Scenes from the Life of Joachim and Anna
Master of Alkmaar (c. 1500)

The Evangelical statement reads as follows:

Immaculate Conception. Evangelicals find unnecessary and unbiblical the notion that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her conception. Still, we affirm much of what this teaching is intended to convey—that Mary was the object of God’s gracious election in Christ; that she was uniquely prepared to become the mother of our Lord; that she is an extraordinary model of the call to discipleship and the life of holiness; that her assent to the purpose of the Lord was itself the result of God’s unmerited favor toward her—an example of sola gratia; and that she should be honored and called “blessed one” in all places and by all generations.

Much interconfessional discussion has centered on the Greek kekaritomene of Luke 1:28 which the Vulgate renders gratia plena and the Douay-Rheims version as “full of grace.” In its clearest form, this perfect passive participle expresses divine favor in the passive voice, as in the King James Version: “Hail thou that art highly favoured” (cf. Luther, holdselige, and Calvin, agréable). Luke 1:28 does not mention Mary’s conception, though Scripture does teach that God’s redemptive call can take place before birth or even conception (Jer. 1:5; Gal. 1:15).

The concrete manifestation of divine favor occurred through the descent and overshadowing of the Holy Spirit (Luke 1:35), whose sanctifying activity enabled Mary’s response of faith and thus inaugurated the renewal of all creation in her womb (Luke 1:38). Calvin affirms this point by stating that “to carry Christ in her womb was not Mary’s first blessedness, but was greatly inferior to the distinction of being born again by the Spirit of God to a new life” (Commentary on the Harmony of the Gospels, 42). By divine grace alone Mary was enabled to give birth to the Son of God, and from her alone he received his human nature. It is not to be doubted that this was wrought by the power of God in a way no less miraculous or mysterious than the virginal conception itself.

Immaculate Conception is not accepted as a dogma by the churches of the East and was much debated in the West before and after the Reformation. Augustine held to a high view of the personal holiness of Mary but believed that God’s abundant grace was conferred on her “for vanquishing sin in every part” (On Nature and Grace 36.42). The idea that Mary was conceived without original sin was rejected by Augustine, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Thomas Aquinas, among other notable teachers of the Church. Their thinking about Mary deserves fresh consideration.

Evangelicals confess the sinlessness of Christ but not the sinlessness of Mary. Hebrews 7:26 refers to Jesus as our High Priest. He alone was perfectly holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners. The Bible makes clear that no other human being can claim this (John 8:46; Rom. 3:23, 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22; 2Cor. 5:21; Eph. 2:3; Heb. 4:15). Jesus taught his disciples, among whom Mary was the first, to pray “Our Father who art in heaven . . . forgive us our trespasses” (Matt. 6:12). The Bible declares that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and he was the Savior as well as the son of his blessed mother (1 Tim. 1:15; Luke 1:46–47).

What disagreements lie behind the disagreements stated here by Evangelicals concerning the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? I find five underlying disagreements.

The first is the notion that only what is explicitly stated in Scripture, or follows by logical entailment from what is taught explicitly in Scripture, is necessary for Christians to believe. That can be seen in the claim that “Evangelicals find unnecessary … the notion that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin from the first moment of her conception.”¹ (emphasis mine) The Catholic teaching, by contrast, is that the deposit of faith comes to us through both Scripture and Tradition. See “Sola Scriptura: A Dialogue Between Michael Horton and Bryan Cross VIII. Scripture and Tradition.” Therefore, from this Catholic perspective a doctrine not being explicitly stated in Scripture does not make it unnecessary.

The second underlying disagreement visible here is the notion that Tradition is not an authoritative guide in the interpretation of Scripture, but is instead itself judged by the interpretation of Scripture one arrives at apart from that Tradition. That notion can be found in two claims made in the Evangelical statement above. Evangelicals find the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception “unbiblical” because in their view (a) “The Bible makes clear that no other human being can claim [to be perfectly holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners]. (John 8:46; Rom. 3:23, 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:22; 2Cor. 5:21; Eph. 2:3; Heb. 4:15), and (b) “The Bible declares that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and he was the Savior as well as the son of his blessed mother (1 Tim. 1:15; Luke 1:46–47)”

Regarding the second claim, Evangelicals assume that since Christ was the Savior of His Mother, therefore it must follow that was a sinner, and that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is false. But that conclusion does not follow, as Lawrence Feingold explains in “Mary’s Immaculate Conception, drawin from Scotus.”² Through His Passion, Christ gloriously saved His Mother by preventing her from falling into original sin and actual sin.

Evangelicals think Mary was not sinless, on account of their interpretation of five verses:

for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Rom 3:23)

Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned— (Rom 5:12)

For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. (1 Cor 15:22)

Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. (Eph 2:3)

For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. (Heb 4:15)

Evangelicals assume that the ‘all’ (and ‘our’ in the Hebrews passage) in each case is intended to include Mary, because they do not find in Scripture any exegetical evidence to justify qualifying the extension of the term to everyone but Mary. Then having concluded that the ‘all’ must include Mary, they claim that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is “unbiblical,” i.e. contrary to Scripture. And they thereby conclude that the Tradition regarding the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception must be the result of a false accretion that worked its way into the Church’s beliefs and liturgical practices. What is therefore at work in this claim that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is contrary to Scripture is the notion that Scripture is to be interpreted only by Scripture, apart from Tradition, and then the interpretations thus attained are the standard by which Tradition is to be judged. The Catholic position, by contrast is that Tradition is the authoritative guide for the interpretation of Scripture, and therefore informs us that the ‘all’ should be interpreted as qualified. (See “The Tradition and the Lexicon.”)

The third underlying disagreement concerns the nature of grace. Evangelicals view grace as only divine favor, whereas in Catholic doctrine grace is not only divine favor, but also the divine gift God gives as a result of that favor, namely, a participation in the divine nature. (See “Lawrence Feingold on Sanctifying Grace and Actual Grace.”) This difference in our conceptions of grace changes how we understand the implication of Luke 1:28. A conception of grace as mere divine favor allows for a simul iustus et peccator view of Mary’s soul even while Gabriel is speaking to her or at any other point in her life. But a Catholic understanding of grace as participation in the divine nature, along with Luke 1:28, not only indicates a prior infusion of grace, but allows a Catholic to see Christ as Mary’s Savior through preventing her at every moment from being deprived of sanctifying grace.

The fourth underlying disagreement is an implicit denial of the development of doctrine. This can be seen in the Evangelicals’ claims that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception “is not accepted as a dogma by the churches of the East and was much debated in the West,” and “The idea that Mary was conceived without original sin was rejected by Augustine, Bernard of Clairvaux, and Thomas Aquinas.” Their appeal to these facts as evidence that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is false presupposes that doctrine does not develop. If doctrine develops, as St. Vincent of Lérins describes in his Commonitory, and Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman describes in his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, then the fact that at some earlier time not all Christians recognized or affirmed it is not in itself evidence that it does no belong to the Tradition.

The fifth underlying disagreement in this Evangelical statement regarding the Immaculate Conception concerns the basis of ecclesial authority. When the Evangelicals assert that the reasoning by which St. Bernard and St. Thomas rejected the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception “deserves fresh consideration,” they are not only implicitly denying the development of doctrine; they are also denying the magisterial authority of the Catholic Church, because Pope Pius IX infallibly defined the dogma in 1854, writing:

Accordingly, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, for the honor of the Holy and undivided Trinity, for the glory and adornment of the Virgin Mother of God, for the exaltation of the Catholic Faith, and for the furtherance of the Catholic religion, by the authority of Jesus Christ our Lord, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own: “We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.” (Ineffabilis Deus)

Moreover the Evangelical statement implicitly affirms the ecclesial authority of Calvin and Luther. The statement not only appeals to Luther’s and Calvin’s translations of terms, but writes, “Calvin affirms this point by stating that “to carry Christ in her womb was not Mary’s first blessedness, but was greatly inferior to the distinction of being born again by the Spirit of God to a new life.” Why do Luther’s and Calvin’s opinions come up in an explanation by Evangelicals of their reasons for not accepting the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception? The appeals to Luther and Calvin demonstrate performatively that these Evangelicals believe that Luther and Calvin hold some kind of ecclesial/interpretive authority. But Catholics do not believe that Luther or Calvin had ecclesial/interpretive authority. So one more disagreement underlying Evangelicals’ disagreement with the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is the basis for ecclesial/interpretive authority. For Evangelicals, that authority reduces to agreement with their own interpretation of Scripture.³ For Catholics, that authority comes through apostolic succession.⁴

Conclusion

The resolution of a disagreement, and especially a seemingly intractable disagreement, typically requires locating the underlying disagreements that are the fundamental source and cause of the disagreement in question. In this case, the Evangelical statement concerning their disagreement with the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary reveals five underlying disagreements: (1) the notion that only what is explicitly stated in Scripture, or follows by logical entailment from what is taught explicitly in Scripture, is necessary for Christians to believe, (2) the notion that Tradition is not an authoritative guide in the interpretation of Scripture, but is instead itself judged by the interpretation of Scripture one arrives at apart from that Tradition, (3) the notion of grace is merely divine favor, (4) an implicit denial of the development of doctrine, and (5) the notion that ecclesial authority is grounded in agreement with one’s interpretation of Scripture and not in apostolic succession in union with the episcopal successor of the one to whom Christ gave the keys of the Kingdom. Subsequent attempts to resolve the Evangelical-Catholic disagreement concerning the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception will require turning to these underlying disagreements.

Solemnity of the Immaculate Conception, 2011.

1. This assumption is also manifested in the statement that “Luke 1:28 does not mention Mary’s conception.”
2. For more detail, see Volume XX of Scotus’s Lectura in Librum Tertium Sententiarum (Q.1 dis. 3), titled “Utrum Beata Virgo fuerit concepta in peccato originali (whether the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin).
3. See “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority.”
4. “Sola Scriptura: A Dialogue Between Michael Horton and Bryan Cross, IX. Apostolic Succession.

The list of quotations below is by no means an exhaustive list of references to the seat of Peter, let alone to the ecclesial authority of St. Peter and his successors. But these quotations include some of the more important and revealing early references to the seat of Peter.

Outline
A. Second Century
B. Third Century
C. Fourth Century
D. Fifth Century
E. Sixth Century

A. Second Century

Muratorian Fragment (AD 180-200)

The Pastor [i.e. "The Shepherd of Hermas"], moreover, did Hermas write very recently in our times in the city of Rome, while his brother bishop Pius sat in the chair of the Church of Rome. And therefore it also ought to be read; but it cannot be made public in the Church to the people, nor placed among the prophets, as their number is complete, nor among the apostles to the end of time. (Muratorian Fragment)

B. Third Century

Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 225), wrote the following in this Prescription Against Heretics, around AD 200:

Come now, if you would indulge a better curiosity in the business of your salvation, run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones [cathedrae] of the Apostles remain still in place; in which their own authentic writings are read, giving sound to the voice and recalling the faces of each. Achaia is near you, so you have Corinth. If you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi. If you can cross into Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority derives. How happy is that Church, on which Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [the Baptist], where the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil and suffering no hurt, was exiled to an island.” (The Prescription Against Heretics, 36)

Sometime between AD 212 and 219, already a Montantist but revealing nonetheless, Tertullian wrote the following:

But further, if Christ reproves the scribes and Pharisees, sitting in the official chair of Moses, but not doing what they taught, what kind of (supposition) is it that He Himself withal should set upon His own official chair men who were mindful rather to enjoin — (but) not likewise to practise — sanctity of the flesh, which (sanctity) He had in all ways recommended to their teaching and practising? (On Monogamy, 8)

Tertullian, though already separated from the Catholic Church, argues that Christ would not have set upon His own official chair men who would be like the Pharisees who sat on the seat of Moses, saying one thing yet doing another. Tertullian’s argument aside, what is telling is his reference to Christ’s official chair, as a seat of teaching authority in the Church.

In AD 251, St. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage wrote:

“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on the Rock [Peter] by the voice of the Lord [et cathedra una super Petrum Domini uoce fundata]. It is not possible to set up another altar or another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever gathers elsewhere, scatters.” (Epistle 39 (43))

About that same year St. Cyprian wrote:

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Treatise on the Unity of the Catholic Church, 1st edition) ¹

Concerning the Novatian schism, led by the antipope Novatian, St. Cyprian writes (AD 251-3)

You wrote, moreover, for me to transmit a copy of those same letters to [Pope] Cornelius our colleague, so that he might lay aside all anxiety, and know at once that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church. … Moreover, Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of His Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men, when no one had been made so before him, when the place of Fabian, that is, when the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant; which being occupied by the will of God, and established by the consent of all of us, whosoever now wishes to become a bishop, must needs be made from without; and he cannot have the ordination of the Church who does not hold the unity of the Church. Whoever he may be, although greatly boasting about himself, and claiming very much for himself, he is profane, he is an alien, he is without. And as after the first there cannot be a second, whosoever is made after one who ought to be alone, is not second to him, but is in fact none at all.

Then afterwards, when he had undertaken the episcopate, not obtained by solicitation nor by extortion, but by the will of God who makes priests; what a virtue there was in the very undertaking of his episcopate, what strength of mind, what firmness of faith — a thing that we ought with simple heart both thoroughly to look into and to praise — that he intrepidly sat at Rome in the sacerdotal chair at that time when a tyrant, odious to God’s priests, was threatening things that can, and cannot be spoken, inasmuch as he would much more patiently and tolerantly hear that a rival prince was raised up against himself than that a priest of God was established at Rome. (Letter 51)

St. Cyprian is very explicit that Christ made St. Peter the ground (or foundation or basis) of the unity of the Church. In giving to St. Peter a primacy, Christ gave to the Church a gift, a means by which to preserve her unity. Otherwise at the first schism there would be no objective way to determine where the Church is, for each faction would seemingly have equal claim to be the continuation of the Church. Christ did not set up the Church so that all of her members must have graduate degrees in theology in order to determine where is the Church, as if even then there would be unity.

St. Cyprian continues, in AD 252, still writing about the Novatian schism:

For neither have heresies arisen, nor have schisms originated, from any other source than from this, that God’s priest is not obeyed; nor do they consider that there is one person for the time priest in the Church, and for the time judge in the stead of Christ; whom, if, according to divine teaching, the whole fraternity should obey, no one would stir up anything against the college of priests; no one, after the divine judgment, after the suffrage of the people, after the consent of the co-bishops, would make himself a judge, not now of the bishop, but of God. No one would rend the Church by a division of the unity of Christ. No one, pleasing himself, and swelling with arrogance, would found a new heresy, separate and without, unless any one be of such sacrilegious daring and abandoned mind, as to think that a priest is made without God’s judgment, when the Lord says in His Gospel, “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And one of them does not fall to the ground without the will of your Father.” (Matt. 10:29) [...]

Nevertheless, Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built, speaking one for all, and answering with the voice of the Church, says, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life; and we believe, and are sure that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God: ” (Matt. 15:13) signifying, doubtless, and showing that those who departed from Christ perished by their own fault, yet that the Church which believes on Christ, and holds that which it has once learned, never departs from Him at all, and that those are the Church who remain in the house of God; but that, on the other hand, they are not the plantation planted by God the Father, whom we see not to be established with the stability of wheat, but blown about like chaff by the breath of the enemy scattering them, of whom John also in his epistle says, “They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, no doubt they would have continued with us.” (1 Jn. 2:19) [...]

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.” (Epistle 54, 14)

Notice that for St. Cyprian, the unity of the bishops and priests has its source not only as a past event but as a present grounding or principle in the chair of Peter.

Again, between 251-53, St. Cyprian writes:

But what sort of a thing is this, that, because Novatian dares to do this thing, we are to think that we must not do it! What then? Because Novatian also usurps the honour of the priestly throne, ought we therefore to renounce our throne? Or because Novatian endeavours wrongfully to set up an altar and to offer sacrifices, does it behoove us to cease from our altar and sacrifices, lest we should appear to be celebrating the same or like things with him? Utterly vain and foolish is it, that because Novatian arrogates to himself outside the Church the image of the truth, we should forsake the truth of the Church. … For first of all the Lord gave that power to Peter, upon whom He built the Church, and whence He appointed and showed the source of unity — the power, namely, that whatsoever he loosed on earth should be loosed in heaven. And after the resurrection, also, He speaks to the apostles, saying, “As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and says, unto them, Receive the Holy Ghost: whosesoever sins you remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins you retain, they are retained.” Whence we perceive that only they who are set over the Church and established in the Gospel law, and in the ordinance of the Lord, are allowed to baptize and to give remission of sins; but that without, nothing can either be bound or loosed, where there is none who can either bind or loose anything.(Epistle 72)

And during this same time (251-253) he writes:

For if she [the Church] is with Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop Fabian by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honour of the priesthood, the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, [then] Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way. … But if the flock is one, how can he be numbered among the flock who is not in the number of the flock? Or how can he be esteemed a pastor, who — while the true shepherd remains and presides over the Church of God by successive ordination — succeeding to no one, and beginning from himself, becomes a stranger and a profane person, an enemy of the Lord’s peace and of the divine unity, not dwelling in the house of God, that is, in the Church of God, in which none dwell except they are of one heart and one mind, since the Holy Spirit speaks in the Psalms, and says, “It is God who makes men to dwell of one mind in a house.” … But that they [i.e. the Novatians] are said to have the same God the Father as we, to know the same Christ the Son, the same Holy Spirit, can be of no avail to such as these. For even Korah, Dathan, and Abiram knew the same God as did the priest Aaron and Moses. And yet those men had not made a schism, nor had gone out abroad, and in opposition to God’s priests rebelled shamelessly and with hostility; but this these men [i.e. the Novatians] are now doing who divide the Church, and, as rebels against the peace and unity of Christ, attempt to establish a throne for themselves, and to assume the primacy, and to claim the right of baptizing and of offering [i.e. the Eucharistic sacrifice]. (Epistle 75)

A few years later, in AD 256, when St. Stephen was pope, some of the African bishops were claiming that those persons who had been baptized while in a heresy, needed still to be baptized upon wishing to be received into the Catholic Church, because, according to these bishops, those first baptisms were invalid. St. Cyprian himself held this position and argued for it against Pope St. Stephen, who determined that such persons ought not to be re-baptized, because even though they were baptized while in a heresy, and the baptism was therefore illicit, nevertheless such baptisms were valid.²

Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, wrote to St. Cyprian in AD 256 regarding Pope Stephen, saying the following:

[H]e who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity. The apostle acknowledges that the Jews, although blinded by ignorance, and bound by the grossest wickedness, have yet a zeal for God. Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the sacrament of baptism, the filth of the old man is washed away by them, that they pardon the former mortal sins, that they make sons of God by heavenly regeneration, and renew to eternal life by the sanctification of the divine laver. … For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all; and not even the precepts of an apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace. (Epistle 74)³

Of course Firmilian is claiming that Pope St. Stephen is wrong about re-baptizing heretics. But not only does Pope St. Stephen turn out to have been right, but Firmilian’s letter reveals the way in which Pope St. Stephen conceived of the role and authority of the office signified by the chair of St. Peter.

C. Fourth Century

Poem Against the Marcionites (prior to AD 325):

In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter, in mighty Rome, commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down . . .

The Council of Serdica (343-344) in what is today Sophia, Bulgaria concluded the summary of the acts of the synod by writing to the bishop of Rome with these words:

“For this will seem to be best and most fitting indeed, if the priests from each and every province refer to the head, that is, to the chair of Peter the Apostle.” (Denzinger, 57e)⁴

St. Athanasius, the famous defender of Nicene orthodoxy, wrote the following around AD 358:

Thus from the first they [i.e. the Arians] spared not even Liberius, Bishop of Rome, but extended their fury even to those parts; they respected not his bishopric, because it was an Apostolical throne; they felt no reverence for Rome, because she is the Metropolis of Romania ; they remembered not that formerly in their letters they had spoken of her Bishops as Apostolical men. But confounding all things together, they at once forgot everything, and cared only to show their zeal in behalf of impiety. When they perceived that he was an orthodox man and hated the Arian heresy, and earnestly endeavoured to persuade all persons to renounce and withdraw from it, these impious men reasoned thus with themselves: ‘If we can persuade Liberius, we shall soon prevail over all.’ (History of the Arians, Part V)

St. Optatus of Milevisu, bishop of Milevis in Africa, in a work begun in AD 367 writes:

For it was not Caecilian who went forth from Majorinus, your father’s father, but it was Majorinus who deserted Caecilian; nor was it Caecilian who separated himself from the Chair of Peter, or from the Chair of Cyprian l but Majorinus, on whose Chair you sit, a Chair which had no existence before Majorinus himself. … Victor would not have been able, had he been asked where he sat, to show that anyone had been there before him, nor could he have pointed out that he possessed any Cathedra save the Cathedra of pestilence, for pestilence sends down its victims, destroyed by diseases, to the regions of Hell which are known to have their gates gates against which we read that Peter received the saving Keys, Peter, that is to say, the first of our line, to whom it was said by Christ:

To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and these keys the gates of Hell shall not overcome.

How is it, then, that you strive to usurp for yourselves the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, you who, with your arguments, and audacious sacrilege, war against the Chair of Peter? … For it has been proved that we are in the Holy Catholic Church, who have too the Creed of the Trinity; and it has been shown that, through the Chair of Peter which is ours through it the other Endowments also belong to us. … Will you be able to prove that the Chair of Peter is a lie and the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which were granted him by Christ, with which we are in communion? (The work of St. Optatus)

Between AD 384 and 387 St. Optatus wrote the following:

“But you cannot deny that you know that the episcopal seat was established first in the city of Rome by Peter and that in it sat Peter, the head of all the apostles, wherefore he is called Cephas, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do other Apostles proceed individually on their own; and anyone who would set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. It was Peter, then, who first occupied that chair, the foremost of his endowed gifts. He was succeeded by Linus, Linus was succeeded by Clement, Clement by Anencletus, Anencletus by Evaristus, Evaristus by Eleutherus, Eleutherus by Xystus, Xystus by Telesphorus, Telesphorus by Hyginus, Hyginus by Anicetus, Anicetus by Pius, Pius by Soter, Soter by Alexander, Alexander by Victor, Victor by Zephyrinus, Zephyrinus by Callistus, Callistus by Urban, Urban by Pontianus, Pontianus by Anterus, Anterus by Fabian, Fabian by Cornelius, Cornelius by Lucius, Lucius by Stephen, Stephen by Xystus, Xystus by Dionysius, Dionysius by Felix, Felix by Marcellinus, Marcellinus by Eusebius, Eusebius by Melchiades, Melchiades by Sylvester, Sylvester by Mark, Mark by Julius, Julius by Liberius, Liberius by Damasus, Damasus by Siricius, our present incumbent. I but ask you to recall the origins of your chair, you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church.” (De Schismate Donatistarum)

St. Optatus shows that schism is defined in relation to the chair of St. Peter, because Christ made Peter the head of the Apostles.⁵

Pope St. Damasus, in the year AD 382, wrote the following:

The holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: Your are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven. … The most blessed Apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the City of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero — not at a different time, as the heretics prattle, but at one and the same time and on one and the same day: and they equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.” (The Decree of Damasus)

The term “See” comes from the Latin sedes, meaning ‘chair.’ This reference to the “first see” is in this way a reference to the primary chair. And this is also the origin of the term ‘Apostolic See,’ which refers to the Chair of the Apostle and the particular Church at Rome.⁶

St. Ambrose, the bishop of Milan, and the one who baptized St. Augustine, wrote the following in AD 388:

You said to Peter when he excused himself from having his feet washed by You: “If I wash not your feet, you will have no part with Me.” (John 13:8) What fellowship, then, can they [i.e. the Novatians] have with You, who receive not the keys of the kingdom of heaven, saying that they ought not to remit sins? And this confession is indeed rightly made by them, for they have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: “I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.” (Concerning Repentance, Book 1, 7:33)

St. John Chrysostom, a priest at Antioch for twelve years before becoming bishop of Constantinople in 398, wrote about the difference in authority between the episcopal chair of St. James in Jerusalem and the chair of St. Peter in Rome:

And why, having passed by the others, does He [Jesus] speak with Peter on these matters? He [Peter] was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren…. And if any should say, ‘How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?’ I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair [of Jerusalem], but of the world…. For he [Peter] who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren, and not only does not commit to another what relates to himself, but himself now puts a question to his Master concerning another. (Homily 88 on the Gospel of John)

St. Jerome, in AD 376 wrote:

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord…. I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter…. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails…. He that gathers not with you scatters…. If you think fit enact a decree; and then I shall not hesitate to speak of three hypostases. Order a new creed to supersede the Nicene; and then, whether we are Arians or orthodox, one confession will do for us all…. I beg you also to signify with whom I am to communicate at Antioch. Not, I hope, with the Campenses; for they — with their allies the heretics of Tarsus — only desire communion with you to preach with greater authority their traditional doctrine of three hypostases.(Letter 15 to Pope St. Damasus)

In that same year he wrote the following in a letter to Pope St. Damasus:

The untiring foe follows me closely, and the assaults that I suffer in the desert are severer than ever. For the Arian frenzy raves, and the powers of the world support it. The church is rent into three factions, and each of these is eager to seize me for its own. The influence of the monks is of long standing, and it is directed against me. I meantime keep crying: “He who clings to the chair of Peter is accepted by me.” Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus all profess to cleave to you, and I could believe the assertion if it were made by one of them only. As it is, either two of them or else all three are guilty of falsehood. Therefore I implore your blessedness, by our Lord’s cross and passion, those necessary glories of our faith, as you hold an apostolic office, to give an apostolic decision. Only tell me by letter with whom I am to communicate in Syria, and I will pray for you that you may sit in judgment enthroned with the twelve; Matthew 19:28 that when you grow old, like Peter, you may be girded not by yourself but by another, John 21:18 and that, like Paul, you may be made a citizen of the heavenly kingdom. (Letter 16 to Pope Damasus)

Between 392 and 393 St. Jerome wrote:

Simon Peter the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion — the believers in circumcision, in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia — pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord. He wrote two epistles which are called Catholic, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him. Then too the Gospel according to Mark, who was his disciple and interpreter, is ascribed to him. … Buried at Rome in the Vatican near the triumphal way he is venerated by the whole world. […]

Novatianus, presbyter of Rome, attempted to usurp the sacerdotal chair occupied by [Pope] Cornelius, and established the dogma of the Novatians, or as they are called in Greek, the Cathari, by refusing to receive penitent apostates. (De Viris Illustribus, 1, 70)⁷

Later, in AD 414, he wrote in a letter to Demetrias:

I think, therefore, that I ought to warn you, in all kindness and affection, to hold fast the faith of the saintly [Pope] Innocent, the spiritual son of [Pope] Anastasius and his successor in the apostolic see; and not to receive any foreign doctrine, however wise and discerning you may take yourself to be. (Letter 130)

St. Jerome affirmed the role of the chair of Peter in preserving and grounding the unity of the Church. The church in Syria was at that time divided into three factions, and St. Jerome turned to the visible head of the Church (the bishop occupying St. Peter’s chair) to determine which of the factions was part of the true Church, and which were schisms from the true Church. He clearly understand that Christ had foreseen that the Church needed a visible head in order not to provide an occasion for schism. For St. Jerome, the unity of the Church was not based on a continuous miracle operating against nature. Even nature teaches us that where there is no visible head, there will be no end of quarreling and divisions, to the point of disintegration. That is why Christ established a visible head, to provide a principium unitatis (principle of unity) for the Church. To be in communion with that rock upon which the Church is built, is to be in full union with the Church. To spurn that rock is to be in schism.

D. Fifth Century

Pope St. Innocent I, writing to St. Jerome in AD 417, says the following:

The spectacle of these terrible evils has so thoroughly roused us that we have hastened to put forth the authority of the apostolic see to repress the plague in all its manifestations; but as your letters name no individuals and bring no specific charges, there is no one at present against whom we can proceed. But we do all that we can; we sympathize deeply with you. And if you will lay a clear and unambiguous accusation against any persons in particular we will appoint suitable judges to try their cases; or if you, our highly esteemed son, think that it is needful for us to take yet graver and more urgent action, we shall not be slow to do so. Meantime we have written to our brother bishop John [bishop of Jerusalem] advising him to act more considerately, so that nothing may occur in the church committed to him which it is his duty to foresee and to prevent, and that nothing may happen which may subsequently prove a source of trouble to him. (Letter 136)

In the same year, he wrote to the bishops of Africa:

In seeking the things of God . . . preserving the examples of ancient tradition . . . you have strengthened … the vigor of your religion with true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us, and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, since all of us placed in this position desire to follow the Apostle, from whom the episcopate itself and all the authority of this name have emerged. Following him we know how to condemn evils just as well as how to approve praiseworthy things. Take this as an example, guarding with your sacerdotal office the practices of the fathers you resolve that they must not be trampled upon, because they made their decisions not by human, but by divine judgment, so that they thought that nothing whatever, although it concerned separated and remote provinces, should be concluded, unless it first came to the attention of this See, so that what was a just proclamation might be confirmed by the total authority of this See, and from this source (just as all waters proceed from their natal fountain and through diverse regions of the whole world remain pure liquids of an uncorrupted source), the other churches might assume what [they ought] to teach, whom they ought to wash, those whom the water worthy of clean bodies would shun as though defiled with filth incapable of being cleansed.” (Letter to the Council of Carthage, as quoted in Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy, pp. 146-147. )

Pope St. Boniface, the bishop of Rome from 418 through 422, wrote the following to Rufus, bishop of Thessaly on March 11, 422:

To the Synod [of Corinth] … we have directed such writings that all the brethren may know . . . that there must be no withdrawal from our judgment. For it has never been allowed that that be discussed again which has once been decided by the Apostolic See.” (Epistle 13, cited in Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority, pp. 229-230.)⁸

St. Augustine points to the chair of St. Peter as one of the things that keeps him in the Catholic Church. He writes in AD 396:

“There are many other things which most justly keep me in [the Catholic Church's] bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church …no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion…. For my part I should not believe the gospel except the authority of the Catholic Church moved me. 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.” (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus, 4-5)

In the following year (i.e. AD 397), St. Augustine wrote:

[B]ecause [the bishop of Carthage] saw himself united by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the primacy (principality/supremacy) of an apostolic chair [apostolicae cathedrae principatus] has always flourished, and to all other lands from which Africa itself received the gospel, and was prepared to defend himself before these Churches if his adversaries attempted to cause an alienation of them from him. (Letter 43)

In the year 400, St Augustine wrote:

For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!” (Matt. 16:18) The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: — Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of “mountain men,” or Cutzupits, by which they were known.

