My conversion to the Catholic
faith began in the world of Protestant fundamentalism. After being
brought up in an independent Bible church, I attended the fundamentalist
Bob Jones University. While there I became an Anglican; later, I went
to England to become an Anglican priest.
My pilgrimage of faith came to a crisis in the early 1990s as the
Anglican Church struggled over the question of the ordination of women.
By instinct I was against the innovation, but I wanted to be positive
and affirm new ideas rather than reject them just because they were new.
I decided to put my prejudices to one side and listen as openly as
possible to both sides of the debate.
As I listened I realized that from a human point of view, both the
people in favor of women’s ordination and those against it had some good
arguments. Both sides argued from Scripture, tradition, and reason.
Both sides argued from practicality, compassion and justice. Both sides
honestly considered their arguments to be persuasive. Furthermore, both
sides were composed of prayerful, church-going, sincere Christians who
genuinely believed the Holy Spirit was directing them. How could both be
right?
From a human point of view, both arguments could be sustained. This
led me to a real consideration of the question of authority in the
Church. I realized that the divisions over women’s ordination in the
Anglican Church were no different, in essence, than every other debate
that has divided the thousands of Protestant denominations.
Some groups split over women’s ordination; others split over whether
women should wear hats to church. Some split over doctrinal issues;
others split over moral issues. Whatever the issue and whatever the
split, the basic problem is one of authority. If Christians have a
sincere disagreement, who decides?
Wobbly Three-Legged Stool
Evangelical Protestants say the Bible decides, but this begs the
question when the two warring parties agree that the Bible is the final
authority. They eventually split because they can’t agree about what the
Bible actually teaches. I had moved away from the Protestant
understanding that Scripture is the only authority, and as an Anglican,
believed that authority rested in Scripture, tradition, and reason.
Anglicans call this the "three-legged stool." By turning to
Scripture, tradition, and human reason they hope to have a secure
teaching authority. I came to realize, however, that this solution also
begs the question. Just as we have to ask the Protestant who believes in
sola scriptura, "Whose interpretation of Scripture?," we have
to ask the Anglican, "Whose reason and whose tradition?" In the debate
over women’s ordination (and now in the debate over homosexuality), both
sides appeal to human reason, Scripture and tradition, and they come up
with wildly different conclusions.
In the end, the Anglican appeal to a three-legged stool relies on individual interpretation, just as the Protestant appeals to
sola scriptura. The three-legged stool turns out to be a theological pogo stick.
A Son of Benedict Speaks
About this time I had a conversation with the Abbot of Quarr Abbey
(a Catholic Benedictine monastery on the Isle of Wight). He listened to
my situation with compassion and interest. I explained that I did not
want to deny women’s ordination. I wanted to affirm all things that were
good, and I could see some good arguments in favor of women’s
ordination. He admired this desire to affirm all things but he said
something that set me thinking further:
Sometimes we have to deny some lesser good in order to
affirm the greater good. I think you have to deny women’s ordination in
order to affirm the apostolic ministry. If the apostolic authority says
no to women’s ordination, then to affirm the greater good of apostolic
authority you will have to deny the lesser good of women’s ordination.
Because if we deny the greater good, then eventually we will lose the
lesser good as well.
He hit the nail on the head. His words led me to explore the basis
for authority in the Catholic Church. I already had read and pretty much
accepted the Scriptural support for the Petrine ministry in the Church.
I also had come to understand and value the four-fold marks of the True
Church—that it is "One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic." As I studied and
pondered the matter further, however, I saw twelve other traits of the
church’s authority.
These twelve traits—in six paired sets—helped me to understand how
comprehensive and complete the Catholic claims of authority are. I came
to realize that other churches and ecclesial bodies might claim some of
the traits, but only the Catholic Church demonstrated all twelve fully.
It Is Rooted in History . . .
What are the twelve traits of authority, and how do they work? We
have to ask what a group of Christians who were deliberating a difficult
matter would need to make their decision.
First of all, it seems clear that their decision would have to be
made from a historical perspective. It was not good enough to decide
complex moral, social, or doctrinal issues based on popularity polls or
yesterday’s newspaper. To decide difficult questions, a valid authority
has to be historical.
