The Authority of the Church in the World:  A United Church of Christ Perspective, Rev. Dr. Susan E. Davies
 

The Authority of the Church in the World:  
A Roman Catholic Perspective

Dr. Terence Nichols, Ph. D.
Co-chair, Authority of the Church in the World Study Group (2003-07) 

I begin by agreeing with my colleague Elaine MacMillan (see her essay elsewhere in this collection) that probably the principal source of the authority of the church in the world is the personal witness of holy Christian women and men--the martyrs, saints, clergy, as well as people in ordinary walks of life who manifest personal holiness and charity.  This aspect of authority is described well in her paper and will not be repeated here.  But there is also the institutional aspect of authority to be considered.  This essay will focus on that aspect of the authority of the church in the world, as a complement to the aspect of personal holiness described in Dr. MacMillan’s paper.               

Though I will concentrate here on the authority of the church in the world, this issue cannot be separated entirely from that of authority in the church.  Therefore it will be necessary to say a few words about the development of authority in the church, and then to consider the authority of the church in the world. In writing this paper, I will use the definitions of ‘authority’, ‘church’, and ‘world’ which are set forth in the consensus document: “The Authority of the Church in the World.” 

A fundamental assumption of the Catholic understanding of the church is that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the church after the death of the apostles and the writing of Scripture.  The Bible therefore, while being a principal source, is not the only source of authority in the church, nor of the authority of the church in the world.  In Catholic thinking, the authority of the apostles is carried on by the college of bishops (see, for example, the letters of St. Ignatius).  Therefore, when disputes about the meaning of Scripture arose in the early church—preeminently in the Arian controversy—the issue was settled by the bishops meeting in council (Nicaea, 325) and issuing a Creed.  The pattern for this was Acts 15, in which the nascent church had to decide whether to admit Gentile converts.  The decision is portrayed in Acts as a consensus decision (led by the apostles), made after extensive discussion among the apostles and elders, in which they sought to discern the will of the Spirit.  Their eventual consensus was thought to reflect the concurrence of the Spirit: “For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:28).   I see Acts 15 as a kind of narrative charter for decision making and authority in the church, and also for the authority of the church in the world.[1]  Behind it is the idea that ultimate authority rests with Christ and the Spirit, and that to discern the mind and will of the Spirit, collaborative discussion is necessary.  This principle was stated at the Second Council of Constantinople:  

                The holy fathers, who have gathered at intervals in the four holy councils, have followed the examples of antiquity. They dealt with heresies and current problems by debate in common, since it was established as certain that when the disputed question is set out by each side in communal discussions, the light of truth drives out the shadow of lying.

                The truth cannot be made clear in any other way when there are debates about questions of faith, since everyone requires the assistance of his neighbor.[2] 

Bishops in the early church were usually elected by the clergy and/or people and had to be consecrated by at least three other bishops, in a ceremony of laying on of hands.  In some cases, persons were acclaimed bishop by popular acclamation, for example, Ambrose of Milan.  This indicates that the Spirit was not thought of as operating only through the bishops; the Spirit also acted through the people and the clergy.  This is most evident in the case of martyrs (and later holy monks), whose authority in the church and in the world sometimes exceeded that of bishops.  This principle was also evident in The Rule of St. Benedict, which instructed abbots to consult with the whole community on important matters: “for the Lord often reveals the best course to a younger monk.”[3]  

The authority of bishops within the church is complemented by the authority of the bishop of Rome, the so called “first among equals.”  In theory at least, the pope exercises his authority within and not above the college of bishops.  The exact balance between papal and episcopal authority is much debated among contemporary Catholics, but I cannot consider it here in detail.[4]  It is enough to say that for Catholics, the body possessing final authority in the church, as well as final authority in offering church teaching to the world, is the college of bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome.  This was true in the ancient catholic church, and remains true in the modern Catholic Church, though it is also true that the authority of the papacy in the contemporary Roman Catholic Church is much greater than it was in the ancient church. 

When Constantine assumed power in the late Roman Empire, the Christian Church gradually began to exercise de facto authority in the world.  Roman Law and customs were influenced by Christianity.  Sunday and Christmas became legal holidays, infanticide was abolished, slavery was mitigated (families could not be broken up), the bishops became the executors of state charitable institutions (orphanages, hospitals,) and so on.  The pattern begun by Constantine became, in the Middle Ages, the ideal of a Christian Empire: Christendom.  In theory Christendom was ruled by the emperor (or subordinate kings) in consultation with the bishops and the pope.  This system never worked very well, however, and led to excesses, such as the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.  Today, almost all Roman Catholic laity, theologians, and clergy, especially in North America,  would support some degree of separation of church and state.  The Declaration of Religious Freedom of Vatican II implies this also.  At the same time, most Catholics are concerned that the laws of the state reflect Christian principles—especially in protecting the dignity and inherent worth of all human beings, including those in the womb.  How and to what extent Christian teaching should affect the state and the world, its laws and policies, is a matter of active debate among Catholics. 

