about Church authority

From a discussion on Church authority

 For Catholics, the Church has real doctrinal authority because the Holy Spirit protects it from error. (We can debate about whether real authority requires divine protection, but if the Church has divine protection, surely the Church counts as a real authority!) But if we can be rationally justified in believing something solely on the word of an epistemic authority in general, then we can be rationally justified in believing a doctrine solely on the authority of the Church. And if this is true, it seems that it is not unreasonable for the Church to expect some people to believe things just because it said so. Of course, almost all doctrines have some evidential base which is independently available to those who care to look. But the evidential bases for most (all?) Christian doctrines (in general, not just Catholic doctrines) are not dispositive. The epistemic gap between the evidence and the corresponding doctrine–the gap which explains doctrinal disagreement at large–is the gap that is filled by the doctrinal authority of the Church.

from comment 196: 

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/why-protestantism-has-no-visible-catholic-church/

see also:  http://nannykim-catholicconsiderations.blogspot.com/2012/12/arian-controversy-and-pope-liberius.html


also below a quote from http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2012/12/three-frameworks-for-interpreting-the-church-fathers/

According to Clement, the honor that the lay faithful owe to their pastors lies in the dignity of the offices that derive from Christ himself. In language reminiscent of Hebrews 2:4 (“salvation which at first was spoken by the Lord was confirmed to us by those heard”), Clement ties together the preaching done by the apostles with the appointment of bishops (including presbyters) and deacons. He strengthens the connection between proclamation and church structure in chapter 44:

Our apostles knew from our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be contention over the title of the bishop’s office. For this reason, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those mentioned before and afterwards gave the provision that, if they should fall asleep, other approved men would succeed their ministry. Now as for those appointed by them [the apostles], or by other men of high reputation with the approval of the whole church, that is, those who have ministered without blame to the flock of Christ with humility, quiet, and, beyond perfunctory service, those who are well attested by all for a long time, we do not consider it right to eject them from the ministry. It will be no small sin against us if we eject from the bishop’s office those who have offered the gifts without blame and with holiness. Blessed are the presbyters who have gone before us who had a fruitful and perfect departure for they no longer run the risk of someone removing them from their established position. For we see that you have removed some who have ruled well from a ministry that is honored by their blameless lives (ch. 44).

 Here Clement details the structure that gives stability to the church. It was the deliberate intention of the apostles to establish continuity in the church through a succession of offices. He links this foreknowledge to Christ by calling it “perfect.” Apostolic succession consists of the endurance of an office and a procedure for filling that office. When he speaks of those “other approved men” who “would succeed their ministry,” he is clearly stressing the continuity between the apostles themselves and their successors. The task of those who follow is clear; it is to continue and to advance the same ministry that they received. The procedure for filling the office consists of (1) a testing or probation of a man and (2) the approval of the whole church.

I will not be able to deal with the question of whether apostolic succession is taught in the NT. I refer the reader to my book where I argue that the notion of apostolic succession is not absent from the NT.¹² Yet, it should be evident that this early church father believed that structure serves unity, that the way to peace and harmony in the church was to submit to its properly ordained leaders. This maxim, that structure serves unity, is also apparent in Clement’s quotations from what appears to be liturgical prayers in chapter 59-61 of his letter. If we ask why Clement should give extensive quotations from a liturgy in the midst of dealing with a problem of sedition and schism, the answer is twofold. He is using a principle of theology that would later be called Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi (the rule of prayer is the rule of believing). The saying summarizes the belief evident in many church fathers that how the church prays in its public worship is also how it believes in its doctrine. When Clement invoked liturgical prayers, he was doing more than adding flowery garnish to his hard exhortations. He was reminding the Corinthians of what they professed about God. This is evident in how he brackets the liturgical texts

The Church

The Church is the creation of Jesus, from whom it receives its authority; He gave authority to the Apostles to determine and institute doctrine, to declare the correct and false, to establish faith and morals. In 1 Timothy 3:15, the Apostle Paul says something to which I had never given proper attention: “if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.” In Ephesians 3:10, he likewise taught that it was God’s intent “that through the church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places.” According to Paul the Church is the foundation of truth, the propagator and preserver of truth. There is only one Church that has fulfilled that role and remained doctrinally consistent for 2,000 years, the Catholic Church. The truth embodied there, the “pearl of great price,” had been hidden in plain sight all of my life; but it was hidden by layers of misinformation, theological suspicion, intellectual laziness, and religious pride.

y Ernest R. Freeman http://chnetwork.org/newsletters/jan13.pdf

from comment 442 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/mathisons-reply-to-cross-and-judisch-a-largely-philosophical-critique/#comment-45610

Here’s the heart of your argument:

…if one bishop has the ability to resist grace by his free will, then several have the ability to resist grace simultaneously. If several bishops have the ability to resist grace by free will, then potentially all bishops could simultaneously resist grace and continue to do such in succession over a long period of time (decades, generations, centuries, etc.) Anything less would negate free will.