By this I mean not only does it has to have an understanding of
history, but itself must be rooted in history. In addition, the
authority has to show a real continuity with the historical experience
of Christianity. The churches that have existed for four or five hundred
years can demonstrate this to a degree, but only the Catholic (and
Eastern Orthodox) Church has a living link with history that goes back
to Roman times—and then, through Judaism, back to the beginning of human
history.
. . . and Adaptable
The historical link is essential, but on its own is not sufficient.
Historical authority has to be balanced with the ability to be up to
date. An authority that is only historical becomes ossified. It never
changes. An authority that cannot be up to date is not only rooted in
history, it is bound by history. A valid authority structure needs to be
flexible and adaptable. Christians face complex modern moral and
doctrinal dilemmas. A valid authority system draws on the wisdom of the
past to rule properly on the questions of the present.
It Is Objective . . .
A third quality of a valid authority system is that it needs to be
objective. By this I mean it needs to be independent of any one person’s
or group’s agenda, ideology, philosophy or self-interest. A valid
authority transcends all political, economic, and cultural pressures.
The objective quality of this authority system also allows it to make
decisions that are unpopular or that go against the spirit of the times
and majority opinion.
An objective authority is based on certain universal basic
assumptions, immutable principles, and observable and undeniable
premises. From these objective criteria the valid authority system
builds its teaching.
. . . and Flexible
For the authority to be valid, however, it cannot rely on abstract
principles and objective criteria alone. The valid authority is suitably
subjective in applying objective principles. In other words, it
understands that the complexities of real life and the pastoral
exigencies of helping real people demand a flexible, practical, and
down-to-earth application. The Catholic authority system does just that.
Throughout the Code of Canon Law, for example, we are reminded that the
law is there to serve the people of God in their quest for salvation.
Individual Christians, or particular Christian groups, often fall
into one side of this pair or the other. The rigorists or legalists want
everything to be objective and "black and white" all the time, while
the liberals or sentimentalists want every decision to be relative,
open-ended, and flexible according to the pastoral needs. Only the
Catholic system can hold the two in tension, because only the Catholic
system has an infallible authority which can keep the two sides
balanced.
It Is Universal . . .
An authority that can speak to all situations can only do so if it
comes from a universal source. This source of authority needs to be
universal not only geographically, but also chronologically. In other
words, it transcends national agendas and limitations, but it also
transcends the cultural trends and intellectual fashions of any
particular time. Every church or ecclesial structure other than the
Catholic Church is limited, either by its historical foundations or by
its cultural and national identity.
For example, the Eastern Orthodox find it very hard to transcend
their national identity, while the churches of the Reformed tradition
struggle to transcend the particular cultural issues that surround their
foundation. The national, cultural, and chronological identities of
other ecclesial bodies limit their ability to speak with a universal
voice. When they do move away from their foundations they usually find
themselves at sea amidst the fashions and trends of the present day.
They also find that they lose their distinctive identities when they
drift from their foundations. A universal authority system, on the other
hand, transcends both chronological and geographical limitations.
. . . and Local
However, this universal authority needs to be applied in a
particular and local way. An authority that is only universal remains
vague, abstract, and disincarnate. For a universal authority system to
be valid, it also must be expressed locally. Catholicism speaks with a
universal voice, but it is also as local as St. Patrick’s Church and Fr.
Magee on the corner of Chestnut Street. Not only does the universal
Church have a local outlet, but that outlet has a certain autonomy which
allows it to be flexible in its application of the universal authority.
Catholicism travels well, and because of the universal authority
structure, it can allow far more varieties of enculturation at the local
level than churches which are more bound by the time and place of their
foundations.
It Is Intellectually Challenging . . .
The fourth pair of characteristics that demonstrate the validity of
the Catholic authority system include its intellectual satisfaction and
its accessibility. If an authority system is to speak to the
complexities of the human situation, then it must be able to hold its
own with the philosophical and intellectual experts in every field of
human endeavor. What other ecclesial system can marshal experts from
every area of human expertise to speak authoritatively in matters of
faith and morals? Time and again, the Catholic Church has been able to
speak with authority about the spiritual dimension of economics, ethics,
politics, diplomacy, the arts, and philosophy.
