The church does not need a teaching authority to remain faithful to Christ
Fundamental Theology Faith Culture Essay 2020
It might be argued by scholars, of various denominations and disciplines, that the Church has no need for a teaching authority in order to remain faithful to Christ. All believers have an equal ability to come to Scripture and be guided by the Holy Spirit, and as such, have no essential need for an interpretive authority. However, this is not to dismiss the benefit of teaching authority altogether. In the Roman Catholic Church, this is the Magisterium, which itself takes many forms, each with varying degrees of authority. History has produced mixed results from having an active Magisterium, and the specifics regarding the extent of its influence are made only slightly clearer in the documents of the Second Vatican Council. What is apparent is that there is continuing controversy and debate over the concept. One might argue, however, that while there is indeed merit in having a sort of Magisterium, we have no need to suppose that a teaching authority is needed in order for believers to remain faithful to God.
Very simply, the teaching authority of the Catholic Church has come to be known as the Magisterium. The word is derived from the Latin magister meaning “master,” which was a broadly applied term with authoritative connotation. Francis Sullivan explains that the modern use of the term almost exclusively refers to the “teaching office of bishops,” however we will discover that the Magisterium cannot be so easily defined.
The Magisterium, loosely as a Christian teaching authority, has had a history of mixed performance, only being neatly defined much later with the Vatican Councils. It has proven to be both a valuable institution as well as an obstacle to the Christendom. Decisions regarding the violent persecution of heretics, the restriction of Bible access to the masses, the exploitive use of indulgences, and the support of slavery and colonisation, are just some examples of times when the Magisterium has used its authority poorly. At the same time, early teaching authorities also played important roles in rejecting famous heresies such as Arianism, Gnosticism and Marcionism. The Church Fathers would also decide upon the canon of scripture and formulate various theological and scripturally based traditions that continue to thrive today.
While we cannot say that many of the decrees of the Magisterium should officially be considered infallible, they were effectively considered so at the time. The teaching and instruction of Church leaders has, for most of its history, been ultimately regarded as authoritative and worthy of unquestioning obedience. History has shown that there is are clear benefits to having an authoritative teaching authority, such as the minimization of subjectivism and the maintenance of a more unified global church. However, these benefits have come at the great cost of shutting down theological discovery for a large part of history. This attitude of blind obedience to the teaching of the Magisterium was facilitated for much of history, but it would later be changed in order to empower laity to exercise their consciences and read scripture for themselves, though the relationship between conscience and authority remains poorly defined.
The Protestant Reformation showcases historical evidences both for and against a centralised Magisterium. On the one hand, the reformers’ fervour for the free exercise of personal conscience, study and responsibility for the development of one’s own theologies, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, was a trigger for a great boom in theological development and a more thoughtful laity better equipped to actively and faithfully follow Christ and His teachings, which were now accessible to them. On the other hand, this freedom to interpret led to division after division, and often an un-Christ-like hostility between different schools of thought.
While history does give us a general picture of how the Magisterium has performed in the past, it does not tell us what the Magisterium means to the Catholic Church today. For this answer, we focus primarily upon the decrees of the Second Vatican Council, in light of the First Vatican Council’s teaching on infallibility. Dei Verbum states that: “… the task of authentically interpreting the word of God… has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” (DV 10) This and other decrees establish the Magisterium as the interpretative teaching authority of the Church, and Scripture as the unchanging source and foundation. This is not to say that a layperson cannot interpret Scripture, but rather to say that they cannot interpret Scripture authoritatively. Catholic scholars are in agreement that the “interpretive teaching office” can refer to various persons of various authority. Both the Pope (when speaking ex cathedra) and the Ecumenical Council are regarded as the Extraordinary and Universal Magisterium, whose teachings are infallible. The Universal Magisterium, in agreement around the world, is also infallible, however the Ordinary Magisterium of the Pope and bishops is fallible (though authoritative). Many others, most importantly theologians, are also part of the Magisterium in an indirect way. The Code of Canon Law (749) explains that the infallible authority of the Magisterium extends only to matters of “faith and morals,” and doctrine should only be understood as infallible if it is made “manifestly evident” that this should be so. Additionally, some matters are more fundamental than others (ie hierarchy of truth).