That’s exactly what I denied by saying to Eric that the fidelity of the Church as a whole to the apostolic deposit of faith is “a statistically inevitable consequence of what the Church is by divine design.” Thus by the grace of divine providence–not the grace of faith overriding human free will–it is possible thatany given bishop fall into doctrinal error at some-or-other time, but it is not possible that every bishop fall into such error at a particular time. Such a notion of statistical inevitability is no mere ad hocinvention, for the same sort of distinction certainly applies in the case of free will and sin. For those who have inherited original sin, and thus suffer its effects even when baptism has removed it, it is inevitable that they will sin at some-or-other time after having reached the age of moral responsibility. But since such people also retain free will, it cannot be inevitable that any such person will sin at anyparticular time. That’s pretty much why Trent defined original sin as reatum, i.e. liability to punishment. What makes us liable to punishment is the statistically inevitable result of original sin’s effects. All I’m saying is that the same sort of statistical distinction applies positively, in the realm of the theological virtue of faith, to maintain the Magisterium’s indefectibility in faith. Thus, given the Church’s general indefectibility in the Faith, it is possible for any given bishop to fall away at some-or-other time, just as it is for any member of the Church at all; but it is not possible for the Magisterium as a whole to do so at any particular time, so as to use its divinely bestowed authority to bind the Church to falsehood instead of to truth. And since, on Catholic ecclesiology, a necessary condition of exercising the Magisterium licitly is communio in sacris with the bishop of Rome, it is not possible for the pope to use his God-given authority to bind the Church to error, even when he has freely fallen into error (as has happened in a few cases).

To that, of course, your response appears to be:

At this point, the typical self-referential Catholic assertion comes back to the fore; “The gates of Hades will not prevail against it”. This causes the Catholic proponent to circle back around and reassert the self-referential claim of the “charism of infallibility”. It perpetuates itself in this little circle, containing elements of ‘special pleading’ among other things.

But my characterization of the Church is not mere Catholic special pleading. The idea I’m advocating could also be adapted by the Eastern Orthodox on behalf of their own communion. On either a Catholic or an Orthodox account, the Church as a whole is indefectible in the Faith in the sense, and pretty much in the way, I’ve specified above. The only difference is that the EOs do not see communio in sacris with the Roman bishop as a necessary condition for that. But EO theologians disagree as to how we can tell when the Church maintains her indefectibility in the Faith without that condition being satisfied. And that difference is pretty much why I’m Catholic not Orthodox. The CIP and the EOIP are similar in many respects–including the notion that the Church as a whole is infallible in matters of faith and morals–but the Catholic account of what that looks like is far clearer and more consistent.

Finally, another key distinction is in order. You write:

…is it possible that a plethora of bishops in the Catholic church have resisted grace over a period of time, promulgated false fallible doctrine, and then camouflaged those teachings by erroneously asserting that “We are the true Church. The true Church cannot fall into error as promised by Matthew 16:18, ergo, we do not err in doctrinal matters and interpretations”? I see that as the crux of matter.

Such a scenario is of course logically possible, but if Catholicism is true, it is not really possible. Yet that does not qualify as an objection to Catholicism. It is logically possible that the universe came into existence five minutes ago, with all the features it actually had five minutes ago, but that is not a reason to believe it did, or even a good reason to doubt that it didn’t. In any case, the authority of the Magisterium is not an item of knowledge, but an article of faith; and like any article of faith, it can only be accepted on authority, not as the result of a proof that would rule out any logically possible alternative. The key difference between the CIP and the CPIP is not about the need to have recourse to some authority that constitutes the formal, proximate object of faith (FPOF), but on what is necessary for such an authority to function as such. And that’s where I make my case for the rational preferability of the CIP to the CPIP, without assuming the truth of Catholicism."