Now, even although some traditor had in the course of these centuries, through inadvertence, obtained a place in that order of bishops, reaching from Peter himself to Anastasius, who now occupies that see — this fact would do no harm to the Church and to Christians having no share in the guilt of another; for the Lord, providing against such a case, says, concerning officers in the Church who are wicked: “All whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.” (Matt. 23:3) Thus the stability of the hope of the faithful is secured, inasmuch as being fixed, not in man, but in the Lord, it never can be swept away by the raging of impious schism; whereas they themselves are swept away who read in the Holy Scriptures the names of churches to which the apostles wrote, and in which they have no bishop. For what could more clearly prove their perversity and their folly, than their saying to their clergy, when they read these letters, “Peace be with you,” at the very time that they are themselves disjoined from the peace of those churches to which the letters were originally written? (Letter 53)

In his Answer to Petilian the Donatist (400-401), we find the following exchange between Petilian and St. Augustine:

Petilianus said: “If you wretched men claim for yourselves a seat, as we said before, you assuredly have that one of which the prophet and psalmist David speaks as being the seat of the scornful. For to you it is rightly left, seeing that the holy cannot sit therein.”

Augustine answered: Here again you do not see that this is no kind of argument, but empty abuse. For this is what I said a little while ago, You utter the words of the law, but take no heed against whom you utter them; just as the devil uttered the words of the law, but failed to perceive to whom he uttered them. He wished to thrust down our Head, who was presently to ascend on high; but you wish to reduce to a small fraction the body of that same Head which is dispersed throughout the entire world. Certainly you yourself said a little time before that we know the law, and speak in legal terms, but blush in our deeds. Thus much indeed you say without a proof of anything; but even though you were to prove it of some men, you would not be entitled to assert it of these others. However, if all men throughout all the world were of the character which you most vainly charge them with, what has the chair done to you of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and which Anastasius fills today; or the chair of the Church of Jerusalem, in which James once sat, and in which John sits today, with which we are united in catholic unity, and from which you have severed yourselves by your mad fury? Why do you call the apostolic chair a seat of the scornful? If it is on account of the men whom you believe to use the words of the law without performing it, do you find that our Lord Jesus Christ was moved by the Pharisees, of whom He says, “They say, and do not,” to do any despite to the seat in which they sat? Did He not commend the seat of Moses, and maintain the honor of the seat, while He convicted those that sat in it? For He says, “They sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.” (Matt. 23:2-3) If you were to think of these things, you would not, on account of men whom you calumniate, do despite to the apostolic seat, in which you have no share. But what else is conduct like yours but ignorance of what to say, combined with want of power to abstain from evil-speaking? [...]

But if you [i.e. Donatatists] are really men like this, how much better and how much more in accordance with truth do we act in not baptizing after you [i.e. in your manner], as neither was it right that those whom I have mentioned should be circumcised after the worst of Pharisees! Furthermore, when such men sit in the seat of Moses, for which the Lord preserved its due honor, why do you blaspheme the apostolic chair on account of men whom, justly or unjustly, you compare with these? (Answer to Petilian the Donatist, Book II, c. 51)

St. Augustine writes the following to Pope Sixtus in AD 418:

Wherefore, my venerable lord, and holy brother worthy of being received in the love of Christ, although you render a most excellent service when you thus write on this subject to brethren before whom the adversaries are wont to boast themselves of your being their friend, nevertheless, there remains upon you the yet greater duty of seeing not only that those be punished with wholesome severity who dare to prate more openly their declaration of that error, most dangerously hostile to the Christian name, but also that with pastoral vigilance, on behalf of the weaker and simpler sheep of the Lord, most strenuous precautions be used against those who more covertly, indeed, and timidly, but perseveringly, and in whispers, as it were, teach this error, “creeping into houses,” as the apostle says, and doing with practised impiety all those other things which are mentioned immediately afterwards in that passage. (2 Tim.3:6) Nor ought those to be overlooked who under the restraint of fear hide their sentiments under the most profound silence, yet have not ceased to cherish the same perverse opinions as before. For some of their party might be known to you before that pestilence was denounced by the most explicit condemnation of the apostolic see, whom you perceive to have now become suddenly silent; nor can it be ascertained whether they have been really cured of it. (Letter 191)

Between 419-20, St. Augustine wrote the following:

The new-fangled Pelagian heretics have been most justly condemned by the authority of catholic councils and of the Apostolic See. (On the Soul and its Origin, Bk II, 17)

Between 420 and 421, St. Augustine wrote:

For who does not see in what degree Cœlestius was bound by the interrogations of your holy predecessor and by the answers of Cœlestius, whereby he professed that he consented to the letters of Pope Innocent, and fastened by a most wholesome chain, so as not to dare any further to maintain that the original sin of infants is not put away in baptism? Because these are the words of the venerable Bishop Innocent concerning this matter to the Carthaginian Council: “For once,” he said, “he bore free will; but, using his advantage inconsiderately, and falling into the depths of apostasy, he was overwhelmed, and found no way whereby he could rise from thence; and, deceived for ever by his liberty, he would have lain under the oppression of this ruin, if the advent of Christ had not subsequently for his grace delivered him, and, by the purification of a new regeneration, purged all past sin by the washing of His baptism.” What could be more clear or more manifest than that judgment of the Apostolical See? (Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Bk II)

In a letter to Pope Caelestine, St. Augustine writes the following in AD 423:

First of all I congratulate you that our Lord God has, as we have heard, established you in the illustrious chair which you occupy without any division among His people. (Letter 209)

In AD 426, St. Augustine wrote:

Now Pelagius was either afraid or ashamed to avow this to be his own opinion before you; although his disciple experienced neither a qualm nor a blush in openly professing it to be his, without any obscure subterfuges, in presence of the Apostolic See. … The venerable Pope Zosimus, keeping in view this deprecatory preamble, dealt with the man, puffed up as he was with the blasts of false doctrine, so as that he should condemn all the objectionable points which had been alleged against him by the deacon Paulinus, and that he should yield his assent to the rescript of the Apostolic See which had been issued by his predecessor of sacred memory. The accused man, however, refused to condemn the objections raised by the deacon, yet he did not dare to hold out against the letter of the blessed Pope Innocent; indeed, he went so far as to “promise that he would condemn all the points which the Apostolic See condemned.” … This being the case, you of course feel that episcopal councils, and the Apostolic See, and the whole Roman Church, and the Roman Empire itself, which by God’s gracious favour has become Christian, has been most righteously moved against the authors of this wicked error, until they repent and escape from the snares of the devil…. But I would have you carefully observe the way in which Pelagius endeavoured by deception to overreach even the judgment of the bishop of the Apostolic See on this very question of the baptism of infants. He sent a letter to Rome to Pope Innocent of blessed memory; and when it found him not in the flesh, it was handed to the holy Pope Zosimus, and by him directed to us. (On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin, Bk II, 19)

To fellow bishop Auxilius, St. Augustine writes in an undated letter:

I desire with the Lord’s help to use the necessary measures in our Council, and, if it be necessary, to write to the Apostolic See; that, by a unanimous authoritative decision of all, we may have the course which ought to be followed in these cases determined and established. (Letter 250)

In an undated sermon, St. Augustine writes:

For already have two councils on this question [i.e. Pelagianism] been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The cause is finished. [causa finita est]; would that the error may sometime be brought to an end as well! [Utinam aliquando finiatur error] (Sermon 81 on the New Testament)

On August 11, 431, Pope Celestine wrote to St. Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria, delegating him with authority to preside over the Council of Ephesus, saying:

… If he, Nestorius, persist, an open sentence must be passed on him, for a wound, when it affects the whole body, must be cut away at once. … And so, appropriating to yourself the authority of our See, and using our position, you will execute our sentence with exact severity, that either he shall within ten days, counted from the day of your notice, condemn in writing this wicked assertion of his, and shall give assurance that he will hold, concerning the birth of Christ our God, the faith which the Romans, and the church of your holiness, and the universal religion holds; or if he will not do this (your holiness having at once provided for that church) he will know that he is in every way removed from our body. (Pope Celestine, Epistle 11, cited in Giles, pp. 240-41)

At the Council of Ephesus (431) in which Nestorius was condemned, the papal legates said the following:

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, etc.

Arcadius the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See said: Nestorius has brought us great sorrow….And since of his own accord he has made himself an alien and an exile from us, we following the sanctions handed down from the beginning by the holy Apostles, and by the Catholic Church (for they taught what they had received from our Lord Jesus Christ), also following the types (τύποις) of Cœlestine, most holy pope of the Apostolic See, who has condescended to send us as his executors of this business, and also following the decrees of the holy Synod [we give this as our conclusion]: Let Nestorius know that he is deprived of all episcopal dignity, and is an alien from the whole Church and from the communion of all its priests.

Projectus, bishop and legate of the Roman Church said: Most clearly from the reading, etc….Moreover I also, by my authority as legate of the holy Apostolic See, define, being with my brethren an executor (ἐκβιβαστὴς) of the aforesaid sentence, that the beforenamed Nestorius is an enemy of the truth, a corrupter of the faith, and as guilty of the things of which he was accused, has been removed from the grade of Episcopal honour, and moreover from the communion of all orthodox priests. (Council of Ephesus, AD 431)

St. Vincent of Lerins, three years later in AD 434, wrote the following:

For it has always been the case in the Church, that the more a man is under the influence of religion, so much the more prompt is he to oppose innovations. Examples there are without number: but to be brief, we will take one, and that, in preference to others, from the Apostolic See, so that it may be clearer than day to every one with how great energy, with how great zeal, with how great earnestness, the blessed successors of the blessed apostles have constantly defended the integrity of the religion which they have once received.

Once on a time then, Agripinnus, bishop of Carthage, of venerable memory, held the doctrine — and he was the first who held it — that Baptism ought to be repeated, contrary to the divine canon, contrary to the rule of the universal Church, contrary to the customs and institutions of our ancestors. This innovation drew after it such an amount of evil, that it not only gave an example of sacrilege to heretics of all sorts, but proved an occasion of error to certain Catholics even.

When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place, so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: “Let there be no innovation — nothing but what has been handed down.” For that holy and prudent man well knew that true piety admits no other rule than that whatsoever things have been faithfully received from our fathers the same are to be faithfully consigned to our children; and that it is our duty, not to lead religion whither we would, but rather to follow religion whither it leads; and that it is the part of Christian modesty and gravity not to hand down our own beliefs or observances to those who come after us, but to preserve and keep what we have received from those who went before us. (Commonitorium, 6)

The Church history Sozomen (c. 370 – d. after 439), of Palestine, wrote the following concerning the activities of St. Athanasius in relation to Pope Juilus (pope from AD 337-52):

Athanasius, on leaving Alexandria, had fled to Rome. Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, and Asclepas, bishop of Gaza, repaired thither at the same time. Asclepas, who was opposed to the Arians and had therefore been deposed, after having been accused by some of the heterodox of having thrown down an altar; Quintianus had been appointed in his stead over the Church of Gaza. Lucius also, bishop of Adrianople, who had been deposed from the church under his care on another charge, was dwelling at this period in Rome. The Roman bishop, on learning the accusation against each individual, and on finding that they held the same sentiments about the Nicæan dogmas, admitted them to communion as of like orthodoxy; and as the care [oversight - kedemonia] for all was fitting to the dignity of his see, he restored them all to their own churches. He wrote to the bishops of the East, and rebuked them for having judged these bishops unjustly, and for harassing the Churches by abandoning the Nicæan doctrines. He summoned a few among them to appear before him on an appointed day, in order to account to him for the sentence they had passed, and threatened to bear with them no longer, unless they would cease to make innovations. This was the tenor of his letters. Athanasius and Paul were reinstated in their respective sees, and forwarded the letter of Julius to the bishops of the East. … The bishops of Egypt, having sent a declaration in writing that these allegations were false, and Julius having been apprised that Athanasius was far from being in safety in Egypt, sent for him to his own city. He replied at the same time to the letter of the bishops who were convened at Antioch, for just then he happened to have received their epistle, and accused them of having clandestinely introduced innovations contrary to the dogmas of the Nicene council, and of having violated the laws of the Church, by neglecting to invite him to join their Synod; for he alleged that there is a sacerdotal canon which declares that whatever is enacted contrary to the judgment of the bishop of Rome is null.” (Ecclesiastical History, Bk III)

Elsewhere the next book he wrote:

This event was, no doubt, ordained by God, that the seat of Peter might not be dishonored by the occupancy of two bishops; for such an arrangement is a sign of discord, and is foreign to ecclesiastical law. (Ecclesiastical History, Bk IV,15)

Pope St. Leo the Great, who was pope from 440 through 461, wrote the following in the year AD 443:

Leo, bishop of the city of Rome, to all the bishops appointed in Campania, Picenum, Etruria, and all the provinces, greeting in the Lord. … All such persons [men who have married a widow, or a divorced woman], therefore, who have been admitted [to the priesthood] we order to be put out of their offices in the church and from the title of priest by the authority of the Apostolic See: for they will have no claim to that for which they were not eligible, on account of the obstacle in question: and we specially claim for ourselves the duty of settling this, that if any of these irregularities have been committed, they may be corrected and may not be allowed to occur again, and that no excuse may arise from ignorance: although it has never been allowed a priest to be ignorant of what has been laid down by the rules of the canons. (Letter 4)

Pope St. Leo the Great, around the year AD 446, wrote the following:

The connection of the whole body makes all alike healthy, all alike beautiful: and this connection requires the unanimity indeed of the whole body, but it especially demands harmony among the priests. And though they have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank; inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honourable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself: but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren: and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its head. Let not him then who knows he has been set over certain others take it ill that some one has been set over him, but let him himself render the obedience which he demands of them. (Letter 14 of Pope Leo I to Anastasius, Bishop of Thessalonica).

Pope St. Leo, to the bishop of Aquileia:

Let them [i.e. the Pelagians] by their public confession condemn the authors of this presumptuous error and renounce all that the universal Church has repudiated in their doctrine: and let them announce by full and open statements, signed by their own hand, that they embrace and entirely approve of all the synodal decrees which the authority of the Apostolic See has ratified to the rooting out of this heresy. (Letter 1)

Pope St. Leo, writing in July of 445:

To the beloved brothers, the whole body of bishops of the province of Vienne, Leo, bishop of Rome. Our Lord Jesus Christ, Saviour of mankind, instituted the observance of the Divine religion which He wished by the grace of God to shed its brightness upon all nations and all peoples …. But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the Apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the Apostles. And He wanted His gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery…. The Apostolic See — out of reverence for it, I mean, — has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your province. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom. (Letter 10)

Pope St. Leo wrote to the Council of Chalcedon in 451:

I had indeed prayed, dearly beloved, on behalf of my dear colleagues that all the Lord’s priests would persist in united devotion to the Catholic Faith, and that no one would be misled by favour or fear of secular powers into departure from the way of Truth; but because many things often occur to produce penitence and God’s mercy transcends the faults of delinquents, and vengeance is postponed in order that reformation may have place, we must make much of our most merciful prince’s piously intentioned Council, in which he has desired your holy brotherhood to assemble for the purpose of destroying the snares of the devil and restoring the peace of the Church, so far respecting the rights and dignity of the most blessed Apostle Peter as to invite us too by letter to vouchsafe our presence at your venerable Synod. That indeed is not permitted either by the needs of the times or by any precedent. Yet in these brethren, that is Paschasinus and Lucentius, bishops, Boniface and Basil, presbyters, who have been deputed by the Apostolic See, let your brotherhood reckon that I am presiding at the Synod; for my presence is not withdrawn from you, who am now represented by my vicars, and have this long time been really with you in the proclaiming of the Catholic Faith: so that you who cannot help knowing what we believe in accordance with ancient tradition, cannot doubt what we desire. (Letter 93)

Theodoret, (c. 393 – 457) a native of Antioch, and bishop of Cyrus: wrote the following letter to Pope Leo about AD 449:

To Leo, bishop of Rome. If Paul, the herald of the Truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, had recourse to the great Peter, in order to obtain a decision from him for those at Antioch who were disputing about living by the Law, much more do we small and humble folk run to the Apostolic See to get healing from you for the sores of the churches. For it is fitting that you should in all things have the pre-eminence, seeing that your See possesses many peculiar privileges. For other cities get a name for size or beauty or population, and some that are devoid of these advantages are compensated by certain spiritual gifts: but your city has the fullest abundance of good things from the Giver of all good. For she is of all cities the greatest and most famous, the mistress of the world and teeming with population. And besides this she has created an empire which is still predominant and has imposed her own name upon her subjects. But her chief decoration is her Faith, to which the Divine Apostle is a sure witness when he exclaims “your faith is proclaimed in all the world;” (Rom 1:8) and if immediately after receiving the seeds of the saving Gospel she bore such a weight of wondrous fruit, what words are sufficient to express the piety which is now found in her? She has, too, the tombs of our common fathers and teachers of the Truth, Peter and Paul , to illumine the souls of the faithful. And this blessed and divine pair arose indeed in the East, and shed its rays in all directions, but voluntarily underwent the sunset of life in the West, from whence now it illumines the whole world. These have rendered your See so glorious: this is the chief of all your goods. And their See is still blest by the light of their God’s presence, seeing that therein He has placed your Holiness to shed abroad the rays of the one true Faith. (Letter 52)

Theodoret, in a letter to the presbyter Renatus, writes:

This most holy See [Rome] has preserved the supremacy over all Churches on the earth, for one especial reason among many others; to wit, that it has remained intact from the defilement of heresy. No one has ever sat on that Chair, who has taught heretical doctrine; rather that See has ever preserved unstained the Apostolic grace. (Letter 116)

Bishops Ceretius, Salonius and Veranus, in a letter to Pope St. Leo, concerning his “Tome,” which he wrote in 449:

Moreover we, who specially belong to you, are filled with a great and unspeakable delight, because this special statement of your teaching is so highly regarded wherever the Churches meet together, that the unanimous opinion is expressed that the primacy of the Apostolic See is rightfully there assigned, from whence the oracles of the Apostolic Spirit still receive their interpretations. (Letter 68)

St. Peter Chrysologus (c. 400 – 450), a Greek and bishop of Ravenna, in a letter to Eutyches [an archimandrite of a monastery outside the walls of Constantinople, where he ruled over three hundred monks] about AD 449, wrote the following:

We exhort you in every respect, humble brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the City of Rome” (Letter to Eutyches).

The bishops of the Council of Chalcedon wrote the following to Pope St. Leo in AD 451:

We have ratified also the canon of the 150 holy Fathers who met at Constantinople in the time of the great Theodosius of holy memory [i.e. AD 381], which ordains that after your most holy and Apostolic See, the See of Constantinople shall take precedence, being placed second: for we are persuaded that with your usual care for others you have often extended that Apostolic prestige which belongs to you, to the church in Constantinople also, by virtue of your great disinterestedness in sharing all your own good things with your spiritual kinsfolk. Accordingly vouchsafe most holy and blessed father to accept as your own wish, and as conducing to good government the things which we have resolved on for the removal of all confusion and the confirmation of church order. For your holiness’ delegates, the most pious bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and with them the right Godly presbyter Boniface, attempted vehemently to resist these decisions, from a strong desire that this good work also should start from your foresight, in order that the establishment of good order as well as of the Faith should be put to your account. (Letter 98)⁹

E. Sixth Century

Pope St. Hormisdas, who was bishop of Rome from AD 514 through 523, wrote the following:

Our first safety is to guard the rule of the right faith and to deviate in no wise from the ordinances of the Fathers; because we cannot pass over the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ who said: “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church” . . . [Matt 16:18] These [words] which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain. Desiring not to be separated from this hope and faith and following the ordinances of the Fathers, we anathematize all heresies, especially the heretic Nestorius, who at one time was bishop of the city of Constantinople …. Similarly anathematizing both Eutyches and Dioscorus of Alexandria …. We condemn, too, and anathematize Acacius, formerly bishop of Constantinople, who was condemned by the Apostolic See …. No less do we condemn Peter of Antioch with his followers …. Moreover, we accept and approve all the letters of the blessed Leo the Pope, which he wrote regarding the Christian religion, just as we said before, following the Apostolic See in all things, and extolling all its ordinances. And therefore, I hope that I may merit to be in the one communion with you, which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which there is the whole and the true and the perfect solidity of the Christian religion, promising that in the future the names of those separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, those not agreeing with the Apostolic See, shall not be read during the sacred mysteries. (Cited from Denzinger 171-2)

Pelagius I, the bishop of Rome from 556 to 561, wrote the following:

… the Church was founded by Christ our Lord upon the chief of the Apostles, so that the gates of hell might not be able to prevail against it…. If you had read this, where did you believe the Church to be outside of him [the Pope] in whom alone are clearly all the apostolic sees? To whom in like measure as to him, who had received the keys, has the power of binding and of loosing been granted? ( )

Pope St. Gregory the Great, who was pope from 540 to 604, wrote the following to John, the bishop of Syracuse:

For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see. (Registrum Epistolarum Bk IX, Letter 12)

In another letter to Bishop John, Pope St. Gregory writes:

And it is exceedingly doubtful whether he says such things to us sincerely, or in fact because he is being attacked by his fellow bishops: for, as to his saying that he is subject to the Apostolic See, if any fault is found in bishops, I know not what bishop is not subject to it. But when no fault requires it to be otherwise, all according to the principle of humility are equal. (Registrum Epistolarum Bk IX, Letter 59)

In a letter to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria, Pope St. Gregory writes:

Gregory to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria.

Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. 16:19). And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep (John 21:17). Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See [i.e. Alexandria] to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See [i.e. Antioch] in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us John 17:21. (Letter to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria)

The testimony of the tradition we find in the Fathers and other early writers indicates a deepening awareness of the significance and authority of St. Peter’s chair, especially in grounding and preserving the fidelity and unity of the Church. But some conception of the authority of this chair seems to have been present even from the second century. And the clearest and most developed conception of this authority seems to have been in the particular Church of Rome, and especially in her bishops. At the same time, there is no comparable set of patristic quotations in which it is claimed that the chair of St. Peter did not hold such authority. So the inquirer is then faced with a dilemma that in a certain respect parallels that each of us faces regarding Christ’s own claims concerning Himself.¹⁰ Either the Church at Rome almost immediately fell into serious error regarding her own eccesial authority and role in relation to the universal Church, and though various bishops at times disagreed with her decisions (e.g. St. Cyprian), no one ‘corrected’ her claim concerning her own authority until the time of Photius in the ninth century, or during all those centuries (and to the present) she was truly what she always claimed to be. The former option leaves us with the paradox that the Apostolic seat widely believed to be the touchstone of orthodoxy in every respect for hundreds of years, was terribly wrong about its own identity, and therefore unsuited to be anyone’s touchstone of orthodoxy. In this way, we are left either with some form of ecclesial deism, or the unavoidable conclusion that the Catholic Church, consisting of all those particular Churches throughout the world in full communion with the episcopal successor of St. Peter in the Apostolic See, is the Church Christ founded, and over which, by His promise, the gates of hell shall not prevail.

St. Peter said to Jesus, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.” (John 6:68) Christ, in response, made these same words apply to St. Peter, by making St. Peter the principium unitatis of the Church. If we were to turn away from St. Peter, to whom should we go? What other visible ecclesial authority has been given St. Peter’s authority and charism? Likewise, if we wish to see all Christians united in full visible unity, we must do so by entering into communion with the one who by Christ’s authorization is the rightful occupant of the chair of St. Peter.

St. Peter and all holy Apostles, pray for us, that we may be one in truth, in sacraments, and in loving obedience to our rightful shepherds. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

1. There is another version of this text, which appears to have been written a few years later, when St. Cyprian was disputing with Pope St. Stephen regarding the re-baptism of heretics. That version can be read here. Dom John Chapman, in the second chapter of his book titled Studies on the Early Papacy, provides good reasons to believe that both versions were written by St. Cyprian. See here.
2. This same question arose again in the following century with respect to the Donatist schism.
3. In his 69th Epistle, St.Cyprian writes, “But if he cannot give the Holy Spirit, because he that is appointed without [i.e. outside the Church] is not endowed with the Holy Spirit, he cannot baptize those who come; since both baptism is one and the Holy Spirit is one, and the Church founded by Christ the Lord upon Peter, by a source and principle of unity, is one also. Hence it results, that since with them all things are futile and false, nothing of that which they have done ought to be approved by us.”
4. And you [Pope Julius], most dearly loved brother, though absent from us in body, were present in mind concordant, and will . . . For this will be seen to be best, and by far the most befitting thing, if to the head, that is to the see of the Apostle Peter, the priests of the Lord report from every one of the provinces” (Fragment 2 ex opere Historico [ex Epistle Sardic. Concil. Ad Julium [before 367 AD]
5. That definition of schism is very similar to what we see today in the Catechism of the Catholic Church; see CCC 2089.
6. Cf. Holy See.
7. About that same time, in AD 393, St. Jerome wrote:

   The Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.” (Against Jovianus, Bk I)

8. On that same day, Pope St. Boniface wrote the following letter to the bishops of Thessaly:

   The universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter, in which is found both directing power and its supreme authority. From him as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity: in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship.” (Epistle 14, to the bishops of Thessaly, cited in Giles, p. 230.)

9. Pope St. Leo wrote later, “But the bishops’ assents, which are opposed to the regulations of the holy canons composed at Nicæa in conjunction with your faithful Grace, we do not recognize, and by the blessed Apostle Peter’s authority we absolutely dis-annul in comprehensive terms.” (Letter 105)
10. See C.S. Lewis’ trilemma regarding Christ in his book Mere Christianity.

The discussion is a roughly seven-thousand word interchange between Michael Horton and myself. But the published discussion ends rather abruptly, and not as our actual discussion ended. In actuality, after a couple of exchanges, I received Michael’s fourth comment, which was about eighteen hundred words long. As I began to prepare my reply, Ryan informed me that there was space enough for me to write only five hundred more words. So, I sent him a five-hundred word comment just wrapping things up, and letting him know that I would post a longer reply later, here on Called to Communion. But unfortunately none of my five-hundred word comment was included in the published version, I presume because there was less available space than Ryan had estimated.

Online access to the Modern Reformation article requires a subscription, and I cannot reproduce the entire article here. So below I have included the very last two comments in the article as it appears in its published form: Michael’s eighteen-hundred word comment and then my fifty word comment. That is the part in burgundy-colored font. Then, below that, I have provided the original five-hundred word comment that I sent to Ryan and Michael as what I thought would be my concluding comment in the dialogue. Then below that I present a more thorough response to Michael’s last comment. I would like to thank Ryan and Michael once again for inviting me to dialogue, and for their example of grace and civility in a discussion about issues and divisions that are so sensitive and provocative that negative emotions can easily poison the well of genuinely productive ecumenical dialogue. I see such dialogue as a stepping-stone to future reconciliation. Finally, I should note that in the introduction of this issue of Modern Reformation, on page two I am described as a “former Presbyterian pastor,” when in fact I was never a Presbyterian pastor.

____________________

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.¹

____________________

Here, below is the unpublished five-hundred word reply that I submitted after learning that there was space for me to write only five-hundred more words:

Bryan Cross: Michael, I’m told by Ryan that there is space for me to say only five hundred more words. In such a short space I cannot give an adequate reply to your most recent comments. So I will offer a very brief summary here of what I see as the most fundamental point of disagreement, and later at Called To Communion I’ll post a more thorough reply to your latest comment.

Three years ago your colleague R. Scott Clark, talking about the Federal Vision controversy, said the following: “All heretics quote Scripture. The question in this controversy is not the normativity of the Bible but who gets to interpret it.” He was absolutely correct. But it is not only the question in the FV controversy; it is ultimately the same question at the very heart of the Protestant-Catholic divide: Who has interpretive authority? The Catholic answer to that question is based on apostolic succession. Christ did not leave His Church with only a book; He also authorized and equipped a perpetual, visible living magisterial authority to provide the authoritative interpretation of Scripture to His flock, until He returns. The Church universally affirmed and practiced apostolic succession, wherever she spread all over the world, as is clear in the historical record from the second century on. There wasn’t some great controversy or debate as the ‘heretical’ practice of apostolic succession universally swept over the Church in the first and second centuries, and replaced the ‘original’ notion that ecclesial leadership was based entirely on agreement with the Apostles’ doctrine. If the Apostles didn’t institute the practice of apostolic succession, that’s a very strange silence. If apostolic succession were a later innovation, we would expect to find all those Christians who were being martyred for holding fast to what the Apostles had taught, vociferously protesting to the death that apostolic succession is not the way the Apostles set up the basis for leadership in the Church. But what we find instead is that these martyrs are the ones defending apostolic succession, and defending those bishops ordained by way of apostolic succession. The only ones denying the necessity of apostolic succession were the second-century Gnostics, because they didn’t have it. One must adopt a radical ecclesial deism in order to explain away such evidence.