This authority must not only be able to hold its own with the
intellectual experts in all fields, but it must be intellectually
satisfying and coherent within itself. A unified and complete
intellectual system must be able to explain the world as it is.
Furthermore, this intellectual system must continually develop and be
re-expressed—always interpreting ageless truth in a way that is
accessible for the age in which it lives. This intellectual system must
be an integral and vital part of the religion, while also being large
enough to self-criticize. Only the Catholic faith has such an
all-encompassing, impressive system of teaching.
. . . and Accessible to the Uneducated
Nonetheless, while the authority system must be intellectually top
notch, the religious system must also be accessible to peasants and the
illiterate. A religious system that is only intellectual or appeals
merely to the literate can speak only for the intellectuals and
literate.
Some denominations appeal to the simple and unlearned, but have
trouble keeping the top minds. Others appeal to the educated elite, but
lose the masses. Catholicism, on the other hand, is a religion of the
greatest minds of history and the religion of ignorant peasants. It is a
religion that is complex enough for St. Thomas Aquinas and simple
enough for St. Joseph Cupertino. It has room at the manger for both the
magi and the shepherds.
It Is Visible . . .
As a Protestant I was taught that the Church was invisible. That is,
it consisted of all people everywhere who believed in Jesus, and that
the true members of the Church were known to God alone. This is true,
but there is more to it than that. Invisibility and visibility make up
the fifth paired set of characteristics that mark the truly
authoritative church.
The Church is made up of all people everywhere who trust in Christ.
However, this characteristic alone is not satisfactory because human
beings locked in the visible plane of reality also demand that the
Church be visible. Even those who believe only in the invisible church
belong to a particular church which they attend every Sunday. Those who
believe only in the invisible church must conclude that the church they
go to doesn’t really matter.
. . . and Invisible
The Catholic system of authority recognizes both the invisible
dimension of the Church and the visible. The Church is greater than what
we can observe, but the church we observe is also greater than we
think. The invisible Church subsists in the Catholic Church, and while
you may not be able to identify the extent of the invisible Church, you
can with certainty point to the Catholic Church and say, "There is the
Body of Christ."
A few small Protestant denominations claim that their visible church
is the true church, but their claims are ludicrous because they have
none of the other twelve traits of true authority. Because it has all
these traits, only the Catholic Church can claim to be the living,
historical embodiment of the Body of Christ on earth.
It is Both Human and Divine
Finally, for the church to speak with authority it must be both
human and divine. An authority that speaks only with a divine voice
lacks the authenticity that comes with human experience. So Islam and
Mormonism, which are both based on a book supposedly dictated by angels,
are unsatisfactory because their authority is supernaturally imposed on
the human condition.
On the other hand, a religion that is purely a construct of the human
condition is merely a system of good works, religious techniques, or
good ideas. Christian Science or Unitarianism, for example, is developed
from human understandings and natural goodness. As such, both lack a
supernatural voice of authority.
The Judeo-Christian story, however, is both human and divine. The
voice of authority is always expressed through human experience and
human history. Divine inspiration in the Judeo-Christian tradition is
God’s word spoken through human words. This incarnated form of authority
finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, who hands on his totally
incarnated authority to Peter and his successors.
Built upon the Rock
Some Churches may exercise some of the twelve traits, but only the
Catholic Church is able to field all twelve as a foundation for
decision-making. When the Catholic Church pronounces on any difficult
question, the response is historical, but up to date. It is based on
objective principles but applies to specific needs. The Church’s
authority transcends space and time, but it is relevant to a particular
place and time. The response will be intellectually profound, but
expressed in a way that is simple enough for anyone to apply. Finally,
it will express truths that are embedded in the human experience, but
spring from divine inspiration.
This authority works infallibly through the active ministry of the whole Church. The
Catechism of the Catholic Church
says that it is Christ who is infallible, and he grants a measure of
his infallibility to his body, the Church. That infallibility is worked
out through these twelve traits, but it is expressed most majestically
and fully through Christ’s minister of infallibility: one person—the
Rock on which the Church is built, Peter and his successors.