see also http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/mathisons-reply-to-cross-and-judisch-a-largely-philosophical-critique/#comment-45747

also from the above:[from comment 458:

"What you don’t seem to understand here is that you’re criticizing the CIP from within the CPIP, and thus begging the question. On the CIP, it is neither necessary nor possible to demonstrate any particular doctrine from the Bible by itself–including the Catholic doctrine of the nature of magisterial authority. For on the CIP, the FPOF is not the Bible alone, but rather the triad Scripture-Tradition-Magisterium, understood as mutually attesting and interdependent. On that account of the FPOF, propositions contained by or inferred from any one member of the triad can be properly interpreted and asserted only in the context of propositions contained by or inferred from the others. Therefore, to criticize the CIP for not demonstrating the Catholic doctrine of magisterial authority just from the Bible is to criticize the CIP for proceeding as it characteristically does, as opposed to how the CPIP characteristically does–which is how you characteristically proceed. Accordingly, your criticism just begs the question against the CIP. I hope that, at this point, you can see how that is so."

and

You had quoted St. Augustine thus:

You must listen to those who are seated upon the throne, for by sitting upon the throne they are teaching the Law of God. Therefore, God teaches through them. But if they are teaching their own things, do not listen, do not do.

and then you asked me:

How does Augustine’s statement fit within your IP?

In case you hadn’t noticed, St. Augustine was a Catholic. That is why he also said that he believed the Gospels only on the authority of the Church. So it would have been self-inconsistent of him to define the nature or veracity of that authority merely by means of his own interpretation of the Bible. Had he done so, he would have been performatively contradicting himself, by elevating his own interpretive authority over the very ecclesial authority by which he accepted the Bible as an authoritative guide in the first place. Hence the words of his you quote should not be interpreted to mean that we can know, just by our own interpretation of the Bible, what the ordained leadership of the Church should say. Whatever said leadership “should” say cannot be understood independently of what that authority itself has already said we should believe."

and here  comment 101 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/03/jason-stellman-tells-his-conversion-story/#comment-48865

"What this centuries-old dispute is really about is the nature of divine faith. As Catholics, we hold that one can only believe God as Revealer by trusting an ongoing human authority as an embodiment of divine authority. The Apostles directly and visibly experienced the primary Authority of that form: Jesus the Christ. We who “do not see, but believe” must rely in part on a secondary extension of that authority. On that point, we are all agreed. That disagreement is about the composition of that secondary authority.

Like all conservative Protestants, you hold that only a book constitutes that authority. I reply that the grounds for trusting that book as an extension of the Logos’ primary authority are only as strong as the grounds for trusting the human authorities who wrote, collected, and proclaimed the contents of that book as divinely inspired and thus inerrant. The belief that certain writers and not others were divinely inspired and thus inerrant would only be an opinion if the early, post-apostolic Church were not divinely protected from error in holding and teaching such a belief. If said Church could have been wrong on that matter, then said book can no more count as an object for the assent of divine faith, as distinct from that of human opinion, than the authority of the early Church herself. And the same goes for the ongoing interpretation of the Bible. Unless a particular, ongoing ecclesial authority since then is understood to be divinely protected from error when teaching under certain conditions, then neither its nor anybody else’s interpretation of the Bible for doctrinal purposes can amount to anything more than provisional human opinion. And such opinions neither command nor merit the assent of divine faith, “implicit” or otherwise. Therefore, to hold that the early Church was infallible when certifying the Bible as inerrant, but the Church thereafter is never infallible when interpreting the Bible for doctrinal purposes, is to render the Bible useless as a source of doctrine calling for the unconditional assent of faith, as distinct from that of provisional opinion.

This is why conservative Protestantism is just liberal Protestantism waiting to happen all over again.

and from comment 102:

Citing Scripture in this context is merely question-begging for either of us unless and until two things are established: the grounds for holding that Scripture is a normative record of divine revelation, and the grounds for holding certain interpretations of it are authentic conveyances of that revelation, rather than merely human theological opinions. The Catholic interpretive paradigm supplies such grounds as themselves objects for the assent of faith. Your IP does not.

Finally, you write:

So while you keep trusting in the papacy, I’ll keep trusting in God.

