What is the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church?

The intolerant attitude of the Vatican towards it is not surprising either. The Roman Catholic faith stands for a conception of things with which the new spirit can have nothing in common. The one recognises authority, the other the rejection of it. The nature of the authority in question can be taken into account later, but the present point is that Rome is based upon the recognition of an authoritative standard of truth, upon dogma, to use a common phrase. A famous statement of Harnack "Dogmatic Christianity, in the strict sense of the word, is Catholic" — would be just as true were the first and last terms transposed. Newman, the convert to Rome, became such, no doubt, because dominated by the thought that external authority was absolutely essential, and assuming that an infallible church provided it. "Dogma was the fundamental principle of my religion. I could enter into no other sort of religion." There is this in common then between Latin Christianity and true Christianity, that in each, truth is conceived to be absolute and unchangeable, capable of being presented in complete and perfect objective form. Wherein they differ is that true believers find this objective testimony presented to their faith in the divinely inspired Scriptures, which are perfect and sufficient in themselves, through the Holy Spirit's power, to reveal God's mind and will; whereas Rome teaches that in addition to the Bible the magisterium, or teaching authority of the church is needed, not only to interpret the Scriptures, assuming them to be obscure, but also to authenticate them to us, denying their authority, apart from the sanction of "the pillar and ground of the truth."

Catholics claim that Scripture and "Sacred Tradition" are equal in authority." Protestants say the Bible is the sole guide for faith and practice (see 2 Tim. 3:16,17; 1 John 5:13). Rome says the magisterium (teaching authority of the Roman Church) has been entrusted to interpret the Bible for Catholics, who are not to interpret it for themselves. Protestants say that individual Christians can trust the Holy Spirit for guidance as they read and interpret the Bible for themselves (see John 5:39; 14:26). Catholicism teaches that Peter was the first pope, and that through apostolic succession other popes have succeeded him, each serving as "vicar of Christ"; Protestants insist the apostles had equal authority and there was no "pope," a word not found in the New Testament (see Matt. 18:18; John 20:23). Catholics teach that the pope is infallible when he speaks "ex cathedra" (lit. "from the chair" or with authority) on matters of faith and morals; Protestants reply that no human being is infallible, and only Christ is head of the Church (see Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18).

There is no assumption more widely accepted, not only by Rome but throughout Christendom, than the teaching-authority or magisterium of the church. Nor is it easy to conceive a claim more opposed to every fact and principle of revelation, or more derogatory to the rights of God. Yet it prevails wherever the Catholic idea governs the imagination. That the church teaches this, and denies that, sounds grand and imposing; but all is vague, where we need certainty; and if sifted, it ends in the authority of clergy or the infallibility of the Pope.

"We cannot imagine," says a living Roman writer, "the Bible without the Church or the Church without the Bible" (Barry, p. 8). Observe here the "vicious circle": Bible and Church are made mutually to rest on each other. For Romans, the Church has a living magisterium or teaching office (Schanz, ii., p. 389), and claims monopoly of right "interpretation" (cf. note 2, above). This, however, traverses the testimony of the Holy Spirit in 2 Tim. 3:15, as to the "Holy Scriptures," there said to be able per se, to make wise, etc.

If we turn to Rome we shall find her more consistent, and therefore more wholly wrong. She does not exalt the past above the present, but claims the same infallibility as resident in the Church at all times. And as there are no degrees in infallibility, her decrees of yesterday have all the authority of Scripture itself. But here the voice of the Church means the voice of the Pope, or the Pope with the bishops and the cardinals; and it would be nothing but sheer irony to tell the simple layman that he had anything to do with the decree declaring the Pope infallible, or the Virgin Mary immaculate, except in obeying it.

N*. I do not think you will reject what he said. He said, the authoritative decision as to the truth or infallibility was in the pope and the whole church; the consent of the church universal with the pope, or the pope and the whole church represented in a general council; or, lastly, the pope speaking ex cathedra.

M. Why, all the bishops, and especially the pope, as the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles.

But my subject now is the interpreter. Now does this whole, if you please, organized body (though I should deny historically Dr. Manning's statements as to this) interpret to and for itself? That is not what is either meant or said when Romanist teachers explain themselves. They mean and say the teaching part of the church, the clergy, which teaches all the rest. "The church" sounds very fine, teaches, etc.; but it is all clap-trap. It means, the clergy teach the church; and all are to submit to them.

As the truth of God is in the word, or rather as it is the truth, of course the Holy Ghost can use the scriptures to convince of sin, of righteousness, and of judgment, and, blessed be God, thousands of souls have thus found life and peace; but that is not our subject, but what is the sure rule of faith when we do profess Christ to be our Lord. There is a ministry of the word and parental responsibility in the church of God. God alone can give efficacy to either by His grace, but men are not left to discover a religion. Christianity is the activity of God to communicate the knowledge of the truth, and grace which saves and gives eternal life, the knowledge of Christ. This is carried out by the ministry of the word and parental care, but that is not a rule of faith, but an appointed means of grace. This the Roman Catholic professes to believe as well as Protestants. None pretends a parent, or even a priest, is infallible. The question is — supposing men who profess Christianity teach differently, what is the rule by which a sincere person may know with certainty what the truth in that matter is? We say the rule of faith is the written word of God. You say the Bible and tradition taken together, or the word of God, written and unwritten, and that, besides the rule itself, Christ has provided in His holy church a living, speaking, judge to watch over it, and explain it in all matters of controversy. That is, that, in fact, the word, written or unwritten, is no rule for him at all; he must submit to what is told him by the living judge. If the judge pronounces and decides the matter, that is the rule for him who has to submit to it; he cannot refer from the judge to the law.

226 And where am I to find this teaching church? I must go to the priest. Is he infallibly right? No. But the bishop will watch over that. Is he infallibly right? No. But the Pope will watch over that. Is he infallibly right? It has been held so for three years; but the fact was so grossly opposed to the known history and teaching of former ages, that hundreds of thousands of Roman Catholics have left him and have established a separate body-got a bishop and a settled constitution.