Although it would be nice to think that Scripture is so clear that no visible living interpretive authority is needed to provide the authoritative interpretation, if the fragmentation of Protestantism over the past four hundred and ninety years is not enough to falsify such a position, then how many more centuries of division would be needed to falsify it? Exegesis and hermeneutics cannot unite Christians in one body; only a divinely authorized visible living interpretive authority can do so.

I wish to thank you for inviting me to participate in this discussion. I pray that it may be helpful for advancing mutual understanding, and the eventual reconciliation of Protestants and Catholics together again in the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.

But, Michael’s eighteen-hundred word comment obviously calls for a more thorough reply, which I had intended to give. So, below is my reply to Michael’s last comment in the dialogue. It is divided into twelve sections, as I have outlined here:

Outline

I. The Tu Quoque
II. Perspicuity of Scripture
III. Persons and Texts
IV. Strife and Error in the First Century
V. Following the Spirit
VI. Trent vs. Scripture?
VII. The Roman Catholic Church: An Oxymoron?
VIII. Scripture and Tradition
IX. Apostolic Succession
A. Evidence from Tradition
B. The Ground of Magisterial Authority
C. Evidence from Scripture
X. Bishops
XI. The Authority of the Magisterium in Relation to Scripture
XII. The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty

____________________

Michael,

You have raised a number of objections to the Catholic position, so many, in fact, that answering them with sufficient depth and care would require something approaching a book-length reply. So for the sake of space and time I’ll sketch out relatively brief replies to your primary objections.

I. The Tu Quoque

I stated earlier in our discussion that the problem with claiming that the Reformed confessions and catechisms are binding because they summarize the teaching of Scripture is that such a claim leaves out the “according to whom.” That is, each different Protestant confession and catechism summarizes the interpretation of Scripture held by some subset of like-minded Protestants. And each confessional denomination thinks its own tradition’s confession best summarizes the teaching of Scripture. Without apostolic succession, ultimately the only answer to the “according to whom” question is “me and those who agree with me.” But since without apostolic succession no subset of Protestants has any more authority than do any other Christians, therefore there is no ground or basis for any Protestant to claim that his own confession has any more authority than that of any other Protestants. He can treat his own confession as authoritative only by arbitrarily ascribing to himself an authority he would deny to Protestants holding interpretations contrary to his own, or by abstracting away the existence of contrary Protestant hermeneutical traditions.

Your response to this argument is essentially that the Catholic is in the same boat, picking some particular ecclesial institution on the basis of its agreement with his own interpretation. We might summarize this response as the tu quoque objection. Here’s why the tu quoque is not true—for the same reason you think magisterial authority is more than ministerial authority. Apostolic succession qualitatively changes the picture by including in the present a visible living magisterial authority, having its authority not on the basis of agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture, but on the basis of authorization by Christ through His Apostles and their successors. If apostolic succession is true, and if Christ gave to St. Peter and his successors the primacy with respect to teaching and interpretive authority, then no creed is binding-because-of-one’s-own-judgment-that-it-accurately-summarizes-Scripture, but instead because of an authoritative decision by the successors of the Apostles in communion with the successor of St. Peter that the creed in question authentically presents the deposit of faith entrusted to the Apostles and faithfully preserved and handed down by their successors. The doctrine of apostolic succession entails that orthodoxy is found ultimately through living divinely authorized visible persons. By contrast, the denial of apostolic succession relativizes ‘orthodoxy,’ because no person has any greater interpretive authority than does anyone else, and so no one’s interpretation of Scripture is any more ecclesially authoritative than is anyone else’s. No one’s ‘orthodoxy’ is any more binding than is anyone else’s, and no one’s ‘heresy’ is any more condemned than is anyone else’s.

Of course the inquirer has to determine whether there is a succession of authority from the Apostles to the bishops of the present day, and whether Christ gave to St. Peter and his successors the primacy. But just as our discovery of Christ does not entail that the basis or ground of His authority is our judgment that He is the Son of God, and just as a first century Roman citizen’s discovery of the Apostles would not entail that the basis or ground of their authority is his judgment that they were sent by Christ, so the contemporary inquirer’s discovery of the Catholic Magisterium extending down through the centuries by an unbroken succession from the Apostles to the present day does not entail that the basis or ground of this Magisterium’s authority is the inquirer’s judgment that it is the divinely authorized teaching authority of the Church Christ founded. The reasons by which he grasps its authority are not the ground of its authority, whereas without apostolic succession the only ground for the authority of any confession or pastor is its or his general agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. I have written a more detailed response to the tu quoque objection in a post titled, “The Tu Quoque.”

II. Perspicuity of Scripture

You stated that my claim that the only basis for the Westminster Confession of Faith’s ‘authority’ is one’s own agreement with its interpretation of Scripture assumes that the Bible is “murky, confusing, perhaps even contradictory.” First, I’m not sure where you got the notion that my position is that the Bible is “perhaps even contradictory.” We agreed at the outset that the Bible is inerrant, and this has always been the consistent teaching of the Catholic Church.² And since truth cannot contradict truth, therefore it should be clear that my position cannot possibly be that the Bible is contradictory.

As for whether the Bible is “murky” and “confusing,” as St. Peter tells us in 2 Peter 3:16 some parts of Scripture are “hard to understand” and easily subject to distortion by untaught interpreters. If Philip the deacon had thought all Scripture is easily understood, he would not have asked the Ethiopian eunuch whether he understood what he was reading. Nor would the eunuch have replied, “How could I, unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8:31) And I think you agree on this, because otherwise you would not participate in the activity of a seminary, an institution built on the notion that persons need training in order rightly to interpret and teach Sacred Scripture.

Take Jesus’ parables, as an example. If the Apostles had not explained the meaning of Jesus’ parables, it is quite likely that no degree of exegesis could have determined their meaning. In themselves, exegesis and our best hermeneutical tools would have left the meaning entirely underdetermined. In the time of Christ, the only way to learn what the parables meant, was to learn the meaning from those to whom Christ had privately revealed it. And this same hermeneutical principle remains true to this day for so many Jews who study the Old Testament; a veil remains over their eyes, as St. Paul says regarding the unbelieving Jews of his time. “But their minds were hardened; for until this very day at the reading of the old covenant the same veil remains unlifted.” (2 Cor 3:14) They can read the words, but they cannot understand what they are reading, no matter how many exegetical or hermeneutical tools they apply to the text. Perceiving the true meaning of the Sacred Scripture is not fundamentally a matter of using the right exegetical tools or methods, because as St. Paul explains, the natural man cannot accept the things of the Spirit of God, because they are spiritually discerned. (1 Cor 2:14)

And this same principle applies broadly to the whole of sacred Scripture, precisely because it is a divine text. The problem with the mere exegetical approach is not exegesis itself; the problem is much deeper. The notion that all one needs in order rightly to interpret Scripture are exegetical tools, lexicons, and the historico-critical method, denigrates Scripture by reducing it to a merely natural book, decipherable through natural tools and the natural power of human reason. The notion that proper scholarship is sufficient to determine the meaning of Scripture is what I would call hermeneutical Pelagianism. That is true even if one appropriates the guidance and approval of the Spirit, by claiming that the Spirit guides one’s own exegesis and hermeneutics, or at least guides those who generally share one’s own conclusions from Scripture. And if one claims to rely on the Church for the interpretation of Scripture, then without apostolic succession one has only reasoned in a circle, as I showed here.

Some Protestants think that if Scripture requires divine aid to be rightly understood, this makes Scripture inferior to other writings, as though it implies that God is incapable of writing to humans even as well as we can. But there is another way to view this. If Scripture could be understood just as we can understand the writings of mere men, without the aid of divine grace, this would reduce Scripture to something merely natural, and not supernatural. It is precisely because Scripture is supernatural (i.e. having God as its primary Author), and reveals truths that exceed the capacity of natural reason to grasp on its own, that we require divine aid in order to understand it rightly. We need divine aid in order rightly to understand Scripture precisely because Scripture is superior to every other writing; in fact it is divine, and thus incapable of being truly grasped by finite minds, without grace from above. What is supernatural cannot be attained to by what is natural, without divine aid. The denial of that truth is the essence of the Pelagian error, i.e. to think that what is supernatural can be attained by what is merely natural, without supernatural aid.

Of course a person with no training or guidance can come to faith in Christ through reading the Bible, by the aid of the Holy Spirit. Many people have come to faith in Christ in this way. The disagreement and fragmentation among well-meaning Christians demonstrates that God has not given the Spirit’s infallible guidance to each Christian individually. Hence the unity of the Church cannot be preserved by Scripture alone, as the history of Protestantism clearly shows. The notion that without a divinely authorized magisterium Church unity can be preserved by Scripture alone has been shown to be false by the many schisms and sects of the four hundred and ninety year experiment that is Protestantism.³ A divinely authorized magisterium is necessary, and has permitted the Catholic Church to remain a unified body for almost two thousand years, even though many others have gone out from her. And while there have always been Catholics who in some respect dissent from what the Magisterium of the Church teaches, their doing so only separated themselves in that respect from the one faith taught definitively by the Church’s Magisterium. The essential unity of the Magisterium serves to preserve the first of the Church’s four marks listed in the Creed: unity.

I do agree with you that there were theological disagreements within the Church prior to the sixteenth century, and there have been disagreements within the Church all the way back to the beginning of the Church. But it would be anachronistic to describe any party in those prior conflicts as ‘Protestant.’ When some Catholics would obstinately retain a position contrary to the doctrine the Church’s Magisterium had already definitively determined, those persons were by that very fact shown to be holding a heretical position, and were either brought to repentance and reconciliation with the Church, or excommunicated. But when those disagreements were about doctrinal matters that had not yet been formally defined by the Church’s Magisterium, they were fully compatible with unity in the faith, and thus with full communion in the Church’s sacraments and hierarchy.⁴ A Protestant obviously wouldn’t want to say that the sixteenth century disagreement between Protestants and the Catholic Church was a disagreement of the former sort, for that would be to categorize Protestantism as one more heresy in the history of the Church. But neither can Protestantism be described as a disagreement of the latter sort, because the Church has spoken definitively and irreversibly in the ecumenical Council of Trent. Therefore, disagreements within the Church regarding doctrinal matters not yet defined do not show either that a living visible magisterial authority is unnecessary for preserving the Church in “one faith,” or that the Protestant’s rejection of the Council of Trent on the basis of appeals to his own interpretation of Scripture is comparable to those earlier in-house disagreements about doctrinal questions the Church’s Magisterium had not yet decided. In-house theological disagreement about matters not yet defined is one thing; cases of heresy and schism are something else altogether.

You stated that the Bible is “marvelously clear on the essentials of doctrine and life.” If that were true, disagreement regarding which doctrines are essential could be due only to illiteracy or malice. But when we engage in on-the-ground ecumenical dialogue with Christians in other interpretive traditions, we find that the people with whom we disagree on such matters are generally neither unintelligent nor malicious. That implies that resolving the disagreements regarding which doctrines are essential is not as simple as pointing to Bible verses. Otherwise, after the last five centuries of reading and studying Scripture, then even if there was not an initial agreement concerning the meaning of Scripture, there should be at least a convergence of biblical interpretations among all students of Scripture. Instead there has been a continual multiplication of doctrinal disagreements among the various Protestant traditions. Nor does appealing to the creeds resolve the question because, for example, Protestants and Catholics do not agree regarding the referent of “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church,” and what “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” means. In addition, as you noted at the beginning of our discussion, Catholics and Protestants do not even agree over which books belong to the Bible, and that question cannot be resolved by appealing to the Bible. For these reasons, Scripture alone is not capable of answering the “essentials” question.

III. Persons and Texts

You raise another important objection when you suggest that my position is that Scripture requires the clarity of an infallible teacher, but that the Magisterium needs no interpreter. You see such a notion as an ad hoc juxtaposition of postmodernism on the one hand and absolutism on the other hand. I have already explained just above why Scripture, being a divine inspired text, requires the aid of the Spirit to be faithfully interpreted, on pain of hermeneutical Pelagianism. Noting this limitation of human reason is not a form of skepticism; it is rather a recognition of the limits of the natural power of human reason before a supernatural text. And the last five-hundred years of Protestant history only confirm this about the powerlessness of human reason to resolve interpretive disputes. In light of that continual fragmentation, it would be naïve to maintain that “faithful interpretation of Scripture” is available to everyone, through interpreting it for themselves, or through following academia.

Let me clarify that it is not my position that the Magisterium “needs no interpreter.” But when the Magisterium needs to be interpreted, the Magisterium itself performs this function, just as St. Philip explained to the Ethiopian eunuch what the prophet Isaiah meant. This is not some ad hoc juxstaposition of postmodernism and absolutism. There is a relevant ontological distinction between the respective communicative potencies of persons and books; and this distinction has very important hermeneutical implications. This is why it does not follow that if a book needs an authoritative interpreter in order to function as an ecclesial authority holding the Church in “one faith,” then we must need an infinite regress of living persons in order to interpret the living voice we presently hear.

A book contains a monologue with respect to the reader. A book’s author can often anticipate the thoughts and questions that might arise in the mind of the reader. But a book cannot hear the reader’s questions here and now, and answer them. A living person, however, can do so. A living person can engage in genuine personal dialogue with the reader, whereas a book cannot. Writing is a human technology that records the speech or dialogues of others, but cannot engage in authentic personal dialogue with the reader. Chesterton notes this when he writes that though we can put a living person in the dock, we cannot put a book in the dock. In this respect, a person can do what a book cannot; a person can correct global misunderstandings and answer comprehensive interpretive questions. A book by its very nature has a limited intrinsic potency for interpretive self-clarification; a person, on the other hand, by his very nature has, in principle, an unlimited intrinsic potency with respect to interpretive self-clarification. This unlimited potency of persons with respect to interpretive self-clarification ensures that the hermeneutical spiral may reach its goal; we can continue to ask clarification questions, be heard, and receive answers to those very questions, until the questions are answered. By contrast, a book cannot speak more about itself than it does at the moment at which it is completed; thus without a visible living magisterium, disputes regarding the interpretation of Scripture can in principle be interminable and unresolvable. A person, by contrast, remains perpetually capable of clarifying further any of his previous speech-acts. So likewise an enduring Magisterium made up of persons remains perpetually capable of clarifying and explaining any of its previous statements.

One objection is an argument that takes the form of a dilemma in which it is claimed that we must choose between an infinite hermeneutical regress on the one hand, and on the other hand, no need for an interpretive authority when interpreting Scripture. Our response to this objection is to show that it is a false dilemma. We do not have to choose between an infinite hermeneutical regress, and not needing an interpretive authority. It can be true that we need a living interpretive authority in order for Scripture to fulfill its function as the authoritative Word of God, without it being true that we are stuck in an infinite hermeneutical regress. One reason why there is no necessary infinite hermeneutical regress is that with a living Magisterium we can continue to ask clarifying questions, even to the point of saying, “I’m understanding you to be saying x. Is x what you are saying? Yes or no?” And the Magisterium can respond by saying “yes” or “no.” And at that point, there is no need for an interpretive authority, so long as a person understands the English language and has adequate hearing. Interpreting “yes” and “no” is quite different from interpreting, say, the book of Romans. We do not need an interpretive authority to explain the meaning of ‘yes’ and ‘no.’ But we may very well need an interpretive authority to explain the meaning of the book of Romans, or at least to help us avoid misinterpreting it.

Does my position involve a “radical surrender of one’s fate to ecclesial authority”? Yes, it does. Faith in Christ involves radical surrender to Christ, through radical surrender to those He has placed in authority in His Body the Church, just as for the first generation of Christians listening to Christ involved listening to His Apostles. “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects Me; but he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me.” (Luke 10:16) This requirement to submit to the Church is part of the gospel, to come and take up one’s cross and die with Christ, in His Body, the Church. That man who remains his own highest arbiter of what Christ said and did has not yet discovered the Apostles and the living Church present in the world today. His gospel is a kind of gnosticism which grants him only an invisible Christ and an invisible Church. Where no radical trust in the Church is required, the Church has not yet been discovered. As the Church Fathers said repeatedly, “He cannot have God for His Father who does not have the Church for his Mother.”

IV. Strife and Error in the First Century

You suggest that I am being naïve, because in your opinion I must be either unaware or unable to account for two phenomena in the first century: the internal strife among the Apostles, and the presence of errors and disciplinary issues in the particular Churches. You wrote that the Church was “full of all sorts of doctrinal errors during the time of the apostles. … [T]he church is a mess and it has always been.” As a Catholic I can agree with that last statement, under a certain qualification. And I am aware of the internal strife among the Apostles and the presence of errors and disciplinary issues in the particular Churches of the first century; both are fully compatible with Catholic theology and ecclesiology.

There have always been sinners in the Church, and there have always been dissenters and heretics. In every generation of the Church we find some new or old heresy arising and leading some people astray. They go out from us, as St. John put it. (1 John 2:19) In addition, there have always been some unfaithful men among the clergy, men who have committed shameful deeds, or watered down or perverted the faith, or led their flock into schism. There have always been such men in the Church, and their sin has always been the cause of scandal. Likewise, in every century of the Church’s history there have been instances of disagreement between certain bishops, and cases of certain priests or bishops requiring Church discipline.

On that we agree. But from that you conclude that only Scripture has divine authority and only Scripture is infallible, and that there is no visible living magisterial authority in the Church Christ founded. That conclusion does not follow from those premises. The presence of a visible living magisterial authority in the Church does not entail that those belonging to the Magisterium will never disagree with each other, nor does it entail that particular Churches will never err. It entails that when the Magisterium speaks with her full authority, either when the bishops in communion with the episcopal successor of St. Peter, together with him, definitively determine a matter of faith or morals in ecumenical council, or when the Pope does so ex cathedra, they are protected from error by the Holy Spirit, and hence such dogmas can never be subsequently overturned or revoked or denied. The fact that Barnabas and Paul had a disagreement, or that Paul rebuked Peter, does not in any way reduce the magisterial authority of the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15 to that of the individual interpreter of Scripture. In other words, none of these things makes the individual believer his own highest interpretive authority; the Magisterium remains the divinely instituted authority to which all those who wish to follow Christ should submit, and to whose judgments their own private interpretation of Scripture should conform.

St. Paul said to the Ephesian elders, “I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.” (Acts 20:29) He speaks here of heretics coming into the Church and seeking to lead her members astray. But St. Paul is not saying that the universal [visible] Church will be led astray, or that the Magisterium of the Church will be taken over by wolves. That would have been to deny the very purpose of Christ establishing magisterial authority in His Church. We believe that Christ by His Holy Spirit is protecting His Church, guiding her into all truth, and preventing the gates of hell from prevailing against her. But there are continual onslaughts from the forces of darkness. Dissent, heresy and schism can and do occur, but thanks be to God they can never prevail against the Magisterium of the Church, the Magisterium that Christ Himself established and through which He continues to govern His Church. He has the key of David; what He opens no one will shut, and what He shuts, no one opens.⁵ There can be heresy in the Church, even among various bishops, but the Church herself, governed by the Magisterium Christ established in her to endure until He returns, can never fall into heresy. There can be schism within the Church, but the Church’s essential visible unity can never be diminished or destroyed, because whichever side separates itself from full communion with the episcopal successor of St. Peter, becomes by that very fact a schism from the Church.

Regarding theological matters not yet formally decided, internal disagreement about such matters is in a certain sense healthy for the Church, so long as it is done in charity, peace and the pursuit of truth. That is because the Holy Spirit often deigns to work through such debates to help deepen the Church’s understanding of the deposit of faith, clarifying the orthodox nature of orthodoxy and the heretical nature of heresy. But the decision of the Apostles in council together was protected from error by the Spirit. The decision of the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 did not become free from error only when St. Luke wrote about it; nor did it come to “seem good to the Holy Spirit” only after St. Luke, inspired by the Holy Spirit, wrote about it. Likewise, the presence of doctrinal error in particular Churches is not incompatible with Catholic theology. The Catholic Church has never believed or taught that every particular Church would be protected from heresy. The Catholic Church has believed and taught that the Holy Spirit prevents the Church universal, in communion with St. Peter and his successors, from falling into heresy. So the presence of errors in particular Churches is not incompatible with what the Catholic Church believes and teaches about the universal Church. But the presence of errors in various denominations is a problem for the claim that Scripture is marvelously clear on the essentials of doctrine and life, because if Scripture were marvelously clear on the essentials of doctrine and life, then there would be no errors in such matters among those who read and study Scripture.

V. Following the Spirit

You propose that the living teaching authority in the Church is Christ, by His Spirit, speaking in the Scripture. But the question is this: How does one know what the Spirit is saying? How does one find and follow the grace from above, by which to understand Scripture? The Mormons claim to rely on the Spirit, by following the burning in their bosom. But that is not a reliable way of determining what the Spirit is saying.⁶

The Catholic way of following the Spirit is to follow the Magisterium of the Church in its explication of the deposit of faith entrusted to it, not an internal bosom-burning. Christ promised that He would send His Spirit to guide His Church into all truth, and that He would be with her even until the end of the age. But where there are contradictory beliefs, the Spirit cannot be guiding both parties, because the Spirit is the Spirit of Truth,⁷ and by the Spirit the Church is the pillar and bulwark of Truth.⁸ So we are neither hermeneutical Pelagians who credit the Spirit for our own exegetical efforts, nor do we resort to the subjectivity of bosom-burning. We follow the Spirit by finding the Temple not made with human hands, because the Spirit dwells in the Church Christ Himself founded, and speaks through that Church.

We believe that because Scripture is a divinely-inspired book, it therefore requires the aid of the Holy Spirit in order to be understood rightly. And the means Christ established, by which the Holy Spirit would teach and guide His Church, is the divinely-established Magisterium (i.e. the Apostles and their successors), by whom His Spirit will lead His people into all truth.⁹ So, we agree that Christ is the living teaching authority in the Church, and that we must follow His Spirit speaking in the Scripture. But the point of disagreement here is that Catholics affirm, while Protestants deny, that it is through the successors of the Apostles that the Spirit guides the Church in rightly understanding the deposit of faith. Hence Dei Verbum, says:

But in order to keep the Gospel forever whole and alive within the Church, the Apostles left bishops as their successors, “handing over” to them “the authority to teach in their own place.” This sacred tradition, therefore, and Sacred Scripture of both the Old and New Testaments are like a mirror in which the pilgrim Church on earth looks at God, from whom she has received everything, until she is brought finally to see Him as He is, face to face (see 1 John 3:2). And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. (Dei Verbum, 7-8)

According to the Catholic Church, Christ established a permanent visible living teaching authority in His Church, so that Christians of all time would be able to know what is the truth concerning the deposit of faith He entrusted to His Apostles. When in describing the Catholic position I refer to the Church’s living teaching authority, I am referring to the Church’s visible living teaching authority. The visible Church Christ founded needs a visible living teaching authority. Because Christ’s physical body is not now visible to us, He cannot in that respect be the Church’s visible living teaching authority. That is why before His ascension He gave authority to men to be the visible living teaching authority of His Church until He returns, so that we would not be left like sheep without a shepherd.

VI. Trent vs. Scripture?

You also claim that the anathemas of the Council of Trent “set Rome in opposition to the clear, marvelous, and saving gospel that is taught in Scripture.” From my point of view, the Council of Trent is like the Council of Nicea with respect to Arianism, and the Council of Ephesus with respect to Nestorianism, and the Council of Chalcedon with respect to Eutycheanism—the Council of Trent, by its very authority as an ecumenical council, gives the orthodox way of understanding the doctrine of justification found in Scripture. In other words, it shows us how rightly to read and interpret the passages of Scripture so as to avoid heresy. That is why your use of your own interpretation of Scripture to judge that the Council of Trent erred in its teaching concerning justification, presupposes that Christ did not establish His Church with a Magisterium by which to provide us with the authoritative determination of orthodoxy and heresy. This paradigm difference makes the task of reconciling Protestants and Catholics much more difficult, because Protestants appeal to their own interpretation of Scripture to judge the Council of Trent to be in error, and Catholics look to the Magisterial authority of the Council of Trent to determine that the Protestant interpretation of Scripture is in error.

For example, the Council of Trent explains “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Romans 8:1) in relation to St. Paul’s claim in Romans 6 that we are buried together with Christ by baptism. The Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sin allows Romans 8:1 to be explained by union with Christ through the infusion of sanctifying grace and agape (Rom 5:5) into the soul through baptism. It allows it to be true that “in those who are born again God hates nothing.”¹⁰ The Council of Trent makes use of the Tradition to explain that in Romans 7:17 St. Paul is not speaking of sin itself, but of concupiscence, i.e. that disorder in our lower appetites which is not itself sin, but which is the result of sin and inclines us to sin, and must be manfully resisted. Understanding the seventh chapter of Romans in this way allows us to see justification as God truly making the believer righteous, such that by the infusion of sanctifying grace and agape there is now no condemnation for him. This is how the Tridentine Fathers understand St. Paul’s statement to the Corinthians: “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” (1 Corinthians 6:11) By the washing of baptism, the believers were both sanctified and justified, and received also the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.¹¹ Trent’s treatment of justification as being made internally righteous by the infusion of sanctifying grace and agape on account of the merit of Christ’s passion, allows the righteousness had by faith (Rom 4:11,13), the justification had by faith (Rom 5:1,16), and the free gift of righteousness (5:17), to be the same righteousness to which we are now “slaves,” (Rom 6:18) no longer walking in darkness but in newness of life. (Rom 6:4) According to St. Paul, obedience to this righteousness “leads to” righteousness, (Rom 6:16), which can also be described as yielding our members to righteousness for sanctification. (Rom 6:19) Given the teaching of Trent regarding justification, we can then see how growth in justification (i.e. righteousness) is part of St. Paul’s theology, and how justification and sanctification are co-referential terms.

This likewise reconciles St. Paul’s theology with the teaching of Jesus that all those who love Him keep His commandments (John 14:23, cf. 1 John 5:3), and that His yoke is easy and His burden light (Mt. 11:30), and that His commands are not burdensome (1 John 5:3). It likewise makes sense of Jesus’ statement to the rich young ruler: “if you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments.” (Mt. 19:17) It makes sense of Jesus’ claim that the whole law is summarized in the two great commandments to love God and to love one’s neighbor (Mt. 22:40), and St. Paul’s teaching that the whole Law is fulfilled in one word, in the statement, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” (Gal 5:14, Rom 13:8, 13:10) Without the mortal-venial distinction, James’ statement “For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all” would contradicts Jesus’ teaching about the law not being burdensome. We don’t have to imagine that James’ statement “If, however, you are fulfilling the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well” (James 2:8) is merely hypothetical, since “there is no sin so small, but it deserves damnation,” (Westminster Confession of Faith, XV), and “if we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” (1 John 1:8)

Seeing Scripture in this paradigm brings all the parts of Scripture into a beautiful harmony. But, from a Protestant paradigm, the Catholic claims seem contrary to Scripture. That is why the disagreement cannot be resolved by pointing to various Scripture verses, and thus presupposing that no one has greater interpretive authority than does anyone else, or by pointing to ecumenical councils, and thus presupposing that ecumenical councils have more authority than do individual interpreters, because underneath the disagreement about justification are two very different paradigms regarding the authority of the Church and her Magisterium. If the Catholic points to the Council of Trent to resolve the Protestant-Catholic dispute, that simply begs the question, i.e. assumes precisely what is in question between us. But likewise, if the Protestant simply points to Scripture to resolve the dispute that too begs the question. Both such approaches to the dispute do not address the underlying paradigmatic difference. So in order to resolve this long-standing schism we (Protestants and Catholics) have to learn to understand both positions, each on its own terms within its own paradigm, and then find common ground by which to evaluate the respective paradigms. I think the nature of the Catholic paradigm makes this is more difficult for a Protestant to do than for a Catholic seeking to understand the Protestant paradigm. Hence when you say, “So even if there were an infallible teaching office in the church today, Rome would fail that crucial test” you seemingly do not realize that if Rome does have a charism of infallibility, then where your theology is contrary to the doctrine taught by the Council of Trent, it is your interpretation of Scripture that is mistaken. So using your interpretation of Scripture to show that Rome does not have the charism of infalliblity assumes precisely what is in question.

You have claimed a few times in our discussion that the Magisterium has not been self-consistent. But you have not explicitly stated any alleged inconsistency. In order to evaluate whether your claim is true, I would need to know the particular ways you think the Magisterium has been inconsistent. It is easy to assume that over the course of two-thousand years of history, the Magisterium must have contradicted itself, just as it is easy for liberals to assume that Scripture contains contradictions. But, we believe that the Magisterium has never contradicted itself regarding any teaching of faith or morals, because the Holy Spirit has prevented her from doing so. In addition, contrary to your claim, it has never been the case that the Magisterium “anathematized itself.” When the Magisterium anathematizes a teaching which in your opinion is a truth in Scripture, this is not anathematizing itself, but anathematizing a particular [heretical] interpretation of Scripture.