That begs the question in two ways: first, by assuming a dichotomy between the teaching authority of the papacy and that of God, which is exactly what Catholics would deny; second, by assuming that you know, without trusting the papacy’s teaching authority, that you’re trusting God’s authority, which Catholics would deny.

from comment 121 http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/01/holy-church-finding-jesus-as-a-reverted-catholic-a-testimonial-response-to-chris-castaldo/

The authority over the Catholic Church is God. Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church and Jesus Christ is God. And it is Jesus Christ who empowered the Catholic Church to be the authority over His flock.

This is based upon the principle established by Jesus Christ:
Luke 10:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me.

Jesus Christ was sent by the Father:
John 20:21-23
King James Version (KJV)
21 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me,…

And He sent the Church:
… even so send I you.

Again, Jesus was sent by the Father:
Matthew 28:18-20
King James Version (KJV)
18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

And He sent the Church.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

And that Church is the Catholic Church.

from 103 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/05/apostolic-succession-and-historical-inquiry-some-preliminary-remarks/  :

You say, ‘That is why Protestants view Christ as the cornerstone of the church, the great High Priest, and those who follow Him as “the Church”. When we place our faith in the hands of a particular denomination or a particular place or in particular people, no matter which denomination, place or people, we run the risk of a faith crisis as you experienced.”

Ah, but formulating the matter in that way (“no matter which denomination”) obscures the fact that there are no alternatives (assuming that one considers the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox churches to be “denominations,” which of course Catholics don’t, but it’s the usual Protestant view).

When I say, “there are no alternatives,” I mean this: Everyone needs guidance and help and companionship and fellowship in their walk of faith. Everyone needs wise counsel and good examples set by holy forebears and the benefit of good instruction and sound Scripture interpretation. Everyone needs this.

Where, then, will each man get it?

He will either get it from a Protestant denomination — which is a particular group of men — or he will get it from any of various Evangelical para-church organizations — which are also particular groups of men — or he will get it from popular spiritual writers — another group of men — or he will try to re-invent the wheel all on his own by relying on his own resources. And in that last case, he will still be getting counsel, et cetera from a “group” of men, but it’s a group of only one: himself.

Now your phrasing of the matter obscures this reality. It makes it sound as if, when a man seeks Christ all by himself and without submitting to any other authority, he is not submitting to any authority but Christ. But this is not so: He is submitting to his own authority. He follows whatever light is shed by his own best guesses as to the meaning of Scripture, the calling of God in his life, the applicability of the apostolic faith to modern questions, and so on.

Now of course he is unlikely to be a specialist in all facets of theology and spiritual practice! When one refuses to benefit from the experience of others, one cuts out a fairly large chunk of the information one might otherwise have obtained. And, unlike the act of submitting to another human being, one gains no useful exercise in humility or self-abnegation by submitting solely to one’s own best guesses.

Of course, as a former evangelical I realize that one does not see one’s spiritual walk in such terms when one is an evangelical! One is aware of “not having a pope”; but one is not aware of being, effectively, one’s own pope.

For example, one might say, “I don’t just live according to my best guesses! I do my best to gnaw on Scripture, to ruminate on every phrase, to know it backwards and forwards! I do my best to be open to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom I implore to lead me into all truth every time I open the sacred pages. I am leaning not on myself, but on Christ alone.”

Now this protestation is noble in intent, but it is mistaken. We know that it is mistaken because if several hundred million Protestants were all being led by the Holy Spirit, there would be no daylight between Protestants on matters of doctrine, ecclesial governance, the practice and meaning of the sacraments/ordinances, and so on. The existence of the myriad Protestant denominations is a divine message to humanity written across the face of human history: “That Model Sounds Nice, But It Is Not My Model. It Is Not The Way I Ever Intended To Lead You Into All Truth. You Can Pray That The Holy Spirit Will Guide Your Scripture Interpretation As Much As You Like…But I Give You No Guarantee Of Infallible Individual Interpretation BECAUSE I NEVER MEANT IT TO WORK THAT WAY.”

Paradoxically, the man who leans on the Catholic Church to assist him in knowing true doctrine is the man who really leans on Christ alone: Because he is obtaining truth the way Christ intended him to obtain it, and not seeking truth through a novel 16th-century alternative approach. If the Church is a crutch, it is a crutch that Christ gave us because of our lameness. The Great Physician knows far better than we whether we need a crutch for the healing of our bones.