What is interesting to note about Vatican II decrees is the new concern regarding the role of conscience. Unfortunately, what is said is inconclusive. Gaudium et spes describes conscience as the place where a person hears God’s voice, yet it is also something that frequently errs. Joseph Ratzinger comments, “How conscience can err if God’s call is directly to be heard in it, is unexplained.” To Michael Allsopp, the Council is ambiguous and settles none of the questions raised concerning the nature and role of conscience, let alone how the authority of conscience and the Magisterium is distributed. We can discern only that there is a place for conscience, though the Catholic Church has nothing specific to say about what this is.
This ambiguity, however, leads some readers to hold conscience above the Magisterium as the ultimate interpreter of Scripture (presumably under the guidance of the Holy Spirit). Others maintain that Church teaching cannot be overridden, and conscience is only authentic if it is in agreement with the Magisterium – that the freedom of conscience entails only the freedom to think as the Magisterium dictates. The middle line would be to assert that one should be guided by the teachings of the Magisterium, but if a particular decree were to go against one’s conscience, they should choose not to sin against it. Given this ongoing debate, can we definitively answer the question of whether a teaching authority is needed to remain faithful to Christ?
We know that teaching authorities have been used poorly in the past, and we also know that there are numerous aspects of the Magisterium that are yet to be fully defined. There are many Christian theologies that place little value upon the establishment of a teaching authority, often referring to the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura. This alternative, however, is troublesome when taken to its logical extreme. We must first note that the case in favour of the Magisterium has most of its weight in sacred tradition and doctrine of the apostolic succession. Dei Verbum states that, “…sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others…” (DV 10)
The debate over the Magisterium as essential to remain in Christ is also, in a sense, a debate over the role of tradition. It was the reformers belief that tradition was a wholly man-made product of the Church. If the saying “absolute power corrupts absolutely” applies generally, and if we can trust the pattern of man to twist that which is good, then it is not unreasonable to suspect tradition (being regarded so highly) of being corrupt also. The Catholic response is to appeal to the guidance of the Holy Spirit in teaching and tradition – but recall that history does not look favourably upon some of the decisions of the Church, these which must have been the decisions of man.
However, we must consider that many key reformers did not reject the authority of tradition in its entirety – they simply argued that it should be regulated by Scripture. It is not too controversial a claim to state that Scripture can hardly be read completely independently of deeply imbedded ancient theologies that have since achieved worldwide consensus within Christianity. The Christian God is a God of history, and tradition can certainly be learnt from. Later Protestant conferences would elaborate upon this understanding, holding that the, “interpretation of scripture must be guided and supported by the Tradition that shapes Scripture… However, this authentic Gospel Tradition has to be distinguished from the merely human traditions…” (R Moss) With a similar thought in mind, Ratzinger would comment that, “tradition must not be considered only affirmatively, but also critically…” He also held that one might criticise papal decrees to the extent that they lack Scriptural and creedal support. It is important to consider that Dei Verbum was the first formal decree to place the Magisterium under the authority of the Word of God, though they and tradition are regarded as inseparable. While the Catholic Church denies sola scriptura, as the idea that Scripture interprets itself, it is still understood that Scripture alone is defined as the Word of God (ie in terms of what it is). There seems today to be a cross-denominational consensus that there is a place for tradition and teaching authority, and that these should not be totally divorced from Scripture. However, debate over teaching infallibility and the role of conscience are persisting issues.
