best argument against the Catholic doctrine of Church authority comes from the New Testament itself:

It took over 1400 years after the last book was penned for Rome to provide what she calls an infallible (indisputable) canon. Meanwhile, the Bible was not a project of the magisterium,, nor did the church of Rome write it, nor does being a discerner and preserver of Divine revelation require of mean that such is the infallible authority on what it is and means. If it does then it invalidates the NT church. For in reality, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (Gn. 12:2,3; 17:4,7,8; Ex. 19:5; Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Jer. 7:23)

And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and whom the Messiah reproved them Scripture as being supreme, (Mk. 7:2-16) and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

The End.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.