VII. The Roman Catholic Church: An Oxymoron?

In response to my claim that ecumenical councils have never contradicted each other, you note that Protestants and Eastern Orthodox “would be unable to endorse Rome’s list” [of ecumenical councils].¹² I recognize that Protestants and Orthodox do not accept the Catholic Church’s list of ecumenical councils. But they’re not accepting all the Catholic Church’s ecumenical councils does not have any bearing on whether any of those ecumenical councils contradicted each other.

You also claimed that the term “Roman Catholic” is an oxymoron, since, as you said, “the catholic church is the whole body of Christ in all times and places.” An oxymoron involves a contradiction, and if the Church were said to be particular and universal at the same time and in the same sense, that would be a contradiction. But there is no contradiction if a thing is particular in one sense, and universal in a different sense. And that is the sense in which the Catholic Church is Roman. As Pope Pius XII wrote in Mystici Corporis Christi in 1943:

If we would define and describe this true Church of Jesus Christ – which is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church – we shall find nothing more noble, more sublime, or more divine than the expression “the Mystical Body of Christ” – an expression which springs from and is, as it were, the fair flowering of the repeated teaching of the Sacred Scriptures and the Holy Fathers. (Mystici Corporis Christi, 13, emphasis mine)

The universal Church Christ founded is Roman in the sense that its visible head (until Christ returns) is the episcopal successor of St. Peter at Rome. The notion that either the catholic Church Christ founded has no visible head, or there is no catholic Church, is a false dilemma. Christ being the Savior of all men (every race, tribe, nation) is compatible with His being born of the Virgin Mary in a stable in Bethlehem and raised in Nazareth. In Christ we see universality in one sense, and particularity in another sense, such that there is no contradiction. So likewise, the Catholic Church that Christ founded extends throughout the whole world, will endure through all time, and is open to all men; in that sense it is universal.¹³ Yet Christ gave the keys of this Catholic Church to one man (i.e. St. Peter), who made Rome the place of his apostolic seat, and through martyrdom spilled his blood, handing those keys on to St. Linus, who gave them up to St. Cletus, who gave them up to St. Clement, etc.¹⁴ In that sense the Catholic Church is Roman; that is its particularity, which is rooted in Christ’s giving the keys of this universal Church to one particular man. So there is no oxymoron in the term “Roman Catholic,” because the Church is Roman in a different sense in which it is Catholic.

VIII. Scripture and Tradition

Another fundamental aspect of the paradigm difference between the Catholic and Protestant approaches to Scripture is that in the Catholic paradigm, because Scripture is the divinely-inspired written words of God, it is rightly understood only in light of the Apostolic Tradition in which it was given, and thus only within the community of persons in which that Tradition has been consciously and faithfully maintained and preserved over the last two thousand years.¹⁵ We do not believe that Scripture can be rightly understood (as a whole) from an abstract view-from-nowhere, a traditionless and contextless vacuum. The view-from-nowhere is an ‘illusory ideal,’ and the illusion is most effective when we think we have obtained pure objectivity, all while unknowingly presupposing contemporary ideas and assumptions. So our goal is not to attain an absolute, elusive view-from-nowhere when approaching Scripture. Our goal is to approach Scripture in and with that very same living Tradition in which it was given, in the same continuous community of persons who have lived-the-text within that Tradition, and whose very life and practice and sensibility still carry that Tradition like an intricately woven tapestry.

St. Paul makes a distinction between two modes in which the Revelation of God to His People is handed on. He calls the process of handing on the Word of God “tradition.” He does this most clearly in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, where he says:

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions (paradoseis) that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.

The Catholic Church teaches that the Bible—i.e. Tradition in its written, divinely-inspired form—is not the only means by which the deposit of faith is transmitted. The Bible itself does not teach that it is the only means by which we receive Revelation. The Apostle John writes, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of (his) disciples that are not written in this book.” (John 20:30) This distinction between oral and written modes of handing on the tradition was taught by the Council of Trent (1546), which declared:

This [Gospel], of old promised through the Prophets in the Holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, promulgated first with His own mouth, and then commanded it to be preached by His Apostles to every creature as the source at once of all saving truth and rules of conduct.

It also clearly perceives that these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down to us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand.

Following, then, the examples of the orthodox Fathers, it receives and venerates with a feeling of piety and reverence all the books both of the Old and New Testaments, since one God is the author of both; also the traditions, whether they relate to faith or to morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church in unbroken succession.¹⁶

It was likewise taught at the First Vatican Council (1870):

“Now this supernatural revelation, according to the belief of the universal Church, as declared by the sacred Council of Trent, is contained in written books and unwritten traditions, which were received by the apostles from the lips of Christ himself, or came to the apostles by the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and were passed on as it were from hand to hand until they reached us.”¹⁷

“Wherefore, by divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God written or handed down and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn definition or in her ordinary and universal magisterium.”¹⁸

And the Second Vatican Council further developed the Church’s understanding of the relation of Scripture and Tradition, teaching that they have one common source, the deposit of faith, received by apostolic succession from the Apostles, who in turn received it from Christ:

“Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.” Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the end of the age”. ” Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is entrusted to the Church.¹⁹

Toward the end of the second century, St. Irenaeus wrote:

But, again, when we refer them [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.²⁰

St. Irenaeus refers to the Apostolic Tradition, which is preserved by apostolic succession. But it would not make sense to appeal to apostolic succession as preserving the Apostolic Tradition if ‘apostolic succession’ simply meant ‘agreement with the Apostles.’ According to St. Irenaeus, the heretics consent neither to Scripture nor to Tradition. In this way, St. Irenaeus testifies to the real distinction between Scripture and Tradition, even at the end of the second century. He goes on to explain how the Apostolic Tradition was to be found, to whom it was entrusted, and how it was preserved:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.²¹

St. Irenaeus testifies that the Apostolic Tradition is to be found in those bishops (and the Churches over which they are bishops) having the succession from the Apostles. The Apostolic Tradition is openly and publicly taught and known by those bishops in those Churches.

Tradition plays an important role in answering the question of apostolic succession. One typical Protestant way of seeking out an answer to the question of apostolic succession is to presuppose that if apostolic succession were part of the deposit of faith, the teaching and practice of apostolic succession would be explicitly spelled out in Scripture. Then, not seeing this doctrine clearly and indisputably spelled out in Scripture, the Protestant concludes that it must not have been part of the teaching and practice of the Apostles, and that its presence in the early Church is due to the adoption of a man-made innovation that was later mistakenly assumed to be an Apostolic teaching and practice. But that presupposition loads a Protestant assumption concerning the purpose and sufficiency of Scripture into the inquirer’s methodology, and in that respect presumes precisely what is in question between Protestants on the one hand, and Orthodox and Catholics on the other. So when you say that “not one passage in the New Testament supports the idea that the apostles handed off their apostolic office to their successors,” you seem to presuppose that if apostolic succession were something we are supposed to believe, it would be explicitly presented in Scripture. But that’s not a neutral assumption; it is a Protestant assumption, because it assumes that the Tradition is not needed to make explicit what is only implicit in Scripture.

A Catholic approach to the question of apostolic succession is to examine the testimony and practice of the early Church Fathers who had received the deposit of faith from the Apostles, and then approach Scripture through the Tradition we find in the Fathers. In examining the Church Fathers we observe that the Church universally affirmed and practiced apostolic succession, wherever the Church spread all over the world. There was not any great controversy or debate as the ‘heretical,’ novel practice of apostolic succession universally swept over the Church in the first and second centuries, and replaced the ‘original’ notion that ecclesial leadership was based entirely on agreement with the Apostles’ doctrine. If the Apostles did not institute the practice of apostolic succession, that silence is a very strange and unexpected silence. If apostolic succession were a man-made innovation, we would expect to find in the early Church all those Christians who were being martyred for holding fast to what the Apostles had taught, vociferously protesting that apostolic succession is not the way the Apostles set up the basis for leadership in the Church. But instead we find that these martyrs were often themselves successors of the Apostles, or at least loyal defenders of the bishops ordained by way of apostolic succession. Moreover, if those bishops who in the first four centuries determined for the Church which books did and did not belong to the canon had not only fallen into the ‘error’ of apostolic succession, but by way of the ‘error’ of apostolic succession had acquired the ‘authority’ to give testimony concerning which books are and are not canonical, we could not trust their judgment concerning the canon, and thus we could not trust that the canon of Scripture is correct. In this way, ecclesial deism undermines the justification for believing in the veracity and authenticity of the canon.

IX. Apostolic Succession

A. Evidence from Tradition

Given the importance of understanding Scripture in light of the Tradition, as explained just above, when answering the question of apostolic succession, it is therefore important first to consider the Tradition concerning this question, as it is manifested in the Church Fathers. According to the Church Fathers, the Apostles had received authority from Christ Himself, and the Apostles then handed on their authority to their successors. We find evidence of this succession in all the apostolic Churches. St. Clement of Rome, writing sometimes toward the last part the first century, describes what the Apostles did, writing:

The Apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the Apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved [i.e. tested] them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.²²

St. Clement first explains that the preaching of the Apostles by having received Christ’s authorization and commission is a continuation of the preaching of Jesus, by the authorization and commission of God the Father. This authorization and commission means that one speaks for the other, and therefore that accepting the sending one requires accepting those he sends, while rejecting those he sends entails rejecting the one who sent them. Having that pattern as the basis for their own authorization, the Apostles then, by this same authority they had received, appointed men whom they had tested, to be bishops and deacons of those who would come to believe in Christ.

Then in chapter 43 of his epistle to the Corinthians, St. Clement refers to the example of Moses, who had to deal with rivalry and contention concerning the priesthood and authority. St. Clement describes how Moses placed the twelve rods in the tabernacle, knowing all the while that Aaron’s rod would blossom. Moses did this not to learn which tribe ought to have the priesthood, but according to St. Clement, “he acted thus, that there might be no sedition in Israel.” In other words, Moses did this so that all the people would know who rightfully held the priesthood, and in this way would have no excuse for sedition. Then St. Clement shows that the Apostles (whom St. Clement knew personally) likewise knew “with perfect foreknowledge” that there would be contention over authority in the Church. So the Apostles did something that would show the people who had the rightful authority in the Church, and thus leave men without excuse with respect to sedition. He writes:

Our Apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those already mentioned [i.e. bishops and deacons], and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole Church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them.²³

According to St. Clement, in order to show the people who had the rightful authority in the Church, the Apostles publicly appointed bishops and deacons, so that everyone would know who were the rightful successors of the Apostles. In addition, the Apostles instructed these bishops to do the same when they too approached death, so that “other approved men should succeed them [i.e. the first generation of bishops] in their ministry.” Here we see the principle that underlies apostolic succession. Teaching and governing authority in the Church is given from the top-down, that is, from Christ, to the Apostles, and then to their successors. Since no one can give what he does not have, then those who have not received such authorization cannot give it. Not only that, but in order to prevent sedition, these appointments, like Christ’s authorization of the Apostles, were made in an orderly way, because “all things must be done properly and in an orderly manner.” (1 Cor 14:40) By ordaining their successors in this public and orderly way, no one could claim ignorance of who was the rightful ruler, as a justification for sedition or schism.

This same pattern of succession can be found from the beginning in all the apostolic Churches. Earlier I pointed out that according to Eusebius (c. AD 263–339), after the martyrdom of St. James the Righteous, who became the bishop of Jerusalem, Symeon, the son of Clopas was found to be worthy of “the episcopal throne of that see.”²⁴ 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.”²⁵ Eusebius goes on to list the succession of bishops in Jerusalem until the siege of Hadrian (AD 133):

But since the bishops of the circumcision ceased at this time, it is proper to give here a list of their names from the beginning. The first, then, was James, the so-called brother of the Lord; the second, Symeon; the third, Justus; the fourth, Zacchæus; the fifth, Tobias; the sixth, Benjamin; the seventh, John; the eighth, Matthias; the ninth, Philip; the tenth, Seneca; the eleventh, Justus; the twelfth, Levi; the thirteenth, Ephres; the fourteenth, Joseph; and finally, the fifteenth, Judas. These are the bishops of Jerusalem that lived between the age of the apostles and the time referred to, all of them belonging to the circumcision.²⁶

Eusebius gives us a succession of fifteen bishops that sequentially occupied the “episcopal throne” of the Church at Jerusalem, until the time of Hadrian. Regarding the succession from St. Mark in the Church at Alexandria, Eusebius writes:

In the fourth year of Domitian, Annianus, the first bishop of the parish of Alexandria, died after holding office twenty-two years, and was succeeded by Abilius, the second bishop.²⁷

Domitian came into power in AD 81. So according to Eusebius, Annianus died about AD 85, having held the episcopacy in Alexandria since around AD 63. Then Eusebius writes:

It was during the first year of [Trajan's] reign that Abilius, who had ruled the church of Alexandria for thirteen years, was succeeded by Cerdon. He was the third that presided over that church after Annianus, who was the first. At that time Clement still ruled the church of Rome, being also the third that held the episcopate there after Paul and Peter. Linus was the first, and after him came Anencletus. At this time Ignatius was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first. Symeon likewise was at that time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first. …²⁸

About the twelfth year of the reign of Trajan the above-mentioned bishop of the parish of Alexandria died, and Primus, the fourth in succession from the apostles, was chosen to the office.²⁹

Trajan took office in AD 98, and so according to Eusebius, it was during this year that Abilius (i.e. the second bishop of Alexandria) was succeeded by Cerdon. Cerdon was bishop of Alexandria until about AD 110, at which time he was succeeded by Primus. At this time, St. Clement was still bishop of the Church at Rome.

Concerning St. Clement of Rome, Eusebius writes:

In the third year of the reign of the emperor mentioned above, Clement committed the episcopal government of the church of Rome to Evarestus, and departed this life after he had superintended the teaching of the divine word nine years in all. (Historia Ecclesiastica III.34)

According to Eusebius, St. Clement served as bishop of Rome until about AD 101, while St. Ignatius was the bishop of Antioch after Evodius who was the first bishop of the Church of Antioch. Concerning St. Ignatius, Eusebius writes:

And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, second in succession to Peter, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.³⁰

According to the tradition St. Ignatius had been taught and ordained by apostles, and his character shows no sign of infidelity to the mission he received from them to hand on faithfully the deposit of faith entrusted to him. But, St. Ignatius believed and taught that without the three-fold hierarchy, no Church is entitled to the name of ‘Church.’³¹ In the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch, laymen are enjoined to submit to their bishop, and to do nothing apart from their bishop. According to St. Ignatius, the bishop has more authority than [mere] presbyters. (See “St. Ignatius of Antioch on the Church.”) because of apostolic succession. He writes:

“Every one whom the master of the house sends ought to be received as him who sent him. Clearly therefore we must regard the Bishop as the Lord Himself.”³²

St. Ignatius teaches that the basis for the authority of the bishop, is that Christ sent him. The bishop is to be received as one would receive Christ, because the bishop has been sent by Christ. The principle is that we ought to receive the messenger as we would the one who sent him, because the messenger represents him, and speaks for him. But the authorization and sending of the bishops was not merely an internal, private, subjective witness, nor were they authorized by a bottom-up democratic election by the local congregation. Rather, they were authorized and given their mission by the Apostles. Hence, St. Ignatius shows that in his understanding (formed by personal acquaintance with apostles), when the Apostles ordained and commissioned a bishop, it was primarily Christ who was ordaining and commissioning that bishop. And this is the consistent principle we find in the early Church Fathers, that when a bishop having apostolic succession ordains someone, it is Christ who is doing so through the one He authorized to speak and act in His Name.

According to Eusebius, when St. Ignatius was martyred (around AD 107), “he was succeeded by Heros in the episcopate of the church of Antioch.”³³ Heros was succeeded by Cornelius, who was succeeded by Eros, who was succeeded in the latter part of the second century by Theophilus,³⁴) who wrote the work Ad Autolychum, which still exists today.

In Asia, the apostolic appointment of bishops continued even to the end of the first century. Eusebius relates the following from St. Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215):

For when, after the tyrant’s [i.e. Domitian's] death, [the Apostle John] returned from the isle of Patmos to Ephesus, he went away upon their invitation to the neighboring territories of the Gentiles, to appoint bishops in some places, in other places to set in order whole churches, elsewhere to choose to the ministry some one of those that were pointed out by the Spirit.³⁵

Shortly after AD 96, the Apostle John returned from Patmos to Ephesus, and began to travel to neighboring territories to appoint bishops, and set in order whole churches, and to choose to the ministry some that were pointed out by the Spirit. By “choosing to the ministry” St. Clement of Alexandria is likely referring to St. John choosing some laymen to become presbyters, something distinct from “appoint bishops,” which likely refers to ordaining one presbyter (within a particular Church) to the episcopacy. Among those ordained by the Apostle John was St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna. Tertullian writes, “For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John.”³⁶ Concerning St. Polycarp, Eusebius writes:

At that time Polycarp, a disciple of the apostles, was a man of eminence in Asia, having been entrusted with the episcopate of the church of Smyrna by those who had seen and heard the Lord.³⁷

And this is confirmed in the epistle of St. Ignatius to St. Polycarp. St. Polycarp was entrusted with the episcopate of Smyrna by one or more apostles. Everywhere we look, we see this same pattern regarding the authorization and commissioning of bishops by the Apostles, and then these bishops continuing this practice in ordaining bishops to succeed them.

In the generation after the Apostles, if someone had asked the question, “By what authority do you do these things?” it is clear that the bishops would have answered by pointing to their ordination, i.e. their having received authorization from the Apostles. And the second generation of bishops would have pointed to their having been ordained by those having the succession from the Apostles. We see this most clearly in St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, both writing toward the later part of the second century. St. Irenaeus writes:

“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?”³⁸

Here St. Irenaeus is teaching that the truth about Christ and Christianity is to be found not by looking to the heretics but by looking to the bishops who were entrusted by the Apostles with the deposit of faith, and to the apostolic Churches which these bishops shepherd. Because the Apostles entrusted the deposit of faith to the bishops, that deposit belongs to those bishops and is guarded and preserved by the succession of bishops in those apostolic Churches.

Earlier in this same work St. Irenaeus had written:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions [of bishops] of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority—that is, the faithful everywhere—inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who are everywhere.”³⁹

First, it is worth noting that according to St. Irenaeus it is necessary that “every Church should agree with this Church,” meaning that every particular Church (e.g. Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Ephesus) must agree with the particular Church at Rome on account of its “preeminent authority” due to its having been founded by St. Peter and St. Paul.⁴⁰ But, St. Irenaeus is also saying here that the faith comes down to his time by means of “the succession of bishops.” He is not saying that the faith merely happens to have been preserved in the succession of bishops; he is making a much stronger claim than that. He is saying that the succession of bishops is the normative means by which the deposit of faith can be determined, precisely because the authority of stewardship of this deposit was entrusted to these lines of bishops by the Apostles. His whole argument against the Gnostics would be undermined if he was claiming only that it presently happens to be the case that the genuine deposit of faith is found in the succession of bishops. In that case, it would be pointless to bring up the succession of bishops, for it would offer no more (or less) assurance of finding the genuine deposit of faith there than among the Gnostics.

St. Irenaeus continues:

“Wherefore it is incumbent to obey the presbyters [priests] who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate [bishop], have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also necessary] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever . . . . But those who cleave asunder, and separate the unity of the Church, [shall] receive from God the same punishment as Jeroboam did.”⁴¹

We see here that the priests and the bishops have their authority because they “possess the succession from the apostles.” This phrase shows what St. Irenaeus understood concerning the gift the bishops (including himself) had received at their ordination. The possessed something that those not having the succession did not. Through having the succession from the Apostles, they possessed stewardship over the deposit of faith, to guard and preserve it, and to provide the authoritative determination concerning its identity and meaning. By having the succession from the Apostles, they possessed what St. Irenaeus calls “the certain gift of truth.” The priests and bishops are promised (by Christ) the gift of preserving the truth that was entrusted to them by Christ through the Apostles, upon condition of remaining in communion with the successor of the one to whom Christ entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. In this quotation we see also that St. Irenaeus teaches that we should hold in suspicion those who depart from “primitive succession”—i.e. those who reject apostolic succession, and claim to teach the apostles’ doctrine, but do not have the authority from the Apostles to say what is the Apostles’ doctrine. St. Irenaeus views departure from the succession of bishops as schism, as having in some sense rejected the Apostles who authorized and sent these bishops. The principle is that he who rejects the Apostles, rejects Christ, just as he who rejects Christ rejects the Father who sent Christ. “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)

St. Irenaeus was himself only one generation removed from the Apostles, because he had known St. Polycarp (AD 69 – 155), who had been ordained by the Apostle John. Concerning St. Polycarp, St. Irenaeus writes:

“But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he [Polycarp] tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time—a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics.”⁴²

According to St. Irenaeus, St. Polycarp was instructed by apostles, and by apostles appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna. During his long life he taught the things he had learned from the Apostles. Surely, if apostolic succession was something the Apostles either did not teach, or taught against, St. Polycarp would have opposed it. But, there is absolutely no evidence that St. Polycarp, or anyone of the second generation bishops, opposed the doctrine and practice of apostolic succession. We have every reason to believe that the doctrine of apostolic succession we find in St. Irenaeus is the doctrine of apostolic succession he had received from men like St. Polycarp, who had themselves received it from the Apostles.

We can see this same idea in Tertullian in his work titled The Prescription Against Heretics, where he writes:

“The apostles . . . next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day borrowing them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring). In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality, — privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery.”⁴³

According to Tertullian, the authority of the Church corresponds to the origin and organic development of the Church. The Apostles founded Churches and ordained bishops over those Churches. These Churches are Apostolic by having been directly founded by the Apostles. Later, other Churches were founded by men sent out by the Churches founded by the Apostles. Tertullian explains that in order for a Church which was not founded by the Apostles to be Apostolic, it must have been founded by a Church which is itself Apostolic. In this way there is always organic unity between all the priests and bishops, and all the particular Churches. All true Churches can be traced back to the Churches founded by the Apostles, because they have the authorization from the Apostles.

Tertullian again writes:

“But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,– a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them (to attempt)? But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner. To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.”⁴⁴

Tertullian is here saying that the way to distinguish heretics from the orthodox is to get out the records and see whose bishops can trace their succession back to the Apostles. The heretics cannot trace their bishops back to someone who was ordained by the Apostles. The Apostolic Churches, however, can do just that. Tertullian provides two tests to show that the doctrine of the heretics is contrary to that of the Apostles. These two tests are related to each other. One necessarily comes before the other, and depends on the other. First, he uses the test of apostolic succession. “Let them produce the original records of their churches, let them unfold the roll of their bishops ….”. The second test depends on the first test. The second test is comparing whether the ‘faith’ proposed by the heretics agrees with the doctrine held by the Apostles. But to determine whether the doctrine of the heretics agrees with the doctrine of the Apostles, Tertullian does not say, “Look at the Scriptures.” He says that the ‘faith’ of the heretics must be compared to the faith of the Churches which are in agreement with the Churches founded by the Apostles. So the Apostolic Churches (the ones founded by the Apostles and maintaining the succession from the Apostles) are still the standard for what is the Apostolic faith. For Tertullian, we know which Churches have the Apostolic faith by comparing their doctrine to that of the apostolic Churches, i.e. the one’s having the succession from the Apostles. So the second test (i.e. comparing the faith of the heretics to that of the Apostles) depends on the first test (i.e. apostolic succession). According to Tertullian, the succession of bishops in the Apostolic Churches is what determines the standard for what is the apostolic doctrine, against which to compare the doctrine of these gnostic heretics.

The requirement of testing the claims of heretics against the faith taught in the Apostolic Churches would make no sense if there were no “charism of truth” in the Apostolic Churches. If ecclesial deism were true, there would be no more reason to expect to find the Apostles’ doctrine in the Apostles doctrine than in the assemblies of the Gnostics. In other words, if Tertullian believed that the Apostolic Churches of his time only happened to contain the Apostles’ doctrine, but were not necessarily the divinely authorized and divinely protected guardians and stewards of the deposit of faith, there would be no reason to point to the Apostolic Churches as the standard by which to locate the Apostles doctrine. That would simply beg the question (i.e. presume precisely what was in question) between the Catholics and the Gnostics, because the Gnostics maintained that the true doctrine of the Apostles had not been passed down to the bishops. So Tertullian’s requirement that Apostolic doctrine be determined by conformity to the doctrine taught in the Churches founded by the Apostles presupposes not only that the Apostles did not withhold any revealed doctrine from the bishops they ordained, but also that there is a divine promise of preservation of the faith among those having the succession from the Apostles. In other words, we see here implicitly in Tertullian the same notion in St. Irenaeus of a “charism of truth” that accompanies possessing the succession from the Apostles, in full communion with the successor of St. Peter.

Again Tertullian writes:

“From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for “no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach—that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached–in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both viva voce [with the spoken voice], as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those moulds and original sources of the faith must be accounted true, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.”⁴⁵

Tertullian is here saying that no man knows the Father except Christ, and no one knows Christ except the Apostles, and no one knows the Apostles except the bishops whom they appointed. Therefore, no one who is not sent by the bishops should be received to preach. In other words, the imperative for Catholics of the second century is this: Do not accept as your Church authority anyone who is not sent by the bishops (who are themselves sent by the Apostles, who were themselves sent by Christ, who was Himself sent by God the Father). If it does not come from the Apostles and those ordained by the Apostles, then it is ipso facto not to be received. This applies not only to teaching, but also to teachers and preachers.

Again Tertullian writes:

“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, go through the apostolic churches, in which the very seats of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!”⁴⁶

Notice Tertullian’s emphasis on the unique authority of the Church of Rome among all the other apostolic churches, much as we saw in St. Irenaeus’ claim that all the particular Churches should agree with the Church at Rome, on account of its preeminent authority.

And again Tertullian writes:

“Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, “as many as walk according to the rule,” which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the Scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus, not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, “Who are you? When and whence did you come? As you are none of mine, what have you to do with that which is mine? Indeed, Marcion, by what right do you hew my wood? By whose permission, Valentinus, are you diverting the streams of my fountain? By what power, Apelles, are you removing my landmarks? This is my property. Why are you, the rest, sowing and feeding here at your own pleasure? This (I say) is my property. I have long possessed it; I possessed it before you. I hold sure title-deeds from the original owners themselves, to whom the estate belonged. I am the heir of the apostles. Just as they carefully prepared their will and testament, and committed it to a trust, and adjured (the trustees to be faithful to their charge), even so do I hold it. As for you, they have, it is certain, always held you as disinherited, and rejected you as strangers—as enemies.”⁴⁷

Tertullian here shows that those who are not in communion with the Apostolic Churches have no right to appeal to Scripture to defend their positions, because the Scriptures belong to the bishops to whom the Apostolic writings were entrusted by the Apostles. Since the Scriptures belong to the bishops, those not in communion with those bishops in the universal Church have no right to challenge what the bishops say that the Scriptures teach. The sacred books do not belong to them, but to the bishops to whom the Apostles entrusted them. Since the Scriptures belongs to the bishops and have been entrusted to them, they have the right and authority to determine its authentic and authoritative interpretation.

The notion of apostolic succession we see clearly in the latter half of the second century in writings of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian we find also in the middle of the second century. Eusebius tells us that St. Hegesippus, who was already a young man at the time of the time of the death of Antinous (AD 130), came to Rome under Anicetus (154-7 to 165-8) and wrote in the time of Eleutherus, bishop of Rome from 175 to 189. Eusebius writes:

Hegesippus in the five books of Memoirs which have come down to us has left a most complete record of his own views. In them he states that on a journey to Rome he met a great many bishops, and that he received the same doctrine from all. It is fitting to hear what he says after making some remarks about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. His words are as follows:

“And the church of Corinth continued in the true faith until Primus was bishop in Corinth. I conversed with them on my way to Rome, and abode with the Corinthians many days, during which we were mutually refreshed in the true doctrine. And when I had come to Rome I remained there until Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And Anicetus was succeeded by Soter, and he by Eleutherus. In every succession, and in every city that is held which is preached by the law and the prophets and the Lord.”⁴⁸

As St. Hegesippus traveled through many different cities in the middle of the second century, he met a great many bishops, and received doctrine from them. He notes that he received the same doctrine from them all. And this is a testimony to the unity of the faith and practice of the Church in the second century. Even though we see heretics (e.g. Marcion, Valentinus) arise within the Church, be excommunicated from the Church, and lead some Catholics to follow them out of the Church, there is no evidence here or elsewhere of a great falling away of the Church. There is no outcry or protest as though some group of Christians within the Church adopted a novel practice of apostolic succession, while some original group of Christians or Churches stood in opposition, maintaining the apostolic practice of ordination from below by congregational election. In St. Hegesippus’ letter we see evidence that in the mid-second century, the faith of the Church is everywhere preserved within the Church. That is significant because in the middle and late second century, we see apostolic succession, as episcopal succession, practiced ubiquitously in the Catholic Church.⁴⁹ And this implies that the apostolic succession described at the end of the second century by St. Irenaeus and Tertullian was the same apostolic succession believed and practice in the middle of the second century. And in order for there to have been the kind of widespread agreement St. Hegesippus describes in the middle of the second century, we have very good reason to believe that the mid-second century belief and practice of apostolic succession was itself a faithful continuation of a doctrine and practice established by the Apostles themselves.