While Vatican II gave no conclusive answer regarding conscience, John Henry Newman made a fair attempt and his ideas would influence much modern theology. This is important for us, as if conscience can be relied upon above the Magisterium, then it is easy to argue that there is no essential need for a teaching authority. To Newman, because conscience links creature and creator, it has the weaknesses and strengths of both. This means that the conscience could fade due to neglect, temptations, etc. He also wanted to preserve Church authority and held that there was a “harmony-in-tension” between conscience and the Magisterium – God’s voice could be heard in both. He stated that, “it is never lawful to go against our conscience,” and it is lawful to defy papal order if the two come into conflict – prima facie one should obey Church authority as “freedom of conscience does not mean freedom from the Church’s authority.” It is a believer’s duty to inform and develop their conscience with the guidance of the Magisterium.
While Newman has valid and valuable insight, consider this: A man is alone on an island. He has no familiarity with the traditions of the Church and no teaching authority with him. He has only the Scriptures, his conscience and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Are we then to assume that this man will be lacking in some essential knowledge, or that his interpretations will be insufficient for him to be able to follow Christ? It would be bold to assume so. While we cannot deny the virtues of consensus in tradition and teaching authority, it is problematic to claim there is a need for them in order to remain faithful to Christ – and this is something most theologians can agree upon, through their separate lenses.
It has been made apparent, and particularly so during the formation of Vatican II decrees, that the Christendom values open discussion. Man is consistently fallible and vulnerable to misinterpretation, but shutting down the discussion only lessens the chances of coming to the truth – this has been regarded as a real issue resulting from the doctrine on infallibility. The Magisterium should be granted importance, but not an exaggerated importance, lest we diminish the necessary discourse of the Christian community.
Such a discussion is long and elaborate and so much more could be said, however here we are not at liberty to extend into every corner of the debate. Teaching authority, for example the Catholic Magisterium, is a helpful tool for interpreting, and applying traditional understandings to, Scripture. However, we should be careful to not overstate the authority of the Magisterium, particularly if it were to go against one’s conscience. In the absence of the teaching authority, a person, through the guidance of the Holy Spirit, is able to follow and sufficiently understand the teachings of Christ in order to be faithful to Him. Jesus is, ultimately, the true universal Magisterium. Infallibility can faithfully be attributed to Christ, who gives us the Word and is Himself the Word, as He is not vulnerable to the sins and errors of man. Believers can hold a tradition and teaching to be true as they read it to be true in Scripture, as guided by Christ Himself.
Allsopp, Michael E. "Conscience, the Church and Moral Truth: John Henry Newman, Vatican II, Today." Irish Theological Quarterly 58, no. 3 (1992): 192-208.
Dulles, Avery Robert Cardinal. “Newman on Infallibility.” Theological Studies 51, no. 3 (September 1990): 434–49. http://search.ebscohost.com.ipacez.nd.edu.au/login.aspx?direct=true&db=lsdar&AN=ATLA0000830157&site=ehost-live&scope=site.
Gaillardetz, Richard R. "The Ordinary Universal Magisterium: Unresolved Questions." Theological Studies (Baltimore) 63, no. 3 (2002): 447-471.
Hoose, Bernard. "The Service of the Magisterium Reconsidered." The Furrow 58, no. 3 (2007): 127-137.
Moss, R. "Beyond “Two Source Theory” and “Sola Scriptura”: Ecumenical Perspectives on Scripture and Tradition." Acta theologica 35, no. 2 (2015): 66-81.
Second Vatican Council, “Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, 18 November 1965.” n.d. Dei Verbum. https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html
Sullivan, Francis A. “Magisterium.” In Magisterium: Teaching Authority in the Catholic Church. Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2002. https://books.google.com.au/books?hl=en&lr=&id=ptVKAwAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP6&dq=magisterium+authority&ots=b37FdfiFJs&sig=qmNueYep8dMX4pYUEO6WgEfLiHs&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
Sullivan, Francis A. "The Definitive Exercise of Teaching Authority." Theological Studies 75, no. 3 (2014): 502-514.