From the time of Pope John XXIII and his encyclical Pacem in Terris, many teachings of the popes and bishops have been directed not only to Catholics, but to “all persons of good will” (to use the language of Pope John).  This has been true not only of papal documents but also of some of the documents of Vatican Council II, notably Gaudium et Spes (The Church in the Modern World). In that document the bishops stated:  

Accordingly, after exploring the mystery of the church more deeply, the second Vatican council now immediately addresses itself not just to the church’s own daughters and sons and all who call on the name of Christ but to people everywhere, in its desire to explain to all how it understands the church’s presence and activity in today’s world. This world it sees as the world of men and women, the whole human family in its total environment; the stage of human history notable for its toil, its tragedies and its triumphs…. (Gaudium et Spes # 2, Tanner translation) 

The council understood itself as guided by the Holy Spirit in its discernment and its teaching:  

Impelled by its belief that it is being led by the Spirit of the Lord who fills the whole earth, God’s people works to discern the true signs of God’s presence and purpose in the events, needs, and desires which it shares with the rest of modern humanity.  It is faith which shows everything in a new light and clarifies God’s purpose in his complete calling of the human race…The council’s first aim is to subject the values most highly regarded today to this light and to relate them to their divine source, since these values are very good insofar as they proceed from the God-given character of the human person, but are in need of purification from the distortion they often receive from the corruption of the human heart. (Gaudium et Spes, # 11, Tanner Translation) 

In Catholic thinking, faith (based on revelation) does not supersede reason, it illumines and purifies reason.  This is the approach taken by the bishops in their teaching to the world.  They appeal to human experience and to reason, but in addition bring the illuminating perspective of faith to bear on any particular issue, in the above case, on the dignity and vocation of the human person.  This is the basis for the church teaching authoritatively to the world. 

When the bishops and the pope are teaching within the Catholic Church to Catholics, there is a recognized gradation of authority in the teachings.[5]  Some teachings, the most certain, are taught de fide--that is, the teaching is part of revealed truth; some teachings are taught “definitively,” and others non-definitively (see the “Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian” issued by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, Origins 20 [July 5, 1990], 118-126).  When the [Catholic] Church is teaching to the wider society, as in Gaudium et Spes, or is involved in ecumenical dialogue, it also recognizes a gradation in the authority of the teachings.  The Decree on Ecumenism issued by Vatican Council II states:  

Furthermore, in ecumenical dialogue, when catholic [sic] theologians join with other Christians in common study of the divine mysteries … they should pursue the work with love for the truth, with charity, and with humility. When comparing doctrines with one another, they should remember that in catholic doctrine there exists an order or “hierarchy” of truths, since they vary in their connections with the foundation of the Christian faith.” (Unitatis Redintegratio, # 11, Tanner translation).  

In plain language, then, the church’s teachings on the Trinity, are more foundational, more central, and more certain, than, say the teaching of the church on artificial contraception.  

In Catholic understanding, then, the church can teach authoritatively to the world because its teaching derives from Christ and from divine revelation.  But some teachings are more closely connected to that revelation than are others.  Some teachings, particularly moral teachings, are affected by prudential judgment.  The moral teaching: “The intentional killing of innocent civilians or non-combatants is always wrong” is taught with a high degree of authority and certainty; the question of whether to go to war, or what weapons to use, involves prudential judgment.  Both the pope and the world bishops strongly opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq.  This aroused a great deal of debate within the Catholic community, but all sides admitted that a degree of prudential judgment was involved in the decision.  The teaching of the pope and the bishops on the Iraq war, then, was not taught de fide or with definitive authority. 

Another model of the authority of the church in the world is that of the church as sacrament.[6]  The Vatican II Document on the church mentions this in its first paragraph:  “..the church is in Christ as a sacrament or instrumental sign of intimate union with God and of the unity of all humanity….”  For Catholics, a sacrament is an efficacious sign of an invisible grace.  The church itself, and the sacraments it offers, especially the eucharist, are such signs.  Since the writings of Mircea Eliade, we have become aware of the importance of rituals as symbols which mediate the presence of the sacred.  For Catholics, Orthodox, and other Christians, the eucharist (Holy Communion) especially mediates the presence of Christ to the world.  And this carries with it a kind of authoritative presence.  

This notion of authority is easily misunderstood in ecumenical discussion.  It does not necessarily connote exclusivism, as if Christ’s presence is only found in the sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church; other Christian churches also have sacraments, and Vatican II insisted that the grace of God can be found even outside the Christian Church.[7]  It does not necessarily imply that the church is without sin.  Clearly, the human members of the church can and do sin.   Whether the church, as the bride of Christ, is in its essence without sin is a disputed question in ecumenical theology.  

This model of authority has not received much response from Protestants.  But it is a fitting complement to the more doctrinal and juridical models of authority which are discussed above, and which have often been the focus in ecumenism.  Not all of the authority of the church in the world is carried by words.  Much of it is manifested in moral actions, and some of it in sacred rituals.