Between St. Hegesippus and the testimonies of St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, we find the testimony St. Dionysius. Around AD 170, St. Dionysius, the bishop of Corinth wrote a number of letters to various Churches, and in these letters he describes each Church as having its own bishop.⁵⁰ In his letter to the Church at Athens, St. Dionysius writes of the recent martyrdom (under the persecution of Marcus Aurelius) of their bishop Publius, and reminds them of the faith of their first bishop, Dionysius the Areopagite, who had been converted to the faith by the Apostle Paul, recorded by St. Luke in Acts 17:34.⁵¹ Similarly, a few years later, Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, wrote a letter to Victor, bishop of Rome from 189 to 199.⁵² There is no reason to disbelieve that the episcopacy we see in the example of bishop Polycrates at the end of the second century is not the continuation of the episcopacy that St. Paul had established at Ephesus in St. Timothy, and which St. John had maintained when he returned from Patmos.

Around AD 215, St. Hippolytus, a presbyter at the Church of Rome, wrote a work known as “The Apostolic Tradition.” This is a work intended to record some of the tradition which the Church at Rome had received and always practiced concerning ordination of bishops and presbyters. St. Hippolytus writes:

We have set forth as was necessary that part of the discourse which relates to the spiritual gifts, all that God, right from the beginning, granted to people according to his will, bringing back to himself this image which had gone astray. Now, driven by love towards all the saints, we have arrived at the essence of the tradition which is proper for the Churches. This is so that those who are well informed may keep the tradition which has lasted until now, according to the explanation we give of it, and so that others by taking note of it may be strengthened (against the fall or error which has recently occurred because of ignorance and ignorant people), with the Holy Spirit conferring perfect grace on those who have a correct faith, and so that they will know that those who are at the head of the Church must teach and guard all these things.

St. Hippolytus here states that he is presenting the “essence of the Tradition which is proper for the Churches,” a Tradition that has lasted from the time of the Apostles “until now.” Those at the head of the Church “must teach and guard all these things.” He then presents a description of the rite by which a bishop is ordained:

He who is ordained as a bishop, being chosen by all the people, must be irreproachable. When his name is announced and approved, the people will gather on the Lord’s day with the council of elders and the bishops who are present. With the assent of all, the bishops will place their hands upon him, with the council of elders standing by, quietly. Everyone will keep silent, praying in their hearts for the descent of the Spirit. After this, one of the bishops present, at the request of all, shall lay his hand upon him who is being ordained bishop, and pray, saying:

God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, Father of mercies and God of all consolation, you who live in the highest, but regard the lowest, you who know all things before they are, you who gave the rules of the Church through the word of your grace, who predestined from the beginning the race of the righteous through Abraham, who instituted princes and priests, and did not leave your sanctuary without a minister; who from the beginning of the world has been pleased to be glorified by those whom you have chosen, pour out upon him the power which is from you, the princely Spirit, which you gave to your beloved Son Jesus Christ, which he gave to your holy Apostles, who founded the Church in every place as your sanctuary, for the glory and endless praise of your name. Grant, Father who knows the heart, to your servant whom you chose for the episcopate, that he will feed your holy flock, that he will wear your high priesthood without reproach, serving night and day, incessantly making your face favorable, and offering the gifts of your holy Church; in the spirit of high priesthood having the power to forgive sins according to your command; to assign lots according to your command; to loose any bond according to the authority which you gave to the Apostles; to please you in mildness and a pure heart, offering to you a sweet scent, through your son Jesus Christ, through whom to you be glory, power, and honor, Father and Son, with the Holy Spirit, in the Holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen.

We see that one who is to be ordained a bishop can be ordained only by a bishop. We also see an explicit description of the authority of the bishop as a continuation of the authority of the Apostles. The bishop has the responsibility to feed the holy flock, to function as a high priest through the sacrifice he offers in the Eucharist (i.e. “the gifts of your holy Church”), having the apostolic power to forgive or retain sins (John 20:23). He also has the authority to assign presbyters and deacons their places in the Church, and to loosen any bond. Next, regarding the ordination of elders St. Hippolytus writes:

When an elder is ordained, the bishop places his hand upon his head, along with the other elders, and says according to that which was said above for the bishop, praying and saying:

God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, look upon your servant here, and impart the spirit of grace and the wisdom of elders, that he may help and guide your people with a pure heart, just as you looked upon your chosen people, and commanded Moses to choose elders, whom you filled with your spirit which you gave to your attendant.

Now, Lord, unceasingly preserving in us the spirit of your grace, make us worthy, so that being filled we may minister to you in singleness of heart, praising you, through your son Christ Jesus, through whom to you be glory and might, Father and Son with the Holy Spirit, in your Holy Church, now and throughout the ages of the ages. Amen.

Of note here is that while the [mere] elders do also place their hands on the candidate to be ordained an elder, they do so not for the same reason or with the same necessity as that of the ordaining bishop. Mere elders cannot ordain, but a bishop can ordain. The other elders also lay hands on the candidate to show their union with the bishop and to join their prayer to that of the bishop, that the candidate may receive the Holy Spirit’s sacramental gift of ordination to the priesthood.

Regarding apostolic succession you wrote:

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. Himself a disciple of Polycarp, who was a disciple of John the Apostle, Irenaeus 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).

The arguments given by St. Irenaeus and Tertullian for apostolic succession are not that the Apostolic doctrine is more likely to be found among those having the succession from the Apostles. Otherwise, the Gnostics could have treated such arguments as question-begging, that is, as presuming without any justification that the succession of bishops fully received and faithfully preserved the deposit of faith. That is precisely what was in question between the Catholics on the one hand, and the Gnostics on the other hand. In their arguments against the Gnostics, St. Irenaeus and Tertullian are making a much stronger claim. They are claiming that the Apostles publicly authorized certain men (i.e. bishops) to function as official stewards of the deposit of faith, to guard it and explicate it, and charged them to publicly authorize other tested and qualified men to carry on this function of stewardship, in a line of perpetual successions, until Christ returned for His Bride. According to St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, the Apostles did not merely preach some truths to the first Christians, and then go to their martyrdom. That would have left the Church susceptible to the Gnostic challenge, with many clamoring voices claiming to speak for the Apostles, and claiming to have texts written by the Apostles. It would have left the sheep without divinely-designated shepherds, entirely at a loss regarding what is the truth concerning Christ and His Gospel. Rather, according to St. Irenaeus and Tertullian, by publicly appointed successors, and giving to them the authority to appoint further successors in perpetuam, the Apostles cut off the Gnostic challenge at the knees, by, in a sense, perpetuating themselves, and so ensuring that no Gnostic challenger could ever have an equal claim to speak for the Apostles. In this way, it is not just an “historical argument.” It is an argument that reaches back into history in order to show why the normative way of determining the truth concerning the apostolic deposit is to unroll the lines of bishops, and see whose go back to the Apostles. Only those bishops have the divine authority from the Apostles to say what does or does not belong to the deposit of faith received from the Apostles.⁵³

As for Scripture being the Church’s “constitution,” that is not a claim made either by Scripture or by the Church Fathers. The Church did not even settle the canon of the New Testament until the end of the fourth century. If the Apostles had intended the Bible to be the Church’s constitution, they would have publicly settled the canon question even before departing from Jerusalem after the day of Pentecost, or at least at the Jerusalem Council. They would have made sure that before they departed from this earth, the canon was settled and every particular Church received a copy of the [Protestant] Bible. But they did not do that; they sought instead to establish bishops in all the Churches, before they died. So there seems to be no good reason to believe that they intended Scripture to be the Church’s constitution.

B. The Ground of Magisterial Authority

The authority of Catholic teaching does not rest on an a priori or fideistic assumption of the Church’s orthodoxy. The authority of the bishops and their teaching is based on the authority of the Apostles who ordained them, which in turn is based on the authority of Jesus who authorized and commissioned them. Recognizing that authority as authoritative is not a fideistic leap, but something confirmed by the miraculous signs and wonders done by Christ and the Apostles, and by Christ’s fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah. Therefore, belief in the authority of Jesus and of His Apostles and the bishops whom they ordained, is not an a priori belief, but is instead a belief based on the motives of credibility provided by these divine signs. By contrast, because a Protestant does not rely on the Church as the authority by which to know the divine character of Scripture and the veracity of the canon of Scripture, he has to derive his belief about the divine authorship of the books of Scripture, and the veracity of the Protestant canon, from the books themselves, by a kind of internal witness, hopefully from the Holy Spirit.

What we do not see in the Church Fathers, in the transition from governance of the Church by the Apostles, to governance of the Church by their successors, is any notion that each individual Christian is his own highest interpretive authority. But the notion that the successors of the Apostles had only “ministerial” authority entails just that, namely, that the successors of the Apostles did not have the authority to provide the authoritative interpretation of Scripture, and the authoritative determination of orthodoxy and heresy. That would leave each individual as his own highest interpretive authority.⁵⁴ Instead, as I have sketched out above, what we see in the transition from Apostles to bishops is a very strong sense of continuity of authority from the Apostles to the bishops.

In all the evidence we have from the early Church, we find not a single case in which someone was recognized as holding episcopal authority, but did not receive that authority either from Christ Himself, or from someone who had received authority mediately from Christ, by way of succession from the Apostles. No one could take ecclesial authority to himself, precisely because it is not a human authority, but a divine authority, which therefore has to be given from above. And this is also why no one could receive ordination from someone who had not himself received this authority from Christ directly or from Christ mediately through succession from the Apostles. Knowingly treating an invalid ordination as though it were a valid ordination would be the equivalent of arrogating ecclesial authority to oneself. Because no one can give what he does not have, therefore those not having ecclesial authority could not give it. Only those having ecclesial authority could give ecclesial authority in the act of ordination.⁵⁵

In the first fifteen hundred years of Church history there is not a single case of a [mere] presbyter or deacon ordaining anyone, let alone a layman. Congregations might put forward candidates for ordination, as in Acts 6:1-6 where the whole multitude put forward seven candidates to be ordained as deacons. But in the history of the Church there is not a single known case of ordination “from below,” rather than by Apostolic succession. Only presbyters who had episcopal orders could ordain, though as I showed above in St. Hippolytus, presbyters without episcopal orders participated in ordinations by laying on their hands as well, not to ordain, but to offer their blessing and unite their prayer with that of the bishop.⁵⁶

C. Evidence from Scripture

In light of the evidence from Tradition in the Church Fathers, the meaning of the evidence in Scripture is more apparent. Christ made His Apostles the foundation of His Church. We see this in Ephesians 2:20, where St. Paul explains that the Church is built upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone. Just as we saw above in the section titled “Persons and Texts,” Christ is not fundamentally a concept or proposition; He is a divine Person. And before He ascended into Heaven He established authorized persons to stand in His place as stewards of His Church until He returns. In that respect, it is not Scripture that is the foundation of the Church, but the Apostles, even those Apostles who never wrote any Scripture.⁵⁷

When men have “hands laid” on them by those having authority, in the sacrament of ordination, they receive delegated authority (1 Tim 4.14; 5.22; 2 Tim 1.6; Heb 1.10). This was a continuation in the Church of a practice under the Old Covenant, as Moses laid hands on Joshua (Num 27:15-23, Deut. 34:9); in this way the Spirit which was upon Moses was given to the elders. (cf. Num. 11:16-17,25) St. Paul tells Titus to “declare these things; exhort and rebuke with all authority” (Titus 2:15). But this is not Titus’ own authority; Christ has all authority, and He entrusted His authority to His Apostles, who delegated this same authority to their successors.

The evidence for this can be seen in the New Testament in the clear pattern of authorized succession that has its source in the Godhead. This succession begins with God the Father. Jesus does not speak or act on His own initiative; He does and says only what He was sent to do and say by His Father. (John 5:19, 30; 8:28, 42; 12:49-50: 14:10) His teaching is not His own but that of the Father who sent Him. (John 7:16) That is why to listen to Jesus is to listen to the Father. (John 14:24) The same pattern continues with the Spirit, who is sent by Christ and discloses what belongs to Christ. (John 16:14-15) Jesus teaches that this same pattern continues with the Apostles.”He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me.” (Matthew 10:40), and “He who listens to you listens to Me, and he who rejects you, rejects Me.” (Luke 10:16) To receive the Apostles is to receive Jesus, because Jesus is the one who sent them. (John 13:20) Just as the Father had given authority to Jesus, so Jesus gives authority to His Apostles. (Luke 22:29-30; Matthew 11:27) Jesus gives to St. Peter the keys of the Kingdom. The Apostles in communion with Peter share in the authority by which their decisions on earth are ratified in heaven. (Matthew 16:19; 18:18) St. Paul speaks of the authority with the Lord gave to him as an Apostle. (2 Cor 10:8, 13:10) When the Apostles forgive sins, those sins are forgiven; when they retain men’s sins, those sins are retained. (John 20:23) This all reveals that Christ had extended to the Apostles a participation in His divine governance of the Church; upon His ascension, He governed through them. As the Father sent Christ, so Christ sent the Apostles. (John 17:18; 20:21) The Church was to continue to follow the pattern it had received from the Apostles (2 Tim 1:13) including the pattern of succession of authority.

Just as Christ had authorized the Apostles to teach and govern His kingdom in His name, so the Apostles authorized successors to do the same, entrusting to them the deposit of the faith, and teaching them to do the same to their own successors. (2 Tim 2:2; Titus 1:5) We see this already in their filling Judas’ unoccupied “ἐπισκοπὴν” (i.e. bishopric). (Acts 1:20) If there were no apostolic office, but only twelve individuals chosen by Christ, it would make no sense to choose someone to take Judas’ bishopric after his death.⁵⁸ The apostolic authorization was given through the laying on of hands. (Acts 6:6; 13:3; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14) And St. Paul warns St. Timothy not to be hasty or incautious when he [i.e. Timothy] ordains successors. (1 Tim. 5:22) Without this authority received from the Apostles or their successors, those speaking did not speak for the Church, or as Christ’s authorized representatives; they could only speak in their own name. (John 5:43) When the Apostles ordained successors, they knew that it was not only they who were doing this, but also the Holy Spirit working through them. (Acts 20:28; cf. Acts 14:23)

Consider Acts 15:24, “Since we have heard that some of our number who went out without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind.” If apostolic succession were merely doctrinal, then the Apostles would not have implied that the disturbers needed a mandate from the Apostles. Their lack of an Apostolic mandate would be irrelevant, and therefore not even mentioned. The Apostles and elders should simply have said only that the doctrine of the disturbers was not the Apostles’ doctrine. But the Apostles and elders do not merely say that. Instead they provide a mandate to Paul and Barnabas, Silas and Judas called Barsabbas. The “letter” mentioned in verse 23 is the authentication or proof that these men have the necessary mandate from the Apostles to teach and preach in their name, as official legates or ambassadors of the Apostles.⁵⁹

In Romans 10:15, St. Paul writes, “And how shall they preach unless they are sent?” St. Paul indicates that a person needs to be sent, in order to preach. But who can send the preacher? There are two possible answers to that question: the Spirit apart from the Church, or the Spirit speaking in and through the Church. But if someone claims to be sent by the Spirit, apart from the Church, we should not assume they have been sent by God, unless by miraculous signs they demonstrate themselves to be divinely authorized. Hence, if someone comes without signs, then they cannot give an authorized message, unless they have the authorization of the Church.⁶⁰ Those who claim that prophecy ceased at the end of the apostolic era, therefore can be authorized to preach only by being sent out by those having the authority to send out men to preach on behalf of the Church. If only ordained people can ordain, then it follows by logical necessity that if anyone is presently ordained, there must be an unbroken succession extending back to the Apostles.⁶¹ In this way, Romans 10:15 requires apostolic succession, for those who claim that prophecy ceased at the end of the first century.

As we saw above, those having this authority from the Apostles could “speak and reprove with all authority.” (Titus 2:15) Titus, for example, was authorized by St. Paul as bishop of Crete, and Timothy as bishop of Ephesus. Eusebius writes, “Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete.”⁶² To explain this in Scripture, William Mounce in his Word Biblical Commentary on the Pastorals has to create a new office which he titles “apostolic delegate,” and which does not last beyond the age of the Apostles. That he has to do this shows that the falsehood of apostolic succession is not as obvious in Scripture as you seem to suggest. In the New Testament, we see that to be authorized by the Apostles was to be authorized by Christ, precisely because when the Apostles exercised the divine authority entrusted to them, Christ worked through them (Mt 16:19; Lk 10:16, 2 Tim 1:6) Those who know God listen to those who are “from God,” i.e. have been sent by Christ or by those whom He sent, or by those whom they sent. (1 John 4:6)

Only on the basis of this succession is it right for us to obey and submit (Heb 13:17) to the shepherds of the Church, for in doing so we are submitting to Christ. But those who “take the honor” (Heb 5:4) to themselves, without the succession, are not true shepherds. (John 10:1-2)

Only by this succession of divine authorizations, derived from the Apostles who had themselves received it from Christ, does the Church remain perpetually the “pillar and ground of truth,” (1 Tim 3:15) preserving the apostolic kerygma until the end of the age. (Matthew 28:18-20)

Any person can claim that Christ has given him authority. Any group of people can claim to speak for Christ or speak for the Church. Any group of people can claim to act on behalf of Christ in giving Christ’s authority to an ordinand. Anyone can claim to have the Apostles’ teaching. The sacramentality of ordination helps guards the unity and doctrinal purity of the Church. In order to preach in the name of Christ, one must be sent by the legitimate authorities of the Church, i.e. those in sacramental succession from the apostles, just as the apostles could not send themselves but could only be sent by Christ. (cf. Acts 15:24; Romans 10:15; 2 Cor 5:20).⁶³

If ecclesial authority were not derived from the one laying on hands, then anyone could ‘ordain’ anyone, and ordination would thus be “presumed authority,” that is, nothing more than permission from a group of persons to speak to them or teach them. In that case, no one would have actual ecclesial authority. But if ecclesial authority is derived from the one laying on hands, and the one laying on hands has no authority to give, then again the ordinand would have only presumed authority, not actual authority. So actual ecclesial authority can be acquired in ordination only if the one laying on hands has the authority to give. But the same truth applies to the one laying on hands; he could have acquired actual ecclesial authority at his ordination only if the one who laid hands on him had the authority to give. And the same applies again to the one who ordained him, etc. This shows that either no one has actual ecclesial authority, or only those ordained in sacramental succession from the Apostles have actual ecclesial authority.

At one point above you wrote:

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.

I think the evidence I have laid out above demonstrates that the authority of the bishops was not derived from the approval of the laypeople. Ordination was not bottom-up authorization, by democratic approval. “Ministerial authority” as you are using the term means that each individual remains his own highest interpretive authority. No doctrinal determination by the Apostles or bishops is higher in authority than one’s own interpretation of Scripture. Such a notion is entirely foreign to the early Church. The bishops represent Christ to the people, just as the Apostles represented Christ to the people. I have already addressed the “catholic or Roman” dilemma in the section VII. The Roman Catholic Church: An Oxymoron?. And the infallibility issue would require its own forum. But in short, we believe that the Holy Spirit lives in the Church, and that He is guiding her into all truth. The notion that the Church, speaking with her highest authority, could get the deposit of the faith wrong, is a denial of what the Church teaches about herself as not only a divinely established institution, but as a divinely animated Body. Every dissenter and heretic has to posit that the Church has gone wrong, and that it is his own interpretation that is true, in order to justify his refusal to accept the Church’s teaching. This ecclesial deism is fundamentally a disposition of doubt, a lack of faith in Christ’s indwelling of the Temple He is building, and a placing of oneself in position of hermeneutical superiority to those having the succession from the Apostles. While the Gnostics of the second century claimed that the bishops never received the full teaching of the Apostles, Protestantism claims that the bishops lost it. But, either way, it amounts to a kind of ecclesial deism; Christ set up His Church and then backed away and let her lose the faith. The Church is not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul. (Heb 10:39)⁶⁴

X. Bishops

In your last paragraph you claim that Pope Benedict XVI and John Zizioulas “acknowledge that presbyterian government was the earliest form of polity.” Your evidence for this claim is that Pope Benedict XVI and John Zizioulas affirm that the bishop is a fellow presbyter, and that the terms for ‘presbyter’ and ‘bishop’ are used interchangeably in the New Testament. Both of those claims are true, but they do not establish that someone without apostolic succession had the authority to govern in the early Church or the power to ordain others. Both Pope Benedict XVI and John Zizioulas believe that the episcopacy is an Apostolic institution, and that the bishop received his authority to ordain from the Apostles through the sacrament of episcopal ordination. Every bishop is also a presbyter, so referring to a group of persons as ‘presbyters’ does not entail that there is no bishop among them. Moreover, a bishop can be so in two [compatible] ways: by having received from the Apostles or their successors the authority to ordain, and by being given charge over a particular Church, to be its shepherd or overseer. There could be multiple presbyter-bishops [i.e. bishops in the sacramental sense] in a particular Church at a single time, even if only one of them had juridical charge over that particular Church. And while a Church was still being overseen by one or more Apostle, it could have presbyters (with or without the authority to ordain) without any one of them having juridical charge over that Church as its bishop. That is why we cannot justifiably infer from the Scriptural data that the earliest form of polity was presbyterian and not episcopal. For a more detailed explanation see Tim Troutman’s article “Holy Orders and the Sacrificial Priesthood.”

You wrote:

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.” The bishops of the East certainly agreed with this statement, but Gregory’s successors were less inclined to such pastoral humility.

The Church was constituted a hierarchical Body by Jesus Christ, when He appointed the Twelve to sit on twelve thrones, (Mt. 19:28, Lk 22:30) and made them the foundation stones of the Church. (Eph 2:20, Rev. 21:14) Of the old temple, Jesus said, “Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.” (Mt. 24:2, Mk 13:2, Lk 21:6) But the Church is the new Temple, as St. Paul says in 1 Cor 3:16, 2 Cor 6:16, and Eph 2:21. And the foundation stones of this Temple are the Twelve Apostles. Not everyone in the Church was an Apostle. (1 Cor 12:29) Rather, Christ established His Body with an order wherein some were publicly given the authority to govern the Church. The authority of the bishop is something we see very clearly in the epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was martyred about AD 107.⁶⁵ It can be seen implicitly in the writing of St. Clement, who writes:

These things therefore being manifest to us, and since we look into the depths of the divine knowledge, it behooves us to do all things in [their proper] order, which the Lord has commanded us to perform at stated times. He has enjoined offerings [to be presented] and service to be performed [to Him], and that not thoughtlessly or irregularly, but at the appointed times and hours. Where and by whom He desires these things to be done, He Himself has fixed by His own supreme will, in order that all things, being piously done according to His good pleasure, may be acceptable unto Him. Those, therefore, who present their offerings at the appointed times, are accepted and blessed; for inasmuch as they follow the laws of the Lord, they sin not. For his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen. (Epistle to the Corinthians, c. 40)

He is writing about doing all the things which the Lord (Jesus) has commanded us to do, and in speaking of “offerings” he is speaking of the Eucharist, which Christ commanded to be done in memory of Him. And St. Clement explains that Christ has appointed certain people to present these offerings, at the appointed times and hours. Then he immediately makes a three-fold distinction in “peculiar services.” The high priest has his own peculiar duties, and the priests have their own proper place, and so do the Levites. And even the laymen have laws pertaining to them. So in describing the functioning of the Church, St. Clement lays out a three-fold distinction in Holy Orders, as something established by Christ. Christ established in His New Covenant three different Holy Orders: new high priests, new priests, and new Levites. And these clearly are referring to the three-fold division of bishop, priest, and deacon, with the bishop being the high priest of the Church in his city.

That was long before the time of Constantine in the fourth century. But it is understandable that bishops would be given authority over cities, i.e. areas individuated on the basis of their political characteristics. And this should not surprise us; it is in keeping with the principle that grace builds on nature. Whereas every city would have a political leader sometimes termed a ‘magistrate,’ the Church in that city also had a leader, i.e. the bishop.

At the time of the Council of Nicea, the bishops were not just a loose collection, but were organized under metropolitans, who were themselves under patriarchs—and of the three patriarchs, the bishop of Rome had the primacy. This hierarchy of bishops under metropolitans and patriarchs was not something that developed from the bottom up, but from the top down. And that is how we can know that it went all the way back to the beginning, even to the time of St. Ignatius. St. Paul not only ordained St. Titus a bishop, he also made him essentially a metropolitan in Crete, a bishop over other bishops. St. Ignatius held the office in Syria that would become known as patriarch, one having an authority over other bishops. Whether St. Ignatius already exercised patriarchal authority over other bishops is unclear. But just as the priesthood grew from the episcopate as an expression of the need to extend the work of the bishop into the parishes of a particular Church, so the expansion of bishops under metropolitans and patriarchs grew not in a democratic way (i.e. by the coming together of bishops and election of one of them to be patriarch) but by the appointment of subordinate bishops by the patriarchate. So even if this did not yet occur in St. Ignatius lifetime, it at least occurred shortly thereafter in his successors, who by the time of the Council of Nicea had patriarchal authority over many bishops. This was not something that came about after Constantine; it was in place long before Constantine.

Regarding the statement by Pope Gregory the Great, to understand the sense in which he condemned the expression “universal Bishop,” we must understand the sense in which John the Faster intended it. It has always been Catholic teaching that the bishops are not mere agents of the Pope, but true successors of the Apostles. The supreme authority of St. Peter is perpetuated in the Popes; but the power and authority of the other Apostles is perpetuated in the other bishops in the true sense of the word. The Pope is not the “only” Bishop; and, although his ecclesial authority is supreme, his is not the “only” power. But John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, wanted to be bishop even of the dioceses of subordinate bishops, reducing them to mere agents, and making himself the universal or only real bishop. Pope Gregory condemned this intention, and wrote to John the Faster telling him that he had no right to claim to be universal bishop or “sole” bishop in his Patriarchate.⁶⁶

XI. The Authority of the Magisterium in Relation to Scripture

According to Catholic doctrine, the authority Christ gave to His Apostles and their successors is three-fold: the authority to teach, the authority to lead men to holiness (by way of the sacraments), and the authority to govern the Church.67 Here I’ll clarify the nature of the Magisterium’s teaching authority, and how it differs from the authority of Sacred Scripture.

The Sacred Scriptures are divinely inspired; God is their primary author. They contain in written form the words of God, including the final word given to us in His Son. In giving to us His Son, God has said everything He has to say, because to see Jesus is to see His Father. There will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross writes:

In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word – and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behavior but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.”68

For this reason, no new public revelation is to be expected until Christ returns on the clouds in glory. This is why “the Christian faith cannot accept ‘revelations’ that claim to surpass or correct the Revelation of which Christ is the fulfillment, as is the case in certain non-Christian religions,” such as Islam or Mormonism.69 So when the Magisterium of the Church exercises its teaching authority and declares some doctrine definitively to be believed by all the faithful, it is not adding to the deposit of faith, but instead unfolding and clarifying it. In doing so, the Magisterium is not divinely inspired; no new revelation is being given. The Nicene Creed, for example, is not divinely inspired. But because God protects the Magisterium from error when it defines a doctrine to be believed by all the faithful, the Nicene Creed is without error. And because the Magisterium has the authority (given to it by Christ) to make definitive decisions regarding the content of the deposit of faith entrusted to it, therefore to deny any dogma so taught by the Magisterium is ipso facto, [material] heresy. This is why it is heretical to deny any part of the Nicene Creed, but it is not ipso facto heretical to deny the interpretation of any particular person or group of persons. Heresy is not defined in terms of truth-as-determined-by-me, but in terms of truth-as-determined-by-those-to-whom-Christ-gave-the-authority-to-make-such-determinations.

One of the primary tasks of the Magisterium is to give the authoritative interpretation of the deposit of faith:

“The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.”70

But having interpretive authority does not mean that the divinely authorized interpreter has more authority than what is being interpreted. When the Apostles testified to Jesus being the Christ, they did not thereby take away from Christ’s authority. An authorized witness can give an authoritative testimony to an authority greater than himself, otherwise no one could have come to believe in the divinity of Jesus through the authority of the Apostles’ testimony. That is why, according to Catholic doctrine, the Magisterium “is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant.”

“Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”71

Protestants sometimes mistakenly think that the Catholic position is sola ecclesia, but that is not an accurate description of the Church’s teaching, because it excludes the essential role of Scripture and Tradition. There is a three-fold structure of authority consisting of Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and Magisterium, each according to its own mode of authority:

“It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”72

Catholics treat Scripture as something properly known and understood only within the bosom of holy Mother Church, and only as explicated by the Magisterium of the Church. Of course this does not preclude private study of Scripture, which is encouraged. But we view Scripture as something known through the Magisterium’s teaching authority, not fundamentally or ultimately removed from it. Interpretive authority is distinct from the authority of divine revelation, but each complements the other. The authority of Scripture is authority with respect to the content of the deposit of faith. The authority of the Magisterium, on the other hand, is interpretive authority with respect to the identification and explication of the deposit of faith. These are two different types or modes of authority. They do not compete with each other but complement each other and are mutually dependent. The Magisterium cannot exist as an interpretive authority without the sacred deposit of the Word of God. Similarly, the Sacred Scriptures cannot provide their own authentic and authoritative interpretation to the Church and so require the Magisterium in order to fulfill their purpose in the Church.

In relation to interpretive authority there are two kinds of interpretation. One is private interpretation. That is what I do when I read the Bible on my own. Another is authoritative interpretation. That is what the Church does when she speaks with her full authority about some doctrine, say, the Trinity or the Incarnation. Our own interpretation of the Bible does not have equal or greater authority than the interpretation of the Magisterium when the latter speaks with its full authority. To pit interpretive authority against (or in competition with) the authority of divine revelation is to fail to recognize the qualitative distinction between the two types of authority. Because they each have a distinct mode of authority, they can be complementary in function.

