Whether or not the Catholic Church actually possesses divine authority - authority that all Christians must submit to in order to be fully obedient to Christ - is obviously a pressing question for any Christian. (Or, it ought to be, and judging from the efforts Protestant apologists expend trying to refute this teaching, its importance is recognized.) Where does the authority the Catholic Church claims come from?
In fact, the Church’s authority can be established from the New Testament. In this essay[1] I will demonstrate that:
1) Christ established a Church that He claimed would endure against evil until the end of the world.
2) He gave this Church - its leaders - complete authority over Christians - His very authority - on earth and in Heaven.
3) If this Church was to last forever its first leaders - the apostles - would have to appoint successors to their offices. The fact that they did this is evident in Scripture as well as from the extensive historical record of the early Church.
4) The Catholic Church demonstrates an unbroken line of succession back to the apostles - this includes the office of Peter (the papacy) as well as apostolic succession of every priest and bishop. In fact, there is no other sect or church that even makes the claims that the Catholic Church does (and these claims are provable and proven).
1) Christ established a Church that He claimed would endure against evil until the end of the world.
This is fully established in a single passage:
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build My Church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven. (Mt 16:18-19)
Of course, there's really nobody who disputes that Christ founded a Church; it's the nature of this Church that is important (and that nature, specifically, is one, holy, universal (catholic), and apostolic). But it is important to note that we have Christ's promise that evil will never prevail against the Church - if this Church ever officially taught error in faith or morals then it would be impossible to assert that Christ's promise had held, for such a Church would be worse than useless.
The last important (and rather amazing) takeaway from this passage is that Peter is given authority that even Heaven respects. Later, in Mt 18:18, this transfer of authority is repeated and this time all of the apostles are included.
(Just a quick note regarding the use of rock in this passage. The papacy is not the direct topic of this essay, but there is no doubt that rock refers to Peter – Peter’s very name was changed to rock by Christ for starters. There is an argument regarding the Greek text that asserts that because a masculine form of “rock” is used for Peter and a feminine form for the 2nd instance of “rock”, the verse isn’t saying what it seems to. However, Christ spoke Aramaic and that language (like English) does not have gender-specific pronouns. There is only the neuter form of "rock" in Aramaic, just as there is for us English speakers, and so this (convoluted) argument does not have merit. This is one of the many passages that many Protestants wish to read in a very non-literal fashion, ignoring the clear meaning of the text. See this document for much more on that subject and the rest of the specious and contrived arguments against the clear meaning of this and related passages.)
2) He also gave the apostles full authority in that Church.
That Christ ceded to His Apostles full and complete authority in His Church - His very authority, which in turn originates with the Father - is evident from the passages referenced above alone. And there are many more examples that demonstrate that the leaders of the Church carry real authority from Christ and, furthermore, that obeying them - obeying the Church - is identical to obeying Christ:
"He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me." (Mt 10:40)
"He who hears you hears Me, and he who rejects you rejects Me, and he who rejects Me rejects Him who sent Me." (Lk 10:16)
There are many other examples in Scripture of the apostles' authority: see, for example, Luke 9:1, 10:19, and 22:29, John 7:16-17, 8:28, 12:49, 13:20, 14:10, 16:14-15, 17:18 and 20:21, Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 2:25.
Now the immediate, facile objection here is, essentially, "The apostles have nothing to do with the modern Catholic Church - the Catholic Church did not inherit this authority." But that is entirely untrue. As we will see shortly, the apostles made it a specific point to appoint successors to their offices, and it is historical fact that the pope and bishops of today's Catholic Church trace their lineage through an unbroken line of ordination to the Twelve and thus to Christ. (As do also the priests and bishops of the Orthodox churches in schism from the See of Peter.)
Continuing with examples of apostolic authority in Scripture, we have the account given in Acts of the first Church council, where the question of whether or not pagan converts had to be circumcised according to the Old Law or not was decided. We know the decision that the apostles reached. Several points regarding this decision and how they came to it are noteworthy:
- Without explicitly stating it, the apostles are exercising their God-given authority to govern the new Church - they're undoing a law handed down from Moses. One must try to put on the mindset of a first-century Jew to begin to understand the weight such an issue carried with the apostles.
- They stated that their decision came from the Holy Spirit himself (v 28) even though there was no explicit divine revelation - there is the implicit realization that the Holy Spirit guides the Church through the actions of Her clergy.
