Is The Reformation Over - Ecclesiology

In previous posts dealing with the Mark Noll book “Is The Reformation Over?”, I summarized a few thoughts regarding substantial agreement on terminology (if not meaning) on the issues of justification by grace through faith and the authority of scripture. I also expressed my opinion that in spite of growing commonalities on those points the reformation is not yet over. Noll indicates in his book that ecclesiology is the remaining obstacle, and it seems to be a significant one.

Even though Rome has made statements regarding justification by grace through faith, there remains in Catholic theology a belief that such justification is channeled through the church, and specifically through the ecclesial offices of pope, bishop and priest. One reason for this belief is the Pauline imagery of the church as the body of Christ, which is extended in Catholic thinking through the historical Episcopal office.

“Christ and his church are one! This basic confession explains why Catholics can offer salvation through baptism into the church. … It is why Ignatius, who died in 110, could say that only priests in connection with a bishop, in connection with the Pope, can offer valid sacraments.” p. 146-147



Noll quotes Ignatius directly:

“Let all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the college of presbyters as the apostles; respect the deacons as you do God’s law. Let no one do anything concerning the Church in separation from the bishop” p. 147

Protestants, since Luther’s proposal of the priesthood of all believers, have downplayed the role of the “official” episcopal office. Central to the Catholic (and Orthodox) view is the idea that each officer in the church receive his authority and his “gift” for ministry through the laying on of hands of other officers in an unbroken succession. And that is the key. Protestants are simply skeptical that any such unbroken succession truly exists. Abuse of offices, whether it be the corruption of medieval popes or the sex scandals of recent times, casts a shadow over any idea that such an officer of the church has any legitimate gift or authority to pass along to another.

In addition, scripture is hardly explicit that any such direct linear succession is prescribed, much less that it would be absolute or unbroken. Noll points to discussions between Catholics and The Disciples of Christ in which the position of Rome seemed to soften.

“Catholics in this dialogue did admit the historical possibility that the concept of apostolic succession was initially geographical and only later chronological: The intention of the apostolic community in establishing ministries in other places was initially to establish collaborators rather than choose successors: What began as an expansion of communion over distance became later an expansion over time.” P. 87
Noll notes this particularly intriguing item…

“…Catholics conceded that succession may have been an afterthought, an expedient for managing a quickly spreading church.” p. 87

In a long ago post of my own, I took a position from my own, admittedly limited and amateur reading of early church documents, that succession, if it meant anything at all, had to have at its root a succession of truth, that is, succession was less a means of preserving apostolic truth, but rather was an evidence of it. That idea is probably not original, and my recent orthodox Anglican acquaintances seem to have similar views, that succession in truth is what matters.

So I find the following quote intriguing.

“…they agreed that apostolic succession consists ‘at least’ in continuity of apostolic doctrine, but such agreement did not necessarily rule out succession through continuity of ordained ministry. The same partners also agreed that no one assumes special ministry solely on the basis of personal initiative. The ministry of Word and sacrament comes through the calling of a community and the act of ordination by other ministers.” p. 87

The term “at least” referring continuity in apostolic doctrine is clearly a concession to Protestant sensibilities. Protestants on the other should consider the contrary point, that no one should assume ministry based only on “personal initiative”. The ideas of a “calling of a community” and “ordination by other ministers” is sensible, particularly if those other ministers have broad recognition as being truly “orthodox” and in alignment with apostolic doctrine.

But though there are signs of movement, ecclesiology remains a huge hurdle, in Noll’s words, “the Crux of Evangelical Catholic disagreement”. The critical doctrines on which Catholics and Protestants remain in disagreement – purgatory, the immaculate conception, papal infallibility in particular – are largely dependent on the Catholic Church’s view of itself. These doctrines are true to the Catholic because the church teaches them, and Christ will not allow His true church to go astray. Catholic apologists look for biblical texts with which to bolster these doctrines, but that seems to be pure eisogesis to Protestants. In spite of language that indicates Rome is willing to put the teaching magisterium under the authority of scripture, on these doctrines, Catholics still seem to Evangelicals to practice a view that says certain things are true simply because the church says so.

As long as Catholics believe the church is infallible in its official doctrines in the here and now, it is unlikely this particular chasm will be crossed. There is at least evidence the chasm is a little less wide.