Tertullian shows us quite clearly how the question of interpretive authority is of primary importance:

“Our appeal [in debating with the heretics], therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. For a resort to the Scriptures would but result in placing both parties on equal footing, whereas the natural order of procedure requires one question to be asked first, which is the only one now that should be discussed: “With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong? From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule by which men become Christians? For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions”73

“Since this is the case, in order that the truth may be adjudged to belong to us, ‘as many as walk according to the rule,’ which the church has handed down from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, and Christ from God, the reason of our position is clear, when it determines that heretics ought not to be allowed to challenge an appeal to the Scriptures, since we, without the scriptures, prove that they have nothing to do with the Scriptures. For as they are heretics, they cannot be true Christians, because it is not from Christ that they get that which they pursue of their own mere choice, and from the pursuit incur and admit the name of heretics. Thus not being Christians, they have acquired no right to the Christian Scriptures; and it may be very fairly said to them, ‘Who are you?’”74

Tertullian shows here that the Scriptures belong to the Church, and therefore that the Church has the right and authority to interpret them. The heretic does not have the authority to give the authoritative determination of Scripture. But if ‘heretic’ were defined as “anyone who denies my interpretation of Scripture,” what Tertullian is saying here would not make any sense. Each party would treat every disagreeing party as heretical, and there would be no objective answer to the question, “Who has interpretive authority?” In other words, if interpretive authority rested in having the right doctrine, as determined by oneself, then every heretical sect could claim to have an interpretive authority that every other sect lacks. So in order for there to be a meaningful sense of interpretive authority, it cannot rest on right-doctrine-as-determined-by-oneself. This is why, as Tertullian explained above, interpretive authority rests in the succession from the Apostles. Of course the heretics think the bishops having the succession are in error and have misinterpreted Scripture; otherwise the heretics would not be heretics but would be in communion with the bishops having the succession. In actuality, however, the heretics are shown to be exactly that, heretical—not fundamentally by a journal article or academic authority because that presupposes that the determination of the true meaning of Scripture is fundamentally a matter of reason. Instead, they are shown to be heretical fundamentally by their disagreement with those having the succession and only per accidens by an exegetical or hermeneutical argument.

You claimed that in 1 Corinthians 4:6 and Galatians 1:8-9, St. Paul “placed the authority of Scripture over the magisterium.” You mean that in those passages, St. Paul denies that there is in the Church a [Magisterial] interpretive authority to which our interpretations must conform.

In 1 Corinthians 4:6, St. Paul says:

I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren, that you may learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another. (1 Cor. 4:6)

And in Galatians 1:8-9 he writes:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!

I do not see in 1 Corinthians 4:6 St. Paul denying Magisterial interpretive authority. The point in discussion in 1 Corinthians 4:6 is not whether there is an interpretive authority or how to interpret what is written. The point in question is whether the Corinthian believers should (in some sense) go beyond what is written, not whether they should hold to the authoritative interpretation of what is written.

Regarding Galatians 1:8-9, St. Paul is not teaching that individual laymen should subjugate Church authorities to their [i.e. the layman's] own interpretation of Scripture. St. Paul is saying that the Galatians must not abandon the gospel which he and all the other Apostles had preached to them. The foundation laid is absolutely true and therefore must never be torn up and re-founded on something different. That initial apostolic preaching is an infallible and irrevocable foundation. But the gospel that St. Paul and the others had preached was not defined as the individual Galatian believer’s own personal interpretation of Scripture. It was something much bigger than that. It was the faith that had been preached throughout the world by the Apostles. There was a communal, historical and personal dimension to the received faith and its identity; it wasn’t limited to the letters written by the Apostles. To see whether someone was teaching a novel teaching, one would compare the message in question to the teaching universally received from the Apostles throughout the whole universal Church. The standard by which to measure the message in question was not “my interpretation of Scripture.” Otherwise, anyone following his own novel interpretation of Scripture could claim to be following the original gospel. Instead, St. Paul is exhorting the Galatian believers to test the spirits against what had been originally given to them and to the whole world by the Apostles, namely the Apostolic deposit. He is not advocating the authoritative supremacy of private interpretation of Scripture but rather the irreversibility and irrevocability of the one universally received Apostolic deposit. That’s what Catholics have always affirmed and still affirm.

If a Catholic priest or bishop comes along who teaches contrary to the Apostolic deposit that has been taught and believed throughout the Church, we must not follow him because he is a heretic. But the standard is not on our own private interpretation of Scripture; rather, the public and communally-shared faith received by the whole Church from the Apostles is the standard. It is public and communal, not a standard of private interpretation. So the Catholic Church is not requiring anyone to give more obedience to the successors of the Apostles than did St. Paul because St. Paul was not teaching that each individual has supreme individual interpretive authority. The duty to submit to present interpretive authority is not incompatible with a duty to hold to what has previously been given; the two duties go together, and neither nullifies the other. The duty to hold on to what has been handed down from the Apostles does not give us a green light to pick as our ecclesial ‘authorities’ those who teach according to our own interpretation of Scripture. In other words, the duty to hold on to the Apostolic deposit and not to forsake it does not justify doing what St. Paul condemns in 2 Timothy 4:3-4—i.e. choosing one’s ecclesial ‘authority’ on the basis of their agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture.

XII. The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty

While from your perspective I exhibit a “nostalgia for a church that never was,” from the Catholic perspective Protestantism is objectively (though not necessarily subjectively) an expression of a lack of faith in Christ in the form of a lack of faith in the Church Christ founded that continues to exist in unbroken continuity from the day of Pentecost. The Catholic Church in communion with the successor of St. Peter, is the very Church referred to in the Creed: “one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.” This is an article of faith. The Church that for you “never was” is the same universal Church that gave us the Creed, the ecumenical councils, and the canon of Scripture. This one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church has always been a single visible universal Church, capable of excommunicating someone not just from a branch but from the universal visible Church.75 This universal visible Church has always been capable of promulgating doctrinal and disciplinary decisions to all the faithful.⁷⁶ You seemingly think that although Christ prayed in the Garden that His followers would be unified, so that the world may know that the Father sent Christ and that Christ loves them (John 17:23), His prayer will not be answered until He “returns to glorify His ecclesial body.” Hence you see the Catholic claim that Christ established His Church with an essential unity that is essentially visible, as “over-realized eschatology.” But, if Christ truly did establish His Church with a principium unitatis such that she can never lose visible unity, then the Catholic position is not “over-realized eschatology;” rather, your position is an under-realized ecclesiology. So, in order to adjudicate between the two paradigms, we have to determine what kind of unity Christ established in His Church, and whether the schisms that occurred in the history of the Church actually divided the unity of the Church, or whether they amounted to schisms from the Church.⁷⁷

To believe in the gospel as expressed in the Creed, one must believe also in the Church Christ founded. And this Church is known by those four marks which this same Church formulated in the Nicene Creed. The Reformed tradition, without any ecclesial authorization, replaced those four marks with three different marks (i.e. preaching the [Protestant] gospel, administering [two] sacraments, and practicing Church discipline). In doing so, they “de-materialized” the original four marks, as I have explained here. That invisible-church ecclesiology allows Protestants in their own minds—and with the good intention of preserving the purity of the apostolic doctrine—to justify separation from the Church Christ founded. But it is impossible to lay another foundation than the one Christ laid, namely, the Apostles themselves (Eph 2:20, Rev. 21:14).

Namaan, for example, did not like the muddy Jordan. He would have picked a cleaner river back home near Damascus. (2 King 5) But the issue was not ultimately about some virtue of Jordan’s water but about faith as submission to God, accepting what God had said through His prophet even though it was not the way Namaan would have done it. The obedience of faith required of Namaan by divine prescription that he dip in what to him was the muddy Jordan, whereas he would rather have washed in a cleaner river in his homeland. The Church Christ founded is very much like this. Even her seven sacraments are foreshadowed in Namaan’s being required to dip seven times. That is because the Mystical Body mirrors Christ’s physical body. Isaiah tells us, “He has no stately form or majesty that we should look upon Him, nor appearance that we should be attracted to Him. He was despised and forsaken of men, a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief; and like one from whom men hide their face, He was despised, and we did not esteem Him.” (Isaiah 53:2-3) The Church, which is the Body of Christ, imitates Christ in this respect. It is so human that one can walk right past it without recognizing it for what it is. Just as when looking at the physical body of Christ on the cross, and seeing the wounds from the nails, the gashes from the scourging, the crown of thorns, we might not see the divinity of that body, so likewise it is easy to look at the tares within the Church, dissenters within the Church, heretical clergy, etc., and conclude that this visible body cannot be the Church that Christ founded. It requires the eyes of faith to believe that this visible body, having the succession from Peter and the Apostles, is the Church that Christ founded and that Christ is found within her.

You seem to think that I have or seek a certainty “that is absolute and visible” but which never has been and never will never be until our Savior returns. But from my point of view you lack a certainty that Christ through His Church has always offered to all His sheep. Because you do not believe in an infallible Church, you cannot be certain about the canon of Scripture, being left with what R.C. Sproul calls a “fallible collection of infallible books.”⁷⁸ You cannot be certain about the Creed because it is not an exact restatement of Scripture, nor does it follow by logical deduction from Scripture. Thus for a Protestant there is no dogma because nothing other than Scripture can be known to be protected from error. Because of the absence of an authoritative Magisterium within Protestantism, in two thousand years of Church history, nothing has been definitively and irreversibly established. Every single theological question is unsettled, still up in the air, capable in principle of being answered in a way contrary to the way it has always been answered.

The problem with the claim that Catholics are on a quest for illegitimate religious certainty is that ‘illegitimate’ is defined in a question-begging way, i.e. one that presumes that Christ did not establish His Church with a living visible Magisterial authority by which doctrinal and moral questions could be definitively resolved. While from a Protestant point of view the Catholic seems guilty of QIRC (i.e. Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty), if in fact Christ did establish a living visible Magisterium, then the Protestant is guilty of what we could call NODIMA (Neglect Of Divinely Instituted Magisterial Authority). So charging the Catholic with QIRC is question-begging, and in order to resolve the disagreement on this point we have to step back and examine whether or not Christ did in fact establish a visible living Magisterial authority in His Church.

St. Paul describes the condition of men in the last days as “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.” (2 Tim 3:7) They are like the episcopal ghost in C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce, who cannot come to the knowledge of the truth. The one term they cannot bear is ‘dogma,’ because it requires them to submit their own interpretation to that of someone else. They have placed themselves in this epistemic condition because ultimately they are “lovers of self.” (2 Tim 3:2) By making themselves their own highest interpretive authority, they lose the very possibility of dogma and hence lose the possibility of coming to a knowledge of the truth. They are left perpetually only with opinion, with its accompanying uncertainty. And that is desirable to them in one respect because it allows them to retain autonomy. No one has the authority to tell them how to interpret and understand Scripture and thus how to worship and what to believe. They can therefore interpret Scripture as seems fit to them, having an appearance of learning, by accumulating for themselves ‘teachers’ to suit their own likings. (2 Timothy 4:3) They choose teachers who fit their own interpretation of Scripture, and if no denomination or community exists which teaches their own interpretation of Scripture, then they simply start one and tailor it to their own interpretation. We see this clearly today in the form of ecclesial consumerism, and ‘hipster Christianity.’ Your solution is a return to Scripture, or, more accurately, to your own interpretation of Scripture. But the source of the problem so clearly manifest in the explicit ecclesial consumerism of our time is inherent in the Protestant denial of the visible living magisterial authority Christ established in His Church. Church-according-to-my-style and Church-according-to-my-interpretation are two sides of the same coin. You condemn the former, while embracing the latter. You can call people to your interpretation of Scripture; however, since you have no interpretive authority by way of a succession from the Apostles, you are essentially just one more talking head among the myriads of men offering their own opinion. And that very fact performatively expresses approval to everyone to follow his or her own opinion concerning God and Scripture: if you can do it, so can they. But we are men under authority, subject to Christ by submitting ourselves to those having the succession from Christ through the Apostles.⁷⁹

May God help us, and reconcile us all in the full communion He prayed we would manifest to the world. In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

Feast of St. Albert the Great, 2010.

1. Excerpted from “Sola Scriptura: A Dialogue between Michael Horton and Bryan Cross,” Modern Reformation (Nov./Dec. 2010, Vol 19 Issue: 6, pp. 47-49)
2. See “Vatican II and the Inerrancy of the Bible.”
3. See Bishop Bossuet’s History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches.
4. Disagreements of this sort continue within the Catholic Church to this day, as for example, Thomists and Bonaventurians and Scotists differ on certain undefined points of theology, but nevertheless share in the Eucharist together. Because these disagreements are not about already-defined matters, they are in that respect not like schisms and heresies, both of which are incompatible with unity of faith and full communion in the sacraments.
5. Revelation 3:7, cf. Isaiah 22:22.
6. In June of last year I addressed this Montanistic approach to following the Spirit in a post titled “Play Church.”
7. John 14:17, John 15:26, John 16:13
8. 1 Tim 3:15
9. John 16:13
10. Council of Trent, Session 5.
11. Council of Trent, Session 6, chapter 7.
12. See here for a list of the ecumenical councils.
13. That the Catholic Church is Roman in this respect obviously should not be taken to mean that every particular Catholic Church is Roman in the same sense that the Latin [particular] Church is Roman. The Catholic Church is a communion of twenty-two particular Churches, only one of which is the Latin Church.
14. See the list of Popes here.
15. See my “The Tradition and the Lexicon.”
16. Session 4.
17. Vatican I, Session 3, 2.5.
18. Vatican I, Session 3, 3.8.
19. Dei Verbum 9,10
20. Ad Haer. III.2
21. Ad Haer. III.3
22. Epistle to the Corinthians, 42.
23. Epistle to the Corinthians, 44.
24. Historia Ecclesiastica III.11.
25. Historia Ecclesiastica III.35.
26. Historia Ecclesiastica IV.5.
27. Historia Ecclesiastica III.14.
28. Historia Ecclesiastica III.21-22.
29. Historia Ecclesiastica IV.1.
30. Historia Ecclesiastica III.36
31. Epistle to the Trallians, 3.1.
32. Epistle to the Ephesians, 6:1. See also 3:2.
33. Historia Ecclesiastica III.36
34. Eusebius writes, “At that time also in the church of Antioch, Theophilus was well known as the sixth from the apostles. For Cornelius, who succeeded Hero, was the fourth, and after him Eros, the fifth in order, had held the office of bishop.” (Historia Ecclesiastica IV.20
35. Historia Ecclesiastica III.23.
36. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum, 32. See also Historia Ecclesiastica III.36.
37. Historia Ecclesiastica III.36
38. Adversus haereses III.4.1
39. Adversus haereses III.3.2
40. As for Schaff’s interpretation of this paragraph from St. Irenaeus, his is a novel interpretation; that is not how it has always been understood. Nor does it fit with what St. Irenaeus is saying. St. Irenaeus says nothing about travelers to Rome keeping the Church at Rome orthodox. Travelers to Rome could just as easily have corrupted it with heresies. In fact we know of many Gnostics who went to Rome in the second century (e.g. Marcellina, Cerdon, Valentinus, Marcion), precisely to try to infiltrate the mother Church with their heretical doctrines. The basis St. Irenaeus gives for the “preeminent authority” of the Church at Rome is the succession from St. Peter.
41. Adversus haereses IV.26.2.
42. Adversus haereses III.3.4
43. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum, 21.
44. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum, 32.
45. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum, 21.
46. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum, 36.
47. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum, 37.
48. Historia Ecclesiastica IV.22
49. Regarding some of the more recent claims about St. Hegesippus, see my comments #20 and #26.
50. Historia Ecclesiastica IV.23
51. Historia Ecclesiastica IV.23
52. Historia Ecclesiastica III.31
53. St. Augustine wrote, “[I]f you acknowledge the supreme authority of Scripture, you should recognise that authority which from the time of Christ Himself, through the ministry of His apostles, and through a regular succession of bishops in the seats of the apostles, has been preserved to our own day throughout the whole world, with a reputation known to all. (Against Faustus Bk. 33.9)
54. See “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura, and the Question of Interpretive Authority.”
55. Moreover, only those who had received the authority to pass on that authority could do so. Those who had not received the authority to pass on their authority could not pass on their authority.
56. This is the sense in which we can understand St. Paul’s statement, “Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery.” (1 Tim 4:14) Since Apostles and bishops are also presbyters, the phrase “laying on of hands by the presbytery” does not necessarily mean that all the men who laid hands on Timothy when he received this gift were [mere] presbyters. The term “presbytery” could include both [mere] presbyters and bishops and even apostles, such as St. Paul.
57. Just as the writing of the Old Testament came after the covenant with Abraham, so the writing of the New Testament came after Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection and sending of His Spirit on the day of Pentecost. The people of God existed prior to the sacred writings, because God used members of these communities to write these texts. Therefore the sacred writings could not be the foundation of the Church, for otherwise the Church could not exist until the writings existed.
58. Moreover, the Apostles made use of lots in order to choose Judas’ successor, precisely because they so strongly believed Christ’s promise that the Spirit was guiding the Church, that they trusted His providential guidance of the lots.
59. I agree with you that there were elders participating at the Jerusalem Council, and that Peter himself did not decide the matter. The collegiality of the Jerusalem council is fully in keeping with the collegiality of the bishops in communion with the successor of St. Peter. (See Lumen Gentium, 19-27.) But since every bishop is an elder, the fact that elders participated in the Jerusalem Council does not show that the Apostles treated [mere] presbyters as having the authority reserved for bishops at the first Council of Nicea. Even to this day, larger cities have more than one bishop, even though only one is the diocesan bishop, as James the Righteous was of the Church at Jerusalem. Therefore, Luke’s account of the Jerusalem Council is fully compatible with Catholic ecclesiology.
60. Luther and Calvin did no miraculous signs, arguing rather that such things ceased with the death of the Apostles. Nor did they have the authorization of the Church to say what they said against the Church.
61. But if unordained people can ordain, then any believer can ordain any other believer, perhaps even himself. In that case, anyone can celebrate the Lord’s Supper, even in one’s own kitchen.
62. Historia Ecclesiastica III.4.
63. If Scripture so clearly taught something incompatible with the Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession, it would be strange that no one throughout the universal Church noticed it, for fifteen hundred years.
64. Regarding the question of apostolic succession, see our forthcoming article on that subject.
65. See “St. Ignatius of Antioch on the Church.”
66. For an illuminating study regarding the authority of the Pope in the Church Fathers, I recommend Studies on the Early Papacy, by Dom John Chapman, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority: AD 96 – 454, by Giles, The Primitive Church and the See of Peter, by Luke Rivington, and The Throne of the Fisherman, by Thomas W. Allies.
67. Mystici Corporis Christi, 38.
68. CCC, 65.
69. CCC, 67.
70. Dei Verbum, 10.
71. Dei Verbum, 10
72. CCC, 95.
73. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum, 19.
74. Liber de praescriptione haereticorum, 37.
75. cf. Matthew 18:17.
76. cf. Acts 15.
77. Cf. St. Cyprian writes:

    The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, “As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; ” (John 20:21) yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.” (Song of Songs 6:9) Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? ” (Ephesians 4:4)

    And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source. Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree—when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. (On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 4-5)

78. Cf. “The Canon Question.
79. I would like to thank Tom Brown, Barrett Turner, Andrew Preslar, Jonathan Deane, and John Kincaid for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this post.

Detail from a fresco depicting Christ picking up the child St. Ignatius, from the account in the Gospel of St. Matthew 18:4.

According to the eyewitness account of the martyrdom of St. Ignatius, recorded by Deacon Philo of Tarsus and the Syrian Rheus Agathopus, who had accompanied St. Ignatius from Antioch to Rome, in Emperor Trajan’s ninth year (AD 107) he sent for St. Ignatius on his way through Antioch, and ordered him to worship the Roman gods. When St. Ignatius refused, Trajan had him bound and sent to Rome “there to be devoured by the beasts, for the gratification of the people.” When he arrived at Rome he was in fact martyred in the amphitheatre by wild beasts.¹

On his way to Rome St. Ignatius composed seven epistles, five of which were addressed to Churches of various cities along the way, one to the Church at Rome, and one composed to St. Polycarp (AD c. 69 – 155), the bishop of Smyrna. St. Polycarp knew St. Ignatius (they had met face to face) and wrote about St. Ignatius’s epistles in his Epistle to the Philippians. Smyrna was the first place that St. Ignatius stopped on his way from Antioch to Rome. There he wrote his letters to the Churches at Ephesus, Magnesia, Tralles and Rome. Then, when St. Ignatius arrived at Troas, he wrote his letters to the Church at Philadelphia and to the Church at Smyrna, and he also wrote his letter to St. Polycarp.

In each of these seven letters we can learn something about the nature and structure of the Church at the beginning of the second century, and especially the structure and ground for the leadership of the Church.

In his Epistle to the Ephesians, St. Ignatius refers to Onesimus as the bishop of the Ephesians (c. 1). Then he writes:

“It is therefore befitting that you should in every way glorify Jesus Christ who has glorified you, that by a unanimous obedience you may be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment, and may all speak the same thing concerning the same thing,” [1 Corinthians 1:10] and that, being subject to the bishop and the presbytery, you may in all respects be sanctified.” (c. 2)

Notice here that he enjoins the Christian faithful in Ephesus to be subject to their bishop and the presbytery, as the means by which they may all be in “unanimous obedience.” He explicitly denies issuing orders to the Ephesians as if he is some “great person.” He points out that he can learn from them, and that he is exhorting them on account of love. He speaks of bishops being already established all over the world, writing:

“For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the [manifested] will of the Father; as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds [of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ.” (c. 3)

Then he continues in chapter 4, writing:

“Wherefore it is fitting that you should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also you do. For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. Therefore in your concord and harmonious love, Jesus Christ is sung. And man by man, become a choir, that being harmonious in love, and taking up the song of God in unison, you may with one voice sing to the Father through Jesus Christ, so that He may both hear you, and perceive by your works that you are indeed the members of His Son. It is profitable, therefore, that you should live in an unblameable unity, that thus you may always enjoy communion with God.”

Notice that unity and harmony are, for St. Ignatius, made possible by hierarchical order. St. Ignatius is not teaching that unity takes place by a ‘flattening’ of authority to some form of egalitarianism. Rather, for St. Ignatius, it is precisely in the harmony of each person acting in accordance with his appointed office that true harmony is made possible.

Then in chapter 5 he writes,

“For if I in this brief space of time, have enjoyed such fellowship with your bishop — I mean not of a mere human, but of a spiritual nature — how much more do I reckon you happy who are so joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in unity!”

Here St. Ignatius again shows how being united to our divinely appointed ecclesial authority is analogous to the union of the Church with Jesus, and the union of Jesus to God the Father. Just as the gospel has come to us in an hierarchical fashion (from the Father, to the Son, from the Son to the Apostles, from the Apostles to the bishops), so likewise our present union with God the Father is through an harmonious hierarchy: first with the bishop, through union with him to the Apostles, through union with them to Jesus Christ, and through union with Him to God the Father.

At the end of that same chapter St. Ignatius writes,

“Let us be careful, then, not to set ourselves in opposition to the bishop, in order that we may be subject to God.”

The hierarchical nature of our union with God makes union with the bishop essential, and makes separation from our bishop a separation from the divinely appointed means by which we are united to God. Then in chapter 6 St. Ignatius writes:

“Now the more any one sees the bishop keeping silence, the more ought he to revere him. 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. And indeed Onesimus himself greatly commends your good order in God, that you all live according to the truth, and that no sect has any dwelling-place among you. Nor, indeed, do ye hearken to any one rather than to Jesus Christ speaking in truth.”

Notice the relation between following the bishop, preserving unity and avoiding any sect. For St. Ignatius, we receive and follow the bishop because He is sent by Jesus. And the bishop is sent by Jesus by having been sent by the Apostles, not by a secret inward call from heaven.

St. Ignatius commends the Ephesians for not heeding false teachers. (c. 9) Then in chapter 13 he writes:

“For when you assemble frequently in the same place, the powers of Satan are destroyed, and the destruction at which he aims is prevented by the unity of your faith. Nothing is more precious than peace, by which all war, both in heaven and earth, is brought to an end.”

He points out that Satan is seeking to bring destruction and division. This is overcome through the “unity of our faith.” Especially in the last sentence he reveals that peace is not the cessation of war. Rather, peace and unity are that by which war is overcome. To bring peace we must ourselves enter the peace and unity of God. We cannot make peace or unity out of division and strife. We must find the existing peace and unity established by Christ Jesus, and enter into it. This principle applies also to sects and schisms between Christians. We cannot make unity out of division, without being united to an existing divinely-established unity.

Then in chapter 20 St. Ignatius writes:

“[S]o that ye obey the bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, breaking one and the same bread, which is the medicine of immortality, and the antidote to prevent us from dying, but [which causes] that we should live for ever in Jesus Christ.”

Here too St. Ignatius urges the Ephesian Christians to obey their bishop and the presbytery with an undivided mind, so that they can share together the Eucharist. We may be reminded of what St. Paul wrote: “Since there is one bread, we who are many are one body; for we all partake of the one bread.” (1 Corinthians 10:17) We see here in chapter 20 of St. Ignatius’s letter that for him, this sacrament by which we are made one is deeply connected to our being joined together to our rightful shepherds. If we depart from the bishop, we no longer share in the one Bread, and thus are in some respect separated from the one Body.

In his Epistle to the Magnesians, chapter 2, Ignatius writes:

“Since, then, I have had the privilege of seeing you, through Damas your most worthy bishop, and through your worthy presbyters Bassus and Apollonius, and through my fellow-servant the deacon Sotio, whose friendship may I ever enjoy, inasmuch as he is subject to the bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ, [I now write to you].”

Notice that the deacon is subject to the bishop (as by analogy to God the Father) and also to the presbytery (as by analogy to Jesus Christ).

In chapter 3, he writes:

“Now it becomes you also not to treat your bishop too familiarly on account of his youth, but to yield him all reverence, having respect to the power of God the Father, as I have known even holy presbyters do, not judging rashly, from the manifest youthful appearance [of their bishop], but as being themselves prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all. It is therefore fitting that you should, after no hypocritical fashion, obey [your bishop] in honour of Him who has willed us [so to do], since he that does not so deceives not [by such conduct] the bishop that is visible, but seeks to mock Him that is invisible. And all such conduct has reference not to man, but to God, who knows all secrets.”

Chapter 3 in this way gives us an insight into the thought of St. Ignatius regarding the hierarchical way of being united with God in love and obedience. When we submit to the bishop, we are not submitting ultimately to the bishop himself, but ultimately to God the Father, because it is God who has sent and appointed the bishop as His representative. We thus serve God by way of following our divinely appointed shepherd, the bishop. To disobey the visible bishop (or feign obedience to him) is to disobey the Bishop who is invisible (i.e. God the Father).

In chapter 4 he writes,

“It is fitting, then, not only to be called Christians, but to be so in reality: as some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not steadfastly gathered together according to the commandment.”

Some Christians, according to St. Ignatius, recognize a person as having the title ‘bishop’, but disregard their bishop in their activities, as if he has no authority. This behavior, claims St. Ignatius, is not in accordance with the commandment pertaining to the assembling of believers. Believers are supposed to assemble in union with their bishop.

In chapter 6 he writes:

“Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. Do ye all then, imitating the same divine conduct, pay respect to one another, and let no one look upon his neighbour after the flesh, but do ye continually love each other in Jesus Christ. Let nothing exist among you that may divide you; but be ye united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality.” (my emphases)

This paragraph again shows how St. Ignatius understands the basis for a divine harmony in the Church. There is an hierarchical order of bishop, presbyters, and deacons. They are united to each other in that hierarchy, and the laity are united to them in obedience and love. This is the key to unity, according to St. Ignatius, that we be visibly united to our bishop and the others under him in the hierarchy, so that we may reflect to the whole world the eternal order and unity in the Godhead.

In chapter 7 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. Neither endeavour that anything appear reasonable and proper to yourselves apart; but being come together into the same place, let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope, in love and in joy undefiled.”

Here again we see that the unity St. Ignatius urges us the believers to maintain is based on an hierarchical order that comes from God the Father, through His Son Jesus Christ whom He sent, then through the Apostles whom Christ sent, and then through the bishops whom the Apostles appointed. For St. Ignatius, to be united together in true unity in the Church, we must be united to the eternal divine harmony that has become incarnated through Christ and continues in the enduring apostolic succession.

St. Ignatius finishes chapter 7 with the following statement:

“Therefore run together as into one temple of God, as to one altar, as to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from one Father, and is with and has gone to one.”

We are to run together as into one temple of God, not to multiple temples. The Church is one, because Christ is one, and because God the Father is one. How do we ensure that we run together into one temple of God? For St. Ignatius, the answer is this: by following the bishop whom God has appointed and established.

In chapter 13 he writes,

“with your most admirable bishop, and the well-compacted spiritual crown of your presbytery, and the deacons who are according to God. Be subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual.”

Notice again St. Ignatius’s hierarchical conception order and unity. The unity of a plurality in which the plurality is in some sense preserved is always a unity of order. There is an order in the Trinity. So likewise, there is an order in the Church, of deacons to presbyters, and presbyters to the bishop. If we wish to imitate Jesus in His obedience to the Father, we are be obedient to the bishop, and thus, together in submission to our bishop, we are also to be subject to one another. For in this way, according to St. Ignatius, the Apostles were subject to Christ, to the Father, and to the Spirit. By being subject to those in the flesh who have been divinely established over us, we are also being subject to the Spirit.