The epistles likewise demonstrate apostolic authority, of course. In fact, if the apostles were not consciously fulfilling their role to guide and rule various local churches the epistles would not exist. (This is related to what has been called the occasional nature of Scripture. It is entirely clear that the epistles did and do not constitute an all-encompassing 'manual for the faith'. Only certain topics are dealt with - in general, topics where there was confusion or disobedience among the common Christians of the day. The epistles were meant to supplement the oral teachings (Tradition) of the apostles that Paul commanded his subjects to obey. No, the 'manual of the faith' is the living Church that Christ founded - the 'Church of the Living God' that is the very 'pillar and foundation of truth' (1 Tim 3:15).)
3) If the Church would last until the end of time the apostles would have to appoint successors.
The first noteworthy act recorded in Scripture subsequent to the Ascension is the first implementation of apostolic succession: Acts records that Matthias is ordained by apostolic authority:
'For it is written in the Book of Psalms: 'Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.' And: 'May another take his office.' Therefore, it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us, become with us a witness to his resurrection'" So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed, 'You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chose to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.' Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:20-26)
It's also noteworthy that there is no recorded discussion of exactly why Judas had to be replaced: the apostles recognized the existence of Judas' office that existed apart from him and his death. And, once again, the apostles recognize that their official actions as Church leaders receive the blessing and guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Acts also makes it clear that ordination was a requirement to make a man a presbyter (priest) of Christ. When the existing clergy were insufficient to meet the needs of the people more were ordained:
At that time, as the number of disciples continued to grow, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said, "It is not right for us to neglect the word of God to serve at table. Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task,whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the word." The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them. (Acts 6:1-6)
"Laying hands" refers to the sacrament of ordination. (It may be a Protestant assumption that this was not a sacrament in the sense of a physical act that imparts actual grace, but that is not only an assumption unsupported by Scripture but one at odds with the obvious importance associated with this act.)
Note that there are no cases in the New Testament of any clergy "spontaneously" sprouting up without having been ordained by an apostle or a man ordained by an apostle: the chain of apostolic succession is kept intact. Such an unbiblical concept would not take root for another 15 centuries.
Even Paul, who was given the enormous grace of a vision of Christ Himself, still had to be ordained:
So Ananias went and entered the house; laying his hands on him, he said, Saul, my brother, the Lord has sent me, Jesus who appeared to you on the way by which you came, that you may regain your sight and be filled with the holy Spirit. Immediately things like scales fell from his eyes and he regained his sight. He got up and was baptized, and when he had eaten, he recovered his strength. (Acts 9:17-19)
If any passage attests to the absolute need for sacramental ordination it is this one.
We can also easily discern from the New Testament the concept of the office of bishop: an office, by its very nature, is greater than and survives any particular occupant. Since Paul, for example, refers to his position as occupying an "office" it is implicit that it would have other occupants:
This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. (1 Tim 3:1)
And we see that the Church is a 'foundation':
So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the holy ones and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone. (Eph 2:19-20)
In fact, it is the very pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15). (The Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth". The Bible, which the Church created, is part of this truth.)
“But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.” (1 Tim 3:15)
Now, the early Church has preserved for us dozens if not hundreds of examples of apostolic succession in action in a hierarchal Church led by Peter's successors in Rome at the head in union with all bishops of the world. Here are just a couple of documents from the early Church that demonstrate these things:
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits [of their labours], having first proved 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 saith the Scripture a certain place, 'I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.' Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and 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 [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry... For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties." Pope Clement, Epistle to Corinthians, A.D. 98.
"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 of Antioch, To the Trallians A.D. 110.
This document gives a full history of the papacy from St. Peter onward: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm
3a. The Church Is Visible And Hierarchal
Non-Catholics like to believe that the “church” Jesus founded is actually “invisible”. They can find Scripture verses to support this contention – because it’s true. In fact, the Church has both a visible and invisible component (just as Christ has both Body & Soul).
Ignoring the visible, hierarchal church in the New Testament entails reading around a lot of material, both in the large and in the small. (Non-Catholic readings of Scripture involve doing just that, while the Catholic doctrine weaves all of Scripture into a harmonious whole.)
