What separates Protestants and Catholics? While there are a host of various doctrinal issues that one party or the next will parade before us, the key issue is that of authority. Having been on both sides of the Tiber, I can attest to this being the key issue that divides Catholics and Protestants. It is a simple situation really. A few conversations I've had lead us to see this:
1) I asked my sister, an ordained Methodist Minister, about the ecclesial structure of the United Methodist Church. She divulged to me that on matters of faith (i.e. changing the Book of Discipline), there must be a vote by the General Council, and if the vote is in favor of a certain resolution, that vote is put before all the faithful for a vote, because, you see, the Holy Spirit will guide everyone in all truth. In this instance, the onus on authority is the people. It goes beyond that, however. You see, first, individual congregations nominate lay and clergy to their regional council. At the regional councils, various issues are discussed, and representatives of the regions are elected to the general council. Those elected representatives then decide issues at the general council, and those issues, if they involve changing the Book of Discipline, are brought before the entire body of the faithful.
2) While in high school, I sat on our UMC congregation's Pastor-Parish Relations Committee. There were some discussions about our then-pastor, and his side-job, especially pertaining to its appropriateness. As I learned in that experience, the congregation has the authority to pick the pastors they want, within reason. You see, in the UMC, the "parish" is given a choice between the candidates that the District Superintendent chooses. In the end, its a mesh of congregational versus heirarchical systems.
3) My parents were in the process of determining which ecclesial group they should attend, having left their former group due to administrative differences (to be fair, they stayed to support their pastor, who was at times given a bumpy ride). They started attending a Christian Reformed congregation. Being a descdendent of Calvin, this congregation was throughly congregationalist. When they started attending, the congregation was in the midst of finding a new pastor (the old one, whose sons I attended school with, retired). Each week, there would be a new candidate to conduct the service. The congregation's leadership (I'm guessing elected representatives) would choose who they thought was the best.
4) I was attempting to honestly explain to my parents why it was not so easy for me to simply blow off Mass to attend my uncle's church where he is a "lay pastor". Sure it was supportive of my family, but I had to explain to them the re-offering of Christ's Sacrifice that happens at Mass is more important. In the end (about two hours later), my simply stated, "Thats good, but it is not what I believe."
5) I was talking to my pastor who let slip that a mutual friend of ours would be relocating sometime soon. Apparently, he told his congregation (he, too, is a pastor) that, in defense of marriage and Christian tradition, the parish should take a firm stand on the side of traditional marriage (as opposed to the "official" stance of supporting gay marriage). The parish leadership didn't want to alienate anyone with such a move (they preferred sitting on the fence), so they told their bishop they need another pastor.
So, lets muddle through this. In all examples, save #4, we see a situation in which a Protestant ecclesial group places an extreme amout of authority in the whims of the congregations. From setting established doctrine to choosing a new pastor, there is considerable clout held by congregations. Look at it from a different perspective: in each case, the individual gets to vote on what person or idea best matches what they believe. I witnessed it first hand. Related to #2, members of the PPRC would continually use their personal beliefs to promote or bash the sitting pastor. In #3, my parents would hint that they would like or dislike a pastoral candidate based on their personal theology: did the individual talk enough about humility for my dad? Were they too Catholic (unknowing of course)? Regardless of how well said candidate illuminated Scripture or brought the congregation closer to true worship of ALMIGHTY GOD, the main issue was squaring them with an individual's personal belief.
This same line of thinking is at the fore with the UMC's pattern for setting doctrine. Sure, there are a series of steps involved, but ultimately it comes down to what you as an individual believe. In the end, as it was described to me, each individual would vote on the proposed change, according to his/her belief...not according to Scripture or Tradition, but individual belief. This is an awful risky proposition, for people's feelings change like the wind.
When we compare these experiences with the Protestant theory of sola Scriptura, we see a logical growth of the former from the latter. When we remove any other authority outside of the written word, even if it be Scripture, we open ourselves for serious discrepencies. Scripture numerous times mentions that it is not perspicuous (see 2 Peter 3:16). What is left, then, is for the individual, without a guide, to determine what the Bible means on their own. Now, we are drawn outside the actual text of Scripture, and are left to the individual whims of faithful.
For the Protestant, then, the idea of an authoritative Church is foreign. Authority rests not in any organization, but in the individual's view of Scripture, or at the very most, your pastor (and even that is pushing it). Even hierarchical groups like Anglicans reflect this. For the past decade or so, every Lambeth Conference has voted on either women or active homosexuals to be ordained...and the debate rages on, despite the fact that such a debate is breaking up the Anglican Communion.
Let us contrast, then, with the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. A common way of understanding the authoritative structure of the Church is a three-legged stool: Scripture, Tradition, and the Magesterium. If you stand on only one leg, you will topple over in almost any direction, if you use only two, you will fall forward or backwards, but if you use all three, you are steady. Here's how it works: Scripture provides us with at the minimum a written understanding of the Apostolic Faith, and the presuppositions early Christians had. For the history buffs out there, it is the primary source material of early Christian beliefs. It is not only "God-breathed" but inerrant and unchanging: what is written is written. In light of this, there is also that body of knowledge that was not written down, yet preached by the Apostles and then passed down by their successors, the bishops: we call this Tradition. To simplify Tradition, we consider Tradition to be the way that the Apostles understood the Gospel (not a secret Gospel, or an alternate Gospel, or even a second Gospel). This is likewise God-breathed, as it was revealed to the Apostles by the Holy Spirit. It is always in light of Tradition that we interpret Scripture. Finally, we have the Magesterium, or the teaching office of the Church. The Church, being Divinely instituted, is gifted with the charism of infallibility (when it teaches definitively on faith and morals, it cannot teach error). The role of the Church is to ensure that Scripture and Tradition are accurately interpreted. In this regard, any novel idea or interpretation is subject to a Scriptural analysis, then it is compared with Tradition, and finally, it is looked at by the Church's Magesterium.
In the next post, we'll look at how the Catholic model of authority played itself out in two examples.