In his Epistle to the Trallians, St. Ignatius writes in chapter 1 about Polybius as the bishop of the church at Tralles. He writes:

“I know that you possess an unblameable and sincere mind in patience, and that not only in present practice, but according to inherent nature, as Polybius your bishop has shown me, who has come to Smyrna by the will of God and Jesus Christ, and so sympathized in the joy which I, who am bound in Christ Jesus, possess, that I beheld your whole multitude in him.”

Polybius had come to Smyrna to visit St. Ignatius, and through him St. Ignatius beholds, as it were, the whole Church at Smyrna.

In chapter 2, St. Ignatius writes:

“For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all. For they are not ministers of meat and drink, but servants of the Church of God. They are bound, therefore, to avoid all grounds of accusation [against them], as they would do fire.”

Here again we see St. Ignatius distinguish the offices of bishop, presbyter, and deacon. He explains that the Christians are to be subject to their bishop as to Jesus Christ. They are to do nothing apart from their bishop, that is, nothing pertaining to the Church. They are to be subject to the presbytery as to the apostle of Jesus. So the authority of Christ and the Apostles continues in the Church, according to St. Ignatius, through the offices of bishop and presbyter. The deacon holds a different order. The deacon is distinct from the bishop and presbyter in the third place after the bishop and the presbyter. The deacon is not a minister of the “mysteries” (i.e. the sacraments), because he is not a priest. Deacons are not “ministers of meat and drink” (i.e. the Body and Blood of Christ). They are servants of the bishop, and in this way servants of the Church of God.

In chapter 3 he writes:

“In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that you are of the same opinion. For I have received the manifestation of your love, and still have it with me, in your bishop, whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence, seeing they are also pleased that I do not spare myself.”

Here again the deacon is to be honored as an “appointment of Jesus Christ” while the bishop is to be honored (by comparison) as if Jesus Christ. This is a very early explanation of what it means for the bishop or priest to be in Persona Christi. The presbyters are to be honored as “the sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles.” By describing the presbytery in both these ways, St. Ignatius draws a connection between the magisterial authority under the Old Covenant and that of the New Covenant, showing that under the New Covenant, the presbyters have succeeded the Sandhedrin, and by implication the bishop has the place of the high priest. He again in this chapter we see the three fold distinction in Holy Orders, from bishop, presbyter, and deacon.

In chapter 7 he writes:

“Be on your guard, therefore, against such persons [i.e. heretics]. And this will be the case with you if you are not puffed up, and continue in intimate union with Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles. He that is within the altar is pure, but he that is without is not pure; that is, he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience.”

St. Ignatius teaches here that if we remain humble and in intimate union with “Jesus Christ our God, and the bishop, and the enactments of the apostles” we will be able to avoid being deceived by heretics. This statement shows that in the mind of St. Ignatius, what was enacted by the apostles continues in the succession of the bishops. Therefore, to remain in intimate union with Jesus Christ, believers must remain united to their bishop, for in doing so, they remain joined to the act of the Apostles, and thus to Jesus Christ. If we remain in this divinely established order, according to St. Ignatius, we will be protected from heresy. St. Ignatius’s statement implies that in the succession of bishops set up by the Apostles, there is a promise of divine protection from heresy and schism.

In chapter 12, he writes:

“Continue in harmony among yourselves, and in prayer with one another; for it becomes every one of you, and especially the presbyters, to refresh the bishop, to the honour of the Father, of Jesus Christ, and of the apostles.”

By remaining in harmony with one another, and praying for another, we refresh our bishop, and honor God the Father and Jesus Christ, and the apostles [who appointed the bishops].²

In chapter 13, he writes:

“Fare well in Jesus Christ, while you continue subject to the bishop, as to the command [of God], and in like manner to the presbytery.”

St. Ignatius seems to believe that with the death of the Apostles, he as a bishop must remind the Christians that the apostolic authority continues in the succession of bishops whom the Apostles appointed. Only in this way can unity be preserved and heresy avoided.

In his Epistle to the Romans, St. Ignatius writes in a very different manner from the tone in his other letters. He never enjoins the Christians at Rome to submit to their leaders. Instead he asks them to pray for him. It is worth recalling that at this time there was a recognized primacy in the three apostolic churches: Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. They held a primacy not because of their size or importance, but because of their relation to St. Peter.³ But St. Ignatius here shows deference to the Church at Rome, in contrast to the tone he adopts in his other letters. This seems to be an indication of his recognition of the primacy had by the Church at Rome, even among the three apostolic Churches, since he himself was the bishop of the Church at Antioch.

In chapter 2 he identifies himself as “the bishop of Syria,” writing “that God has deemed me, the bishop of Syria, worthy to be sent for from the east unto the west.” He clearly does not see himself as one among many different equal bishops of Syria. Then in chapter 9 he writes, “Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me.” His role as “the bishop of Syria” has been to shepherd the believers in Syria. It is not that while he was the bishop of Syria the Church there in Syria did not have God as its shepherd. What he means here is that now (upon his absence from Syria) the Church in Syria has only God as its shepherd (or bishop).

From Troas, St. Ignatius wrote his Epistle to the Philadelphians. In chapter 2 of this epistle he writes:

“Wherefore, as children of light and truth, flee from division and wicked doctrines; but where the shepherd is, there follow as sheep. For there are many wolves that appear worthy of credit, who, by means of a pernicious pleasure, carry captive (2 Timothy 3:6) those that are running towards God; but in your unity they shall have no place.”

How are we to flee divisions and wicked doctrines? The answer St. Ignatius gives is to follow the shepherd (i.e. the bishop). That answer would be of no use if there was no objective way to distinguish true shepherds from imposters. Only if there is a basis for assurance of divine protection among the successors of the Apostles can staying with the successors of the Apostles be the means by which the sheep keep themselves from wolves, thieves, and robbers, i.e. those self-appointed persons who climb into the role of shepherd by some other way than through the gate, by the authorization of the gatekeeper in apostolic succession.⁴

In chapter 3 he writes:

“Keep yourselves from those evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend, because they are not the planting of the Father. Not that I have found any division among you, but exceeding purity. For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.].”

By “evil plants which Jesus Christ does not tend” he means those who are separate from the bishop. “For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop”. But God is merciful, so that if any return in repentance to the unity of the Church, they shall belong to God. St. Ignatius makes a very strong claim about schism. To create a schism or to follow those who create a schism, is to imperil one’s soul. We are not to walk according to “strange [novel] opinion,” but according to what has been handed down to the bishop.

In chapter 4, he writes:

“Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to [show forth] the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants: that so, whatsoever you do, you may do it according to [the will of] God.”

St. Ignatius here enjoins the believers in Philadelphia to be united to their bishop, so that they may have only one Eucharist and in this way show forth the unity of Christ’s blood. St. Ignatius’s here again clearly distinguishes between the three offices: bishop, presbytery and deacon. In being joined in our actions to the bishop, the presbyters and the deacons, we are ensuring that we are acting according to the will of God.

In chapter 7, he writes:

“For, when I was among you, I cried, I spoke with a loud voice: Give heed to the bishop, and to the presbytery and deacons. Now, some suspected me of having spoken thus, as knowing beforehand the division caused by some among you. But He is my witness, for whose sake I am in bonds, that I got no intelligence from any man. But the Spirit proclaimed these words: Do nothing without the bishop; keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; avoid divisions; be the followers of Jesus Christ, even as He is of His Father.”

St. Ignatius here exhorts the Christians to “love unity” and “avoid divisions.” How are they to do this? By “giving heed to the bishop, the presbytery, and the deacons.”

In chapter 8 he writes:

“I therefore did what belonged to me, as a man devoted to unity. For where there is division and wrath, God does not dwell. To all them that repent, the Lord grants forgiveness, if they turn in penitence to the unity of God, and to communion with the bishop.”

According to St. Ignatius, God is a God of unity, peace and order. He does not dwell where there is division and wrath. So if we wish to be united to God, we must return to the “unity of God.” How do we return to the “unity of God”? By seeking communion with the bishop.

In chapter 10 he writes:

“[A]s also the nearest Churches have sent, in some cases bishops, and in others presbyters and deacons.”

He St. Ignatius reports that some of the churches bishops, and others sent presbyters and deacons. It is very clear that there is in the mind of St. Ignatius a clear distinction between the bishop and the [mere] presbyter.

In Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Ignatius writes in chapters 7-8:

“But avoid all divisions, as the beginning of evils. See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”

How do we avoid divisions (which are the beginning of evil)? For St. Ignatius, the answer is: Follow the bishop even as Jesus Christ follows God the Father, and follow the presbytery as we would the apostles, and reverence the deacons as being the institution of God. Here we see in St. Ignatius the three primary Holy Orders as having been established and perpetuated by God, so that to follow those holding these Holy Orders is to follow God. Likewise, according to St. Ignatius there is a very important relation between Holy Orders and the other sacraments, particularly the Eucharist. Only that Eucharist is proper which is administered by the bishop or by one to whom the bishop has entrusted it (i.e. a presbyter under him). According to St. Ignatius, the same is true of baptisms. The people are to follow the bishop. Where the bishop is, there is the Catholic (i.e. universal) Church. In other words, the bishop forms the backbone, so to speak, of the Body of Christ. We are all joined together in an organic unity insofar as we are joined to the bishop.

In chapter 9, he writes:

“It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil.”

Here St. Ignatius teaches in the strongest language that those who reject the authority of the bishop are serving the devil. This is because the bishop has been authorized by Christ, by way of the succession from the Apostles. Just as those who reject Jesus are rejecting God the Father, so also those who reject the successors of the Apostles are rejecting the Apostles, and those who reject the Apostles are rejecting Jesus Christ. The bishop is a continuation of Christ’s ministry on earth. So to honor and reverence the bishop is to honor and reverence Christ, and to reject the bishop is to reject the One who sent him, i.e. Jesus Christ.

In chapter 12 he writes:

“I salute your most worthy bishop, and your very venerable presbytery, and your deacons, my fellow-servants, and all of you individually, as well as generally, in the name of Jesus Christ, and in His flesh and blood, in His passion and resurrection, both corporeal and spiritual, in union with God and you.”

Here again he distinguishes the three offices of Holy Orders, corresponding to the high priest, priest, and Levite in the Old Covenant.

Lastly, in his Epistle to Polycarp, St. Ignatius writes in chapter 5:

“If [the man who chooses to remain a virgin for Christ] begins to boast, he is undone; and if he reckon himself greater than the bishop, he is ruined. But it becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust.”

Through this letter we get to look on as an old bishop at the beginning of the second century passes down the tradition to a young bishop, i.e. St. Polycarp. Notice that for St. Ignatius, consecrated celibacy is a higher calling, but the person who has been called to consecrated celibacy is still to be subordinate to the bishop. Similarly, the marriages of Christians should be approved by the bishop. Here already we see the sacramental and ecclesial character of Christian marriage, as well as the superiority of consecrated celibacy over the vocation of marriage.

In chapter 6, in speaking of the duties of the flock he writes:

“Give heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbyters, and to the deacons, and may my portion be along with them in God!”

Here again we see the three-fold distinction in Holy Orders, as well as the nature of the divine authority of those having Holy Orders. If we want God to give heed to us, we need to give heed to the bishop. If we rebel against the bishop, we are rebelling against God, and therefore cannot expect God to give heed to us.

In chapter 7 he says to St. Polycarp:

“It is fitting, O Polycarp, most blessed in God, to assemble a very solemn council, and to elect one whom you greatly love, and know to be a man of activity, who may be designated the messenger of God; and to bestow on him this honour that he may go into Syria, and glorify your ever active love to the praise of Christ.”

Here St. Ignatius explains that it would be fitting for St. Polycarp, as bishop of Smyrna, to assemble a very solemn council in order to choose someone to perform this particular task of going to Syria as a messenger on behalf of St. Ignatius.

What can we learn from these seven epistles regarding what St. Ignatius believed about the Church? In these epistles he reveals his concern for the preservation of the unity and orthodoxy of the Church. For St. Ignatius, the divinely established means for the preservation of the unity and orthodoxy of the Church is for all Christians, wherever they may be, to follow the bishop, because the bishop has divine authority from Christ through the Apostles. St. Ignatius also clearly and repeatedly distinguishes between the three Holy Orders in the Church: bishop, presbyter, and deacon. Also implicit in St. Ignatius’s ecclesiology is a belief in the perpetual divine protection of the unity and orthodoxy of the Church through the apostolic succession of the bishops, by virtue of its being a continuation of the life and ministry of Jesus Christ, in His Mystical Body.

Of course this does raise the question whether bishops can fall into apostasy. What is explicit in St. Ignatius’s ecclesiology regarding the ordered relation of deacon, presbyter and bishop, implies that insofar as there is any hierarchical order among the bishops themselves, those subordinate bishops should likewise defer to those of greater authority. And this seems to be the case for the bishops of the three apostolic churches: Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome. St. Ignatius, as the bishop of the Church in the second highest place of honor and preeminence in the Catholic Church, clearly shows deference to the Church at Rome, and in this way gives an example to all bishops of lesser sees. Implicit then in St. Ignatius’s belief that the laity are assured divine protection as they follow their bishop are two conditions: namely, that the bishop in question remains in full communion with the bishop holding the highest authority in the Church, and that the bishop with highest authority in the Church has some unique divine protection from error.

1. See also chapter 11 of St. Ignatius’s Epistle to the Philadelphians.
2. We cannot help here but be reminded of Hebrews 13:17.
3. According to the tradition, at Rome St. Peter sent St. Mark to found the Church at Alexandria.
4. cf. John 10:1-5

Basically the argument is that in the first century the church did not have a monarchical bishop and was instead ruled by a group of elders who were all equal.

The main work that has been cited by those putting forth this hypothesis is “From Paul to Valentinus: Christians in Rome in the First Two Centuries” by Peter Lampe. Here is most of the entire work on Google.

One of Lampe’s conclusions, the one that is being embraced by the Reformed apologetic blogosphere¹ is presented by Lampe thus:

The fractionation in Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the city.”

The intended connotation to all of this is that apostolic succession and in particular the office of the Bishop of Rome was a 2nd century invention. This has caused various Reformed bloggers to conclude that the Papacy is an invention and that apostolic succession is a ‘fraud.’²

This post is not attempt to give a thorough treatment of Lampe’s work. However, the question must arise, “How did Peter Lampe get to this conclusion? What evidence has Peter Lampe uncovered that is more reliable than early witnesses to the succession of bishops such as the list of St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3)?”

Therefore, the challenge is the following:

Can you name one piece of historical evidence that meets these two conditions:

(1) it shows that there was no monarchical bishop in Rome until the second half of the second century, and;

(2) it is stronger evidence than is the list of St. Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3)

(Please show why it is stronger evidence than is St. Irenaeus’ list.)³

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

“For what is the bishop but one who beyond all others possesses all power and authority, so far as it is possible for a man to possess it, who according to his ability has been made an imitator of the Christ off God? And what is the presbytery but a sacred assembly, the counselors and assessors of the bishop? And what are the deacons but imitators of the angelic powers, fulfilling a pure and blameless ministry unto him, as…Anencletus and Clement to Peter?” Ignatius, To the Trallians, 7 (A.D. 110).

1. The fact that Lampe draws various conclusions in his study that these same Reformed bloggers would necessarily reject out of hand is not discussed here but has been demonstrated elsewhere such as here.
2. Example here.
3. See comments here Ecclesial Deism This was originally offered by Bryan Cross.

Christ Taking Leave of the Apostles
Duccio di Buoninsegna (1308-11)
Museo dell’Opera del Duomo, Siena

I. The authority argument

In various places I have argued previously that without apostolic succession, creeds and confessions have no actual authority.¹ They have no actual authority apart from apostolic succession because without apostolic succession the only available basis for a creed or confession’s authority is the individual’s agreement with the interpretation of Scripture found in that creed or confession. Each person picks the confession of faith that most closely represents his own interpretation of Scripture. If his interpretation of Scripture happens to change, he is not bound by his prior choice of confession; rather, he simply picks a different confession that more closely matches his present interpretation. I have described this as painting one’s magisterial target around one’s interpretive arrow, i.e. the practice of choosing and grounding magisterial authority based on its agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture.²

But an important principle regarding authority is this: “When I submit (only when I agree), the one to whom I submit is me.” In other words, agreement with oneself cannot be the basis for authority over oneself. Therefore a creed or confession’s agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture cannot be the basis for its authority.³ And this is why without apostolic succession, creeds or confessions have no actual authority. That is a simple overview of the authority argument.⁴

II. The tu quoque objection

The primary objection to this argument is the tu quoque [lit. you too] objection, namely, that the person who becomes Catholic upon determining that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded is doing so because the Catholic Church most closely conforms to his own interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition. In other words, in choosing to become Catholic, he has simply chosen the ‘denomination’ that best conforms to his own interpretation of Scripture, tradition and history. Hence if Protestant confessions have no authority over the individual Protestant because Protestants select them on the basis of their conformity to their own interpretation of Scripture, then neither does the Catholic Church have any authority over the person who becomes Catholic, because Catholics select the Catholic Church on the basis of its agreement with their own interpretation of Scripture, history, and tradition. But if choosing the Catholic Church on the basis of one’s own interpretation of Scripture, history, and tradition does not undermine the authority of the Catholic Church, then neither does choosing a Protestant confession on the basis of one’s own interpretation of Scripture undermine that Protestant confession’s authority. In other words, just as the person becoming Catholic claims to have discovered that those in the magisterium of the Catholic Church are the successors of the Apostles, and thereby bearing divine authority, so the person adopting a Protestant confession believes he has discovered that this particular confession is in agreement with Scripture, and thus that this confession derives its authority from Scripture. But if picking a confession on the basis of its agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture entails that this confession has no authority over oneself, then picking the Catholic Church on the basis of its agreement with one’s own interpretation of history, tradition and Scripture entails that the Catholic Church has no authority over oneself. In short, the conclusion of the tu quoque objection is that either the Catholic Church likewise has no authority, or the Protestant confessions can truly have authority.

III. Reply

A. Deciding to become Catholic should involve study of Scripture, history and tradition.

Apart from a supernatural experience, ideally an adult would come to seek full communion with the Catholic Church only after a careful study of Church history, the Church Fathers, and Scripture. He would start with the Church in the first century at the time of the Apostles, and then trace the Church forward, decade by decade, to the present day. As he traced the Church forward through the centuries, he would encounter schisms from the Church (e.g. Novatians, Donatists). In each case he would note the criteria by which the party in schism was the one in schism from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church Christ founded, and not the other way around. By such a study, and by the help of the Holy Spirit, he would discover that the Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that Christ founded in the first century, and that has continued to grow throughout the world over the past two millennia. But as I will show below, this study of history, tradition and Scripture by which he discovers that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded does not entail that the Catholic Church has no more authority than a Protestant confession.

So why is discovering the Catholic Church through the study of history, Scripture and tradition not equivalent to discovering a confession that agrees with one’s own interpretation of Scripture, and how does the difference explain why the Catholic Church so discovered can remain authoritative while the Protestant confession cannot? The difference lies fundamentally neither in the discovery process nor in the evidence by which the discovery is made, even though those may be different. The difference lies fundamentally in the nature of that which is discovered.

B. The basis for the difference between the authority of Scripture and Protestant confessions

Consider why, for the Protestant, Scripture has more authority than any Protestant confession. Protestants and Catholics agree that “God is the author of Sacred Scripture. The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”⁵ Scripture is θεόπνευστος (God-breathed), whereas a Protestant confession is a merely human interpretation of the written words of God. Scripture does not have its authority on the basis of our agreement with what it says; Scripture has its authority because of who said it, that is, because of its divine source. But no Protestant thinks that any Protestant confession has the very authority of Scripture. No Protestant thinks that a Protestant confession is itself the Word of God. Protestants recognize that confessions are subordinate to Scripture because they recognize that the activity of [mere, unauthorized] men who interpret Scripture in order to construct the confession makes the authority of that confession to be different from the authority of the Scripture it attempts to interpret and explain. Because every confession is made by human interpreters, and these human interpreters are neither divinely inspired nor divinely authorized, these confessions are therefore merely human artifacts, not anything to which all men must submit on account of their divine authority. Just as every systematic theology book is a product of mere men, so every Protestant confession is the product of mere men. Some might be better than others, but none binds the conscience, because the authors were mere men, as are we, without divine inspiration or divine authorization.

Even though every Protestant confession has Scripture as its material source (i.e. that from which its authors draw), yet for anything in the confession that is not an exact re-statement of Scripture itself, the more it has merely human judgment mixed within it, with no guarantee of divine protection from error, the more it is merely a human judgment, i.e. a human opinion. In other words, because Protestant confessions were crafted by mere humans not having divine authorization, to the degree they go beyond an exact re-statement of Scripture, they are essentially human opinion, and therefore have no more ecclesial authority than human opinion, even though their subject matter is the divine Word of God in written form. For this reason Protestant confessions have no more authority than any systematic theology book, even one written by a plurality of authors. This is why a Protestant confession has its ‘authority’ only on the basis of the individual’s agreement with its interpretation of Scripture, not because of who wrote that confession.⁶

Protestants recognize the difference in authority between Scripture and Protestant confessions because they recognize the difference in the respective authority of their sources.⁷ No Protestant confession has the authority to bind the conscience, precisely because no Protestant confession has divine authority; each has only human authority. Even Protestant confessions state that they cannot bind the conscience. The Westminster Confession of Faith states, “God alone is Lord of the conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and commandments of men, which are, in any thing, contrary to His Word; or beside it, if matters of faith, or worship.”⁸ And elsewhere, “All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.”⁹ If any Protestant confession had divine authority, it would necessarily bind the conscience of anyone who knew it to have divine authority. All Christians would be obligated by that Protestant confession’s divine authority to interpret Scripture according to the rule of faith provided in that particular Protestant confession.

If the Protestant finds his conscience bound to a particular interpretation of Scripture, and he finds that same interpretation of Scripture presented in a confession, then per accidens his conscience will be bound to that confession (or that part of that confession) not because of any intrinsic authority had by the confession, but because the confession happens to express the interpretation that he presently holds to be necessary and thus conscience-binding. If his conscience ceases to be bound by that particular interpretation, the confession no longer binds his conscience. This shows that the confession has no intrinsic authority; it is not the confession that is authoritative over his beliefs; rather, his present beliefs make the confession to be ‘authoritative,’ by containing the interpretation he presently believes to be required of himself.¹⁰ The confession has no interpretive authority, because the individual is not required to conform to the confession. The confession, if it is to be the individual’s confession, must conform to the individual’s interpretation. He picks this particular confession because it conforms to his interpretation; it does not oblige him to conform to it, or, once picked, to remain conformed to it. And that is why no Protestant confession has any actual authority. Each Protestant confession merely contains a distinct interpretation which some individuals happen to believe (or at one time happened to believe) is not only true but necessary, and thus, conscience-binding. For this reason, neither a Protestant confession nor parts of it can bind anyone’s conscience; at most it is merely a record of what some people find or have found in their reading of Scripture to be the only way they can in good conscience interpret Scripture.

C. The basis for the distinction between the authority of the Catholic Church and Protestant confessions.

What the person becoming Catholic discovers in his study of history, tradition and Scripture is not merely an interpretation. If what he discovered were merely an interpretation of history, tradition and Scripture, then what he discovered would have no more authority than any Protestant confession. If his discovery were merely an interpretation, it too would be merely a human opinion. The prospective Catholic finds in his study of history and tradition and Scripture something that does not have a merely human source, either from himself or from other mere humans not having divine authorization. He finds in the first, second and third (etc.) centuries something with a divine origin and with divine authority. He finds the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church and its magisterial authority in succession from the Apostles and from Christ. He does not merely find an interpretation in which the Church has apostolic succession; he finds this very same Church itself, and he finds it to have divine authority by a succession from the Apostles. In finding the Church he finds an organic entity nearly two thousand years old with a divinely established hierarchy preserving divine authority. The basis for the authority of the Church he finds is not its agreement with his own interpretation of Scripture, history or tradition. History, tradition and Scripture are means by which and through which He discovers the Church in reality. The Church he finds in history and in the present has its divine authority from Christ through the Apostles and the bishops by way of succession.

Herein lies the critical difference between the Church the inquirer finds in the centuries following Christ, and a Protestant confession. The former, like Scripture, has a divine origin and a divine authority, whereas the latter has a merely human origin and hence a merely human authority, just as any systematic theology book has a merely human origin and a human authority, even as it draws from and seeks to exposit Scripture. Whereas a Protestant confession cannot bind the conscience except per accidens, (i.e. unless one is already bound in conscience by the interpretation contained in that confession), a divinely authorized magisterium binds the conscience per se, that is, by the divine authority it has within itself.

Consider the following example. Jesus says:

“You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; it is these that testify about Me.” (John 5:39)

Through searching the Scriptures, the reader is not supposed to find only an interpretation of Christ. The one who searches the Scripture is supposed to discover, through the Scriptures, the second Person of the Divine Trinity. The reader of Scripture who discovers only interpretations of Scripture, but does not discover Christ, has not discovered that Person to whom Scripture points. Such a reader of Scripture already knows that Scripture has divine authority, but through Scripture he has not yet discovered  anything greater in authority than himself. Through his reading of Scripture he is supposed to discover something (actually Someone) more authoritative than himself, and more authoritative than his own interpretation.

The tu quoque objection does not apply to the reader who through the Scriptures discovers Christ, because in discovering Christ such a reader is not picking as an ‘authority’ something that conforms to (or agrees with) his own interpretation of Scripture. Discovering Christ through the Scriptures differs altogether from picking a confession based on its agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. In picking a Protestant confession the individual retains interpretive authority, for the reasons I explained above. But the reader who through the Scriptures discovers the Person of Christ has discovered something more than an interpretation; he has discovered a Divine Person, Someone having authority over himself, even interpretive authority over himself. Likewise, the person who reads history, tradition, and Scripture, and discovers the Church, has not merely discovered an interpretation, but has discovered something with a divine origin and hence with divine authority, and thus interpretive authority, even conscience-binding authority; he has discovered the Body of Christ.

Every interpretation of Scripture that is made by men-without-divine authorization is the product of mere-man, and thus has no divine authority over man. No such interpretation can bind the conscience. This is why no Protestant confession has actual authority. Even the prospective Catholic’s interpretation of Scripture, tradition and history has no divine authority as such. If the prospective Catholic had only an interpretation, and a confession that expressed that interpretation, his confession would have no actual authority, nor for that reason would any community of persons formed by like-minded individuals having only that shared interpretation and a corresponding confession, even if they called themselves a ‘church’ or ‘the Church.’ But if through and beyond his interpretation he discovers the actual Church that Christ founded, filled with the Holy Spirit and retaining divine authority through an unbroken succession from the Apostles, spanning through twenty centuries “terrible as an army with banners,” bearing the trophies [relics] of the apostles and martyrs, and spread out over all the whole world, then he has discovered something that isn’t merely human. He has discovered the divine society on earth, the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that Christ founded, to which not only his interpretation but his whole life must submit and conform. Just as discovering Christ through the study of the Scriptures is not subject to the tu quoque objection, so for the same reason discovering the Body of Christ through the study of Scripture, tradition and history is not subject to the tu quoque. In both cases it is the same Christ he has discovered, in His physical body which has ascended into Heaven, or in His mystical body, the Church:

A reply of St. Joan of Arc to her judges sums up the faith of the holy doctors and the good sense of the believer: “About Jesus Christ and the Church, I simply know they’re just one thing, and we shouldn’t complicate the matter.” (CCC 795.)

The Protestant method of relating the Church to Scripture defines the Church not by way of divine authority from Christ handed down in succession from the Apostles, but by sufficient agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture.¹¹ This method of defining ‘the Church’ by its very nature does not allow ‘the Church’ any authoritative role in adjudicating interpretive disagreements, because for each disputant, if ‘the Church’ rules against his interpretation, for him she ceases to be ‘the Church,’ and hence he need not submit to her. Therefore the possibility of the Church having any authority, even “ministerial authority,” requires that the Church not be defined by its agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. In this way, defining ‘the Church’ by way of agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture is nothing less than an implicit denial of a visible catholic Church. If Christ intended His followers to be united in one faith in a visible catholic Church, and if there can be no such thing as a visible catholic Church simply by individual appeals to Scripture apart from the exercise of magisterial authority such as in ecumenical councils, then the Church cannot be defined by its agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. In that case there has to be another way of locating the Church, if there is to be a visible catholic Church. And the only other way available is by a succession of magisterial authority from the Apostles.

III. Follow-up Questions & Answers

Q1. But doesn’t the Protestant also claim to have discovered the Church? If so, then why doesn’t Protestantism avoid the tu quoque in this same way?

A. Protestants do believe that they have discovered the Church, but by that they mean that they have discovered other persons who have faith in Christ, or a faith in Christ that is sufficiently similar to their own.¹² They do not claim to have discovered apostolic authority in an unbroken succession of bishops coming from the Apostles. And that is why they do not believe that the Church they have discovered has divine authority or interpretive authority to which all Christians should submit. From a Protestant point of view, Scripture is the only divine authority in the Church, and that is why Protestants believe that only Scripture can bind the conscience. For this reason, given the Protestant conception of the Church, the Church cannot provide divine authorization to any interpretation of Scripture, history or tradition. The individual Protestant, on the basis of his own interpretation of Scripture, always retains veto authority over whatever his ecclesial community determines, even with its highest authority.¹³  Because what he refers to as ‘Church’ has no divine authority, the ‘Church’ he has discovered does not and cannot give his interpretation or confession divine authorization. That is why his situation is not like that of the Catholic. The individual Protestant himself remains his own highest interpretive authority, and the particular confession he has adopted (if he has adopted one) remains subject to his acceptance or rejection of it; it has no actual authority over him. The Catholic, by contrast, upon discovering the divine authority of the Catholic Church does not remain his own interpretive authority, and the Creed and doctrines he adopts, he adopts on the divine authority of the Church that has defined them, not on the basis of their agreement with his own interpretation of history, tradition and Scripture.

Q2. The Protestant claims to have discovered the gospel. Surely that has divine authority.

A. If by ‘gospel’ one is referring to passages from Scripture, then of course these have divine authority, because Scripture is God-breathed. But if by ‘gospel’ one is referring to [merely] human judgments or opinions regarding the meaning of these passages of Scripture, then these judgments, or interpretations, or opinions do not have divine authority and therefore are not conscience-binding. This is why Protestants themselves rightly recognize that no Protestant confession has the authority to bind the conscience; their confessions (insofar as they go beyond exact re-statements of Scripture) are merely judgments of men, not divinely authorized interpretations of Scripture. So for that reason, what Protestants refer to as ‘the gospel,’ insofar as it is not an exact re-statement of Scripture, has no more authority than a systematic theology text, being a merely human opinion.

Q3. There are multiple and competing claims to apostolic succession (e.g. Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Coptic, etc.). Isn’t the person who picks one of them as the Church that Christ founded simply picking as a [seemingly] divine authority that institution that most closely conforms to his own interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition? And if so, how is he not exactly in the same situation as the Protestant who picks the confession that most closely conforms to his own interpretation of Scripture?

A. There are three theoretically possible errors here: (1) The inquirer could think that there is apostolic succession, when there is none. (2) The inquirer could think someone has authority in succession from the Apostles when in fact he doesn’t, but someone else does. (3) The inquirer could find someone who has Holy Orders in succession from the Apostles, but is in schism from the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that Christ founded. However, the theoretical possibility of these three errors does not make the position of the person who discovers the magisterium of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church Christ founded subject to the tu quoque. To see that, note that it is also possible to err by mistaking a false Messiah for the true Messiah. But the possibility of mistaking a false messiah for the true Messiah does not entail that the true Messiah cannot be discovered, or that in discovering the true Messiah one has merely discovered an interpretation of Scripture. Likewise, the three theoretically possible errors just listed do not entail that the magisterium of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church Christ founded cannot be discovered, or that this magisterium is just an interpretation, or that the basis for its authority is its agreement with the inquirer. Just as the Messiah is not an interpretation, so lines of succession from the Apostles are not interpretations. And just as the Messiah has His divine authority from Himself, and not from any agreement between Himself and the one who discovers Him, so likewise, the magisterium of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church that Christ founded has its authority in succession from Christ through the succession from the Apostles, not from any agreement between itself and the one who discovers it. So while the inquirer must use his own reasoning and judgment to interpret Scripture, history, and tradition, and while he may err in doing so, this does not entail that through his inquiry he cannot discover something [outside the text] bearing divine authority. And for the reasons explained above, if through his inquiry he discovers something [outside the text] bearing divine authority, his position is not subject to the tu quoque.

Q4. But isn’t the person who becomes Catholic using his own private judgment just like the Protestant?

A. We cannot but use our own intellect and will in interpreting evidence, drawing conclusions, discovering truths, and making decisions. In that respect, inquirers who eventually become Protestant or Catholic start in the same epistemic situation, using their own intellect and will to find the truth through the evidence available to them. Using our intellect and will in coming to believe something is not what makes the Protestant confession to be without divine authority, nor is it what makes the Catholic’s faith in the Catholic Church not subject to the tu quoque objection. What makes a Protestant confession to be without authority is that it is a product of merely human minds, minds without divine authorization, as they sought to interpret and explain the Scriptures. The Catholic Church, by contrast, is not the product of men-lacking-divine authorization. The Catholic Church was founded by Christ Himself, who is God. The Catholic Church’s divine authority was handed down to us from Christ by the Apostles whom He authorized, and then by bishops whom they authorized, down to this present day. With the help of the Holy Spirit, the inquirer who uses his intellect and will to examine history, tradition and Scripture, discovers this divinely founded entity bearing divine authority, and at that point submits to it. His own interpretation has no divine authority. But he discovers something beyond his own interpretation, something to which his own interpretation points, and which does have divine authority. He discovers the Church. The Protestant can understand this in some sense, because in discovering Scripture the Protestant too has discovered something having divine authority, even while using his own intellect and will.

Q5. What about the person who becomes Catholic because the Catholic Church teaches his own interpretation of Scripture? How is such a person not in the same epistemic situation as the Protestant?

A. He is in the same epistemic situation as the Protestant. If a person becomes a Catholic on the basis that (and hence condition that) the Catholic Church shares his own interpretation of Scripture, he is not truly a Catholic at heart; he is still a Protestant at heart. One does not rightly become a Catholic on the ground that one happens to believe at present all the doctrines that the Church teaches. That approach is a form of rationalism, not fides quaerens intellectum (faith seeking understanding). One rightly becomes a Catholic by an act of faith in which one believes all that the Catholic Church teaches, even if not fully understanding it, on the ground of the apostolic authority of the Church’s magisterium.¹⁴ When we are received into the Catholic Church, we say before the bishop, “I believe and profess all that the holy Catholic Church believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God.” We are not saying that we just happen to believe Catholic doctrines. We are not merely reporting our present mental state viz-a-viz Catholic doctrine. We are making a confession of faith, an act of the will whereby we are submitting to the apostolic authority of the Church regarding what it is that she “believes, teaches, and proclaims to be revealed by God” on the ground of her magisterial authority in succession from the Apostles whom Christ Himself appointed and sent. We believe in Christ through believing those sent and authorized by Him and His Apostles, as they teach and explain the deposit of faith entrusted to them by Christ. “Faith seeking understanding” is possible only where submission is required, but submission is not required wherever the identity and nature of the Church is determined and defined by one’s own interpretation of Scripture.¹⁵

Q6. If tomorrow the magisterium of the Catholic Church definitively proclaimed that Jesus was actually a mere prophet, not the Son of God, and did not die on a cross, you would not believe those teachings or submit to them. Doesn’t this show that you too only submit when you agree, and that therefore, you are your own interpretive authority, just like the Protestant?

A. The question presupposes that the magisterium of the Church could do such a thing. But part of the dogma of the Catholic Church is precisely that the magisterium of the Church cannot possibly do such a thing, cannot overturn or oppose any dogma of the faith. So the question presupposes the falsity of that Catholic dogma, and in that respect is question-begging, just as the question “If Jesus had sinned, would you still follow Him?” is a question-begging question for Christians, because Christians believe that the Son of God cannot possibly sin. Individual bishops can and do fall into heresy and schism. But Catholic faith includes the belief that the magisterium of the universal Church cannot do so. Orthodoxy and heresy are determined objectively by the magisterium of the universal Church, not ultimately by the individual’s interpretation. The authority of the magisterium in infallibly defining doctrines preserves those doctrines until Christ returns, because the Church has no authority to reverse or overturn what she has already defined with her full authority. So if a particular bishop were to teach contrary to what the magisterium of the Church has infallibly defined, the Catholic faithful should in that case remain true to the magisterium, and not follow the heretical bishop. That is not making oneself a higher authority than the bishop; it is remaining faithful to the still more authoritative visible magisterium of the universal Church.

Q7. Keith Mathison claimed that all appeals to Scripture are appeals to interpretation of Scripture. You claim that someone who becomes Catholic, after personal study of Scripture, tradition and history, discovers not merely an interpretation, but apostolic succession. How would you respond to the claim that all appeals to Scripture, tradition and history are appeals to interpretations of Scripture, tradition and history? And if all appeals to Scripture, tradition and history are appeals to interpretations of Scripture, tradition and history, then aren’t you being inconsistent in granting that the prospective Catholic can discover Apostolic Succession itself, while denying that the Protestant can discover the objective truth of “justification by extrinsic imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness” in Scripture?

A. The idea behind Keith’s claim is that when we appeal to a passage of Scripture to support a position or claim, we assume a particular interpretation of that passage. We interpret it within a web of beliefs that we bring to it, a paradigm, if you will. That’s no less true when we appeal to the writings of the Church Fathers, and to tradition and history. But that does not mean that we have no access to reality and can only access the interpretations present to our minds.¹⁶ Through his interpretation of Scripture, history and tradition the prospective Catholic discovers something other than his interpretation. His interpretation exists in his mind, but the practice of apostolic succession exists in the extra-mental world, not just in his mind. The bishops and their relations to the Apostles are not interpretations that exist in the prospective Catholic’s mind; the bishops are real, flesh-and-blood men, and there is a real, historical, organic and sacramental continuity between them and the previous generation of bishops, and between those bishops and the generation of bishops before them, and so on, extending all the way back to the divinely-authorized Apostles. Even if a Protestant thinks there is no such thing as apostolic succession, he can acknowledge that if there is such a thing as apostolic succession, it exists extra-mentally. By contrast, “justification by extrinsic imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness” is not a statement found in Scripture, but an interpretation of various statements within Scripture. This interpretation of Scripture brings a nominalistic conception of justification to the text of Scripture. That is one reason why “justification by extrinsic imputation of Christ’s alien righteousness,” whether true or false, is an interpretation of the text. In order not to be an interpretation of the text, it would have to exist extra-mentally, i.e. be explicitly stated by the text of Scripture. But it is nowhere explicitly stated in Scripture; it is an interpretation of Scripture. Because it is an interpretation of Scripture, and because it is an interpretation made by mere men without divine authorization, it has no divine authority, whether or not some people write it down as part of a confession. And that is why the Protestant position is subject to the authority argument while the Catholic position is not subject to the tu quoque objection.

May Christ by His Spirit make us one in the truth, and one in His Church. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.

1. See, for example, the section of the article Neal and I wrote last Fall, titled “The Delusion of Derivative Authority.” More recently I have offered some comments on two Green Baggins threads; see my comments #78 and following in Leithart “potentially” Out of Accord, and see the comments under Determining the Doctrine of the Church. Two years ago, I wrote, “Michael Brown on Sola Scriptura or Scriptura Solo.”
2. See “The Alternative to Painting a Magisterial Target Around One’s Interpretive Arrow.”
3. That can also be shown by the fact that any group of heretics (e.g. Arians, Nestorians, Monophysites, etc.) could make a confession that agreed with their own interpretation of Scripture, and no such confession would be authoritative. So agreement with one’s own interpretation of Scripture is not sufficient to make a creed or confession authoritative.
4. I’m not here speaking of ‘club authority,’ i.e. “If you want to be a member of our club, you must subscribe to this confession.” I’m speaking of catholic ecclesial authority, i.e. something to which all Christians everywhere should submit, and by which our interpretation of Scripture should be guided.
5. CCC 105.
6. The authors of Protestant confessions did not have divine authorization because they did not have Holy Orders. Protestants do not claim that the men who wrote the various Protestant confessions received divine authorization to do so. Nor do Protestants believe that the authority of any Protestant confession depends upon the authors of that confession having received divine authorization to do so.
7. If a Protestant confession were divinely authorized, then Protestants (and all Christians) would be obligated to interpret Scripture in accordance with that confession, and could not take exceptions to the confession or adopt another confession, except by an act of rebellion against its authority or utter ignorance of its authority. If two or more Protestant confessions had divine authority, then they could not disagree with each other, because there is one God, and God cannot contradict Himself.
8. Westminster Confession of Faith, XX.2.
9. Westminster Confession of Faith, XXX.3.
10. I put ‘authoritative’ in single quotes, because the confession, in such a case, is no more authoritative than a systematic theology text or tract or magazine that happens to state the interpretation the individual presently holds to be necessary.
11. See my “The Tradition and the Lexicon,” and IV.A. of “Solo Scriptura, Sola Scriptura and the Question of Interpretive Authority.”
12. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith states, “The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children.” (WCF XXV.2)
13. E.g. a general assembly of his denomination.
14. See “St. Thomas Aquinas on the Relation of Faith to the Church.”
15. This is also why ‘cafeteria Catholics,’ i.e. those who pick and choose from the Church’s teaching, are at least in a state of [material] heresy, and are in grave danger of being in a state of formal heresy, and thus not having faith at all.
16. The two epistemic errors on each side of the truth are first, that we do not interpret reality and second, that we cannot know reality, because we only have interpretations.

Contents:

I – Introductory Notes
II – There is a Distinction Between the Clergy and the Laity
III – There is a Distinction Between the Orders
IV – The Clergy are Ordained to a Sacrificial Priesthood
V – Ordination is a Sacrament
VI – The Nature of Holy Orders
VII – Conclusion

I – Introductory Notes

a. The Church’s Mission

Here at Called to Communion, we have presented evidence that Christ founded a visible Church, His bride and mystical Body, and that to deny that the Holy Spirit perpetually protects and guides this Body is to affirm the ecclesiological equivalent of deism.¹ But in our discussion on the nature of the Church, we have spoken little of her mission. Protestants and Catholics alike understand the mission of the Church to be nothing other than the mission of Christ: preaching the gospel for the salvation of souls. But according to Protestant doctrine, justification of souls comes solely by a single act of faith, and faith is an intellectual assent moved by the will. The preaching of God’s Word is thus understood to be the fundamental mission of the Church, and though this does not exclude the sacraments from proper church duty, it relegates the sacraments to a second tier of importance in Protestant theology.

Juan de Juanes – The Last Supper (1560)

The Catholic Church affirms the necessity of preaching the gospel, but she also believes and teaches that the sacraments are at the heart of the Church’s mission, which is the same as Christ’s mission.² Catholics and Protestants agree that souls are saved by grace.³ But how is grace received? Setting aside the questions of operation and efficacy, both Catholics and the Reformed agree that saving grace is signified by the sacraments as well as by the preaching of the Word.⁴ Since nothing is more central to salvation than grace, and nothing is more central to the Church’s operation than salvation, it stands to reason that grace, or rather the sacraments whereby grace is signified, are at the center of the Church’s mission alongside of preaching the gospel.⁵ Below we will examine the nature of the office of the Christian clergy that Christ Himself established to administer those sacraments.

b. Semantic and Etymological Considerations

Holy Orders, according to the Catholic definition, is the sacramental initiation of a man into the clergy of the supernatural society that is the Church.⁶ But there are many potential misunderstandings that need to be addressed before proceeding to discuss Holy Orders. Catholics and Protestants mean different things when we say ‘priesthood’ and when we speak of Church hierarchy in general. So before beginning our discussion, we should clarify what we (Catholics) mean by the terms.

St. Augustine defines ‘order’ as “the distribution which allots things equal and unequal, each to its own place.”⁷ Etymologically, the English word comes from the Latin ‘ordo,’ which means a rank, class, or hierarchy within a social structure. In Roman political usage, it referred to the senatorial body.⁸ Subsequently, ‘ordinatio‘ / ‘ordinare,’ which became ‘ordination’ and ‘ordain’ respectively, meant initiation into that hierarchical class or structure.⁹ The English words ‘ordain’ and ‘order’ come from the same Latin word. We might “ordain” one thing and “order” another, but in some way we’re doing the same thing to both. Now when Catholics speak of “Holy Order,” as opposed to mere “order,” they are referring to the hierarchy of Christ’s Church, namely: the Christian clergy.

There are several other relevant terms to discuss before beginning our study of Holy Orders. The Christian word ‘priest,’ to which we shall refer repeatedly, is potentially a source of much confusion and debate. This is because the modern English word ‘priest’ refers to one who offers sacrifice, whereas ‘presbyteros‘ did not, in itself, have such a reference. Etymologically, the word ‘priest’ comes to us from the Greek πρεσβύτερος (presbyteros); i.e., the word has evolved phonetically.¹⁰ This shows us that the word ‘presbyter’ (its Latinized form) was in use long after the New Testament era. It survived long enough and broadly enough to evolve into the modern English word ‘priest.’ But the Greek word ‘presbyteros‘ didn’t mean “priest;” it simply meant “elder.” There is a separate word, ἱερεύς (hiereus), which meant “priest” as we mean it today. The common English meaning of the word ‘priest’ is one who mediates and offers sacrifice on behalf of the people. The word ‘presbyteros‘ evolved into ‘priest’ only phonetically. In the New Testament and early apostolic period, the word ‘hiereus‘ was never applied to any Christian minister so far as we can tell from the historical evidence. Ministers were always referred to as ‘diakonos‘ (minister), ‘presbyteros‘ (elder), or ‘episkopos‘ (overseer). Around the end of the second century, the term ‘hiereus‘ was applied to the order of the episcopacy, and by the middle of the third century, it was applied to the presbyterate as well.¹¹

It is not precisely the words themselves that we are seeking to understand; rather it is the realities to which those words refer. We are interested in the substance of the idea of the Christian priesthood, not only its linguistic expression, which is merely the sound [or symbol] we use to refer to the idea. The truth of the Christian priesthood is enclosed in a shell of sounds and linguistic nuance, and examining these semantic points is necessary for the purpose of discarding that shell and discovering the meat inside.

To understand the development of language, especially theological language, one needs to understand the concept of terminological technicalization, i.e., the process that occurs when the common usage of a term changes from a non-specialized sense to a more technical and specific sense. The story of the Christian theological triumph is the story of taking the common and “baptizing” it. And the story of Christian terminological development is the story of taking common terminology and investing it with technical theological significance. The word ‘baptism’ itself is an example of this.¹² Another Christian example is the technicalization of the Greek term ‘eucharistia.’ Originally, this term meant “thanksgiving,” but it evolved into a technical reference to the principal liturgical action of the Church. This was sometimes referred to as the “breaking of bread” in the New Testament, but the “breaking of bread” was also commonly used in reference to non-liturgical meals and probably to non-Eucharistic liturgies.¹³ ‘Eucharistia‘ had several meanings other than a specific reference to what we now call the “Eucharist.” Anglican liturgist Gregory Dix estimates that the technicalization of this term spanned a generation.¹⁴ This ‘technicalization of terminology’ is not unique to Christian theology; it is an observable linguistic phenomenon common to the human experience. But in the context of Christianity, it seems to mirror our own theology of baptism and of the principle that grace perfects, rather than destroys, nature.

This brings us to the terms relevant to our present inquiry: ‘presbyteros,’ ‘hiereus,’ and ‘episkopos,’ their Latin equivalents: ‘presbyter,’ ‘sacerdos,’ and ‘episcopus,’ and their English equivalents: ‘presbyter’ (or elder), ‘priest,’ and ‘bishop.’ For the sake of simplicity, we will now refer to the Latin and Greek by the English terminology (understanding that ‘presbyter’ will be used for ‘presbyteros‘ and ‘priest’ used for ‘hiereus‘/’sacerdos‘). The terms ‘presbyter’ and ‘bishop’ were subject, as were many other words, to the technicalization of terminology that we just explained. That is, ‘presbyter’ was not originally a technical reference in the Greek language to a religious minister, much less to a Christian minister. The word developed in technicality through wide and consistent reference to the particular idea of the Christian minister, and thus became a technical reference to the office. The same thing happened with the term ‘bishop.’ This makes it much easier to understand how in their earliest usage (the New Testament and First Clement), the terms appear to be used interchangeably. At that point in time, they were still developing from common references to Christian ministers into technical terms indicating the clear distinction between the offices. To understand the history of the terms ‘presbyter’ and ‘bishop’ or to understand the way in which they were used in isolated cases is not sufficient to understand the concepts. It is also necessary to understand the realities to which those words were referring. As the Dominican Pedro de Soto observed regarding the minor Orders specified by the Council of Trent, “to preserve anything at all, it is not sufficient merely to go on uttering its name, but the reality behind the name must be understood and preserved too.”¹⁵

c. The Theology of Holy Orders Is Founded upon Christ

The foundation for any theological study must be the Rock of Christ, and if our theology is to progress, the Incarnation must ever remain its center.¹⁶ For this reason, if we are to discover the truth behind Holy Orders, both our starting and central focal point must be the Incarnation.

Jesus Christ is the true High Priest of mankind, and He stands at the head of all Christian liturgy and the hierarchy of all things created.¹⁷ His ordinatio to the high priesthood of humanity culminated at His baptism where the Holy Spirit descended like a dove and the Father said “Thou art my beloved Son; with thee I am well pleased.”¹⁸ The Catholic doctrine of Holy Orders begins with and is unhesitatingly committed to the reality of Christ’s true high priesthood. Whatever priesthood Christians have, whether common by baptism or visible and specific by ordination, exists only by participation in the true priesthood which belongs to Jesus Christ the High Priest. The Christian doctrine of Holy Orders must not and cannot undermine the necessity and uniqueness of Christ’s high priesthood.

The Incarnation is a game-changer; nothing remains the same. Through this unsearchable mystery, the mundane is sanctified, and the common is invested with a new and sacred signification. This sanctification of the ordinary can be seen in the institution of the very center of Christian worship, the Eucharist. At the Last Supper, Christ was “investing a universal jewish [sic] custom with a new and peculiar meaning…”¹⁹ The eucharistic [thanksgiving] prayer would have been said everywhere and always by faithful Jews at all meals, but especially at liturgical meals. ²⁰ This prayer had now received a profound significance and, according to Catholic theology, an actual efficacy. The significance of this efficacy invested into such a central and primitive necessity as breaking bread, which is at the heart of Christian worship, is paralleled with the mystery of the Incarnation and the birth of mankind’s true High Priest and King. As the institution of the Eucharist made an efficacious sacrament of ordinary bread and wine, so did the mystery of the Incarnation transform proper worship from didactic ritual into efficacious sacramental liturgy. According to Catholic theology, the signs (sacraments) under the New Covenant fulfill and exceed those under the Old Covenant. If the laying on of hands effected a true ordination under the Levitical priesthood, much more, then, does the laying on of hands effect a true ordination under the New Covenant. If the ministers were priests of God under the Old Covenant, much more are they priests under the New Covenant.

Union with Christ is centrally important to the doctrine of Holy Orders because to achieve it and to lead others to the same is the central aspect of the priestly mission under the New Covenant. The ministers of Christ continue His mission; they are sent to do what He came to do. St. Athanasius says that, “God became man that man might become God.”²¹ If the true High Priest was ordained ultimately for the purpose of calling lost souls to repentance and salvation, and if union with Christ is what it means for a soul to be saved, and if the Church He founded was entrusted with the mission of saving souls, then at the heart of the Church’s missio is the mediation of whatever it takes to achieve that union with Christ.²² Thus, Pseudo-Dionysius says, “Every hierarch, according to his nature, position, and order, is initiated into divine things and divinised, so that he might impart sacred divinisation to those who follow him.”²³

And an ancient Gallican ordination prayer says:

Let us unite in prayer, brethren, that this [ordinand] who is chosen to help bring about your salvation, may, through the clemency of God’s goodness, receive the blessing of the priesthood, and obtain, through the merit of his virtues, the priestly gift of the Holy Spirit so as not to be inferior to his office.²⁴

The New Covenant, along with its new priesthood, ushered in a new era for God’s people. Whereas before Christ wine could no more justify a sinner than could the blood of a man, and no more could bread offer us participation in the life of the Trinity than could a man’s flesh. But now that the true High Priest has been ordained to earthly ministry, His Blood indeed justifies,²⁵ and His Body, bruised for our iniquities,²⁶ offers us eternal life.²⁷ This is the profound effect of the Incarnation, and it is exactly on this foundation that Holy Orders were established to minister the sacraments and to preach the Word of God unto the salvation of mankind.²⁸

II – There is a Distinction Between the Clergy and the Laity

Martin Luther believed that the power to ordain was essentially derived from the Christian congregation of a true Church. As a result, he did not believe that there was any true difference between the clergy and the laity, except in official duties. That is, he believed that all Christians were the same in regard to possessing what is essential to the Church and differed only in respect to “the work that God has given them to do.”²⁹ But the Catholic Church does not teach that her ministers are more holy, more spiritual, or more essentially Christian than the laity.

Now it is true that both the laity and the clergy are the same in regard to possessing what is essential to the Church in that they both have essential roles. However, they do not possess what is essential to the Church in the same way. The clergy possess what is essential to the Church as the visible leaders, which leadership is necessary for a visible Church.³⁰ The laity do not possess this quality that is essential to the Church; rather, they possess the essential quality of being the people of God. That is, clergy and laity are both equally essential to the Church just as sheep and shepherds are both equally essential to a sheep farm. But this essential equality does not undermine the difference between the clergy and laity any more than it undermines the difference between sheep and shepherds.

Furthermore, Luther says that the difference between clergy and laity is not in status but in respect to the work that God has given them to do. As Christians before God, it is true that there is no difference in status between the clergy and laity; both are sinners saved by God’s grace. ³¹ But there is a difference between the clergy and laity in regard to their roles in the Church. Luther’s phrase, “they do not all have the same work to do,” is true but incomplete. The distinction is not only in the work that they do, but in the work that they are capable of doing. No man has the right to act as a priest before God unless that right is given to him by someone who has the authority to grant such a right. But as stated above, no one has that authority naturally because the Church is a supernatural society. To govern and to do the essential work of a supernatural society requires supernatural authorization and supernatural equipping. Holy Orders, as a sacrament, accomplishes exactly this. By conceiving the Church without the sacrament of Holy Orders, the question of one’s right to clerical status becomes merely a question of natural aptitude. Thus the magisterium is handed over to the academia. By contrast, we will show that Jesus Christ did grant the right of clerical status to certain men and did not grant it to others. In the current section, we will argue that denying the distinction between the laity and clergy is a theological error with serious consequences.

a. Natural Hierarchical Order

The act of creation ordered, or we might say, ordained the heavens and the earth into a particular hierarchy. This divine ordination is the pedagogical archetype of nature and the symbol of right theology. Nature is inherently purposeful and instructive. St. Paul tells the Corinthians that nature teaches men not to have long hair, and he tells the Romans that creation teaches men about God’s invisible qualities. ³² The Proverbs also reveal that nature instructs men unto wisdom. ³³ When we look at nature, we look at the handiwork of God. More importantly, we see exactly what God intended us to see, and in exactly the way He wanted us to see it. We do well to learn from what God reveals through nature. Perhaps Thomas Howard said it best:

To the men of old, it did not mean nothing that the sun went down and night came and the moon and the stars appeared and then dawn and the sun and morning again and another day, which would itself wax and then wane into twilight and dusk and night. It did not mean nothing to them that the time of work was under the aegis of the bright sun and that it was the sun that poured life into the seeds that they were planting and that brought out the sweat on their foreheads, and that the time of rest was under the scepter of the silver moon. This was the diurnal exhibition of what was True — that there are a panoply and a rhythm and a cycle, a waxing and a waning, a rising and a setting and then a rising again. And to them it was not for nothing that the king wore a crown of gold and that the lord mayor wore medallions. This was the political exhibition of what was, in fact, True — that there are royalty and authority and hierarchy at the heart of things and that it is possible to see this in lions and eagles and queen bees as well as in the court of the king. . . . The former mind, in a word, read vast significance into everything. Nature and politics and animals and sex — these were all exhibitions in their own way of the way things are. This mind fancied that everything meant everything, and that it all rushed up finally to heaven. We have an idea of royalty, this mind said, which we observe in our politics and which we attribute to lions and eagles, and we have this idea because there is a great King at the top of things, and he has set things thus so that our fancies will be drawn toward his royal Person, and we will recognize the hard realities of which the stuff of our world has been a poor shadow when we stumble into his royal court.³⁴

Howard points out that the ancient mind rightly understood nature itself as exhibiting truths about reality and about God. It was not accidental that God arranged creation into so ordered a hierarchy; this act was meant to show us the way things are and the way things ought to be. Nature should inform our anthropology, our ecclesiology, and above all, our theology.³⁵ This point needs special emphasis for the modern Western mind because the last five hundred years of our history have been riddled with wars and revolutions aimed at a deliberate flattening of the natural order, a systematic rejection of the archetype. St. Augustine was right: order is “the distribution which allots things equal and unequal, each to its own place.” And our recent history is marred with one shameful attempt after another at denying that pedagogical distribution. We can barely bring ourselves to admit that there are “things equal and unequal,” much less that they should be arranged in a certain way. The egalitarian pipe-dream of modernism has at its heart an implicit rejection of this cosmological order that exists for the purpose of teaching men of God’s invisible qualities, the divine nature, and of salvation.³⁶ All of our laws are derived from and ought to teach us of this divine law,³⁷ and if we have kings, they ought to teach us of the true lordship of Jesus Christ. Creation shows us that things are not equal. As St. Paul might say, “doth not even nature itself teach you” that some things are higher than others? Since the mission of the Church, and consequently the hierarchy of the Church, is directly related to teaching men about salvation and about the divine nature, as we argued above, a rejection of this natural order or a distortion of it inevitably leads to the rejection or distorting of Holy Orders.

Our society overwhelmingly designates hierarchy as something negative, something which separates rather than unites. But the symbolism inherent in the cosmos informs us that our society has it backwards! Unity is not achieved by a denial of natural inequality. Instead, it is achieved by properly ordering that inequality. Furthermore, inequality in one respect does not mean inequality in all respects. For example, a man and a child are unequal in stature but equal in dignity as human beings. Because of the fundamental flaws in modern egalitarian philosophy, there is a strong tendency to reject any appearance of hierarchical themes. To deny Holy Orders on the basis of a broad denial of hierarchy is to measure the Bride of Christ by the “standard” of modern egalitarian political theory.

Martin Luther’s early rejection of the distinction between the clergy and the laity can be understood as a “spiritual egalitarianism.”