And at any rate, the Body of Christ is the body of Christ. How can one be relying on men instead of Christ, if one is leaning on Christ’s hands, Christ’s feet, Christ’s shoulder?

As I said before: I was an evangelical. I know that perspective, and I know it is sincere, because I sincerely held it. It was my best understanding at the time.

But there were questions which simply had never occurred to me. The honest examination of those questions and the realization that Protestantism had no adequate answers for them moved me in to a no-man’s-land where I was not yet Catholic, but could no longer, with intellectual honesty, call myself Protestant.

The Apostolic Succession and the chief-stewardly role of the successor of Peter provides a solution the problem of How Do We Know What Christianity Is? What is our methodology for knowing that? And don’t forget: It has to be the same methodology Christians used in AD 75, AD 175, AD 275…, and has to keep working, producing consistent answers, in AD 1750, AD 2013, AD 2750, and AD 9999.

Protestantism has no such answer. Its attempts to formulate an ecclesiology that can work and maintain doctrinal stability long term have all failed in a mere 500 years. Imagine how it’ll look in another 500! Just to cite one problem: Will any existing Protestant communion not have gay weddings by then? Given how far they’ve drifted from Luther and Calvin’s opinions excoriating contraception, it is hard to believe they won’t drift on other matters also.

You say, “when we place our faith in the hands of …particular people.” Well, yourself is “particular people.” The only way to avoid “particular people” being a problem is if they’re the people Jesus Christ designated to lead you.

from comment 71 http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/whose-lens-are-you-using/

Someone suggested that the Roman Catholic Magisterium, as an infallible interpretive authority (with respect to the written word of God), raises the spectre of an infinite hermeneutical regress. I want to briefly address that and to talk on a bit about the nature of ecclesial teaching.

The argument to infinite regress is of the reductio sort and goes like this: Scripture must supposedly be interpreted for folks by Magisterium, but then someone must interpret the Magisterium’s interpretation of Scripture, and then someone must interpret that interpretation, and so, ad infinitum.

In fact, we find many cases in which the Magisterium has issued texts explaining and clarifying previous Magisterial teaching–which was also set forth in texts, which were supposed to address some matter of doctrine, morals or discipline not already made sufficiently clear (to some) in previous texts (sacred or ecclesial)!

However, such Magisterial activity is not predicated upon a blanket assumption of the inherent unintelligibility of texts. If the thesis of the inherent unintelligibility of texts were true, then not only Magisterial documents but every form of communication involving texts (written or spoken), including this post and comment thread, would involve us in an infinite regress of interpretations (i.e., no discoverable meaning).

So, to take up the Protestant argument along another line: If texts can be read and understood (and they can!), and if individuals must do the reading and understanding (and they must!), why is that individuals cannot just read and understand biblical texts for themselves?

Well, it is a fact that individuals can read and understand biblical texts for themselves. Many of us do a bit of that daily, even (in some cases) by way of earning a living. Of course, most of us are also taught from Sacred Scripture, by a teacher, who is not our self.

The interpretive authority of the Magisterium is not predicated upon the inherent unintelligibility of the Word of God. It is predicated upon the perpetual, ecclesiastical office of teaching.

A teacher teaches. If the student misunderstands, the teacher teaches some more. And so on. This is very far from a case of infinite hermeneutical regress. Such activity does presuppose a living teacher.

Catholics believe that the teaching of the Church is informed by at least three factors: (1) the necessity of such teaching, (2) the unity of the Church, and (3) the identity of the Church.

The Church, qua Church, is given to teach; i.e., it pertains to her essence to expound upon the Word of God so that all her members may be built up in faith. The teaching of the Church, which is its interpretation of the Word of God, is in some way necessary, else she would not be given this power and mandate.

The Church, being one, cannot admit, as being taught by the Church per se, contradictory interpretations of the Word of God. Church teaching is one in substance, else her teaching would cancel itself out and become void, which is contrary to its nature and necessity.

The Church, being the Body of Christ, knows the Word of God, the substance of which is Christ himself, the way that the spirit of a man knows the things pertaining to the man. Therefore, the Church’s interpretation of the Bible is more open and obedient to the Word of God than any other possible interpretation this side of Heaven.

The Church’s interpretation of the Word of God, while incorporating in an integral way both scholarship and the spiritual gifts and prophetic utterances vouchsafed to some within