Bishops, priests, and deacons are all spoken of repeatedly in the New Testament. "Bishop" comes to us from the Latin biscopus, which in turn comes to us from the Greek (episkopos), the word used in the original text of the New Testament, or "overseer" (as it is now translated in many Protestant Bibles). "Priest" comes from the Greek presbyteros, or "elder". (These things used be clear to all Christians, until non-Catholic Bibles post-Reformation started using "elder" for priest and "oversee" for bishop - but, that is fine, because these words mean the same thing.)
Even if a Protestant were to argue that there are no “bishops” and “priests” in the New Testament, only “overseers” and “elders”, he could not answer why his Protestant community has no “overseers” or “elders” descended from the Apostles, as were all of those spoken of in the New Testament.
Paul says, “Obey your prelates, and be subject to them.” Christ says, "He that hears you, hears Me". How can it possibly be asserted that there is no visible Church (or that it doesn't matter) in the face of such things?
The bishops, priests, and deacons of the Catholic Church (and the Orthodox in schism) all trace their ordinations directly to the apostles, making them part of this visible, hierarchal Church.
When Matthew 18 says that one is "to go to the church" when there are disputes, which "church" is it? It can't be "a group of ordinary believers" since they're the ones you turn to before the Church. "Church" is singular there just as it is when Christ Himself speaks of it. Christ speaks of a single Church that all believers could easily know and find because that is what He founded.
See here for some of the many Scripture passages illustrating the visible (and hierarchal component of the Church).
In contrast to the One, Holy, Catholic (Universal), and Apostolic Church, which indeed has perfect unity in Her teachings, Protestantism (which includes all non-Catholic sects) is a world of disunity and non-universal division. Since Christ’s Church is One, and Christ spoke repeatedly of the unity of His Church, none of these communities are the Church that He founded (although all baptized Christians are in partial, imperfect unity with that Church).
4. The Catholic Church Is The Only Possible Candidate For Christ’s Church
At this point any Christian must realize that Christ's Church - a visible, hierarchal Church - must still exist today. If it does not than Christ was proven false - period. And there is only one Church that even claims to be the specific, visible, hierarchal Church that Christ founded, which is the Catholic Church. The historical record demonstrates the unbroken line of authority from the first pontiff in Rome, Peter, to the current one, and also demonstrates very thoroughly that the teachings and practice of the early Church were identical in all crucial ways to current Catholic teaching (however surprising and shocking such a thought is to many Protestants).
Conclusion
It is apparent from Scripture alone that Jesus Christ founded a Church, gave its leaders authority on earth over all Christians, and promised that this Church would endure until the end of time. Since it would endure until the end of time there must have been a method to propagate this authority, and this is in fact illustrated by the New Testament as well: sacramental ordination of priests and bishops maintaining the line of apostolic succession. This Church, which celebrated the Eucharist and believed & practiced as today’s Catholic Church does, was the Catholic Church. These things become readily obvious upon study of the (vast) writing of the early Church. Cardinal Neumann (an ex-non-Catholic) probably put it most succinctly: "Those who are deep in history cease to be Protestant."
It seems that resistance to authority is a common thing, even among Christians. (Which is not to say that true ignorance of the Catholic Church's real teachings and history is not a major cause for many remaining separated from her - it may the greatest cause. And it is important to point out, especially in this modern age of evil, that individual churchmen can and do err and can and do become corrupt. The Church is not 'the people in the Church' - the Church exists apart from and is greater than all in it, including the apostles and all their successors.)
It should actually be apparent for many reasons both that there is a need for authority and authoritative teaching in the life of Christians and that it would be very strange indeed if God did not provide this. After all, the Old Covenant Jews had their source of living authority - the interpreters of the Torah, the Pharisees. (The uniformed might claim that Christ “put down” the Pharisees. But of course he rebuked some of them for their hypocrisy while making it crystal clear that the Jews were bound to obey them: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you...”. That is, they carry Moses' authority - this Seat of Moses being an oral teaching of the Jews not found in any Scripture.) Imagine a nation that had a Constitution but no Supreme Court to interpret it – the result would be every-man-makes-his-own-law-anarchy – a situation directly analogous to Protestantism since its very beginning in the 16th century.
The Jews needed a living authority partially because the Torah could not possibly address every single practical question in the life of every Jew - any more than the Bible addresses directly every practical issue of today. If it did, we wouldn't have Christians who could challenge the most basic moral laws that have been part of Tradition since apostolic times.
[1] This document is intentionally brief: for more on this subject see http://www.catholicthinker.net/peter-the-papacy/ and http://www.catholicthinker.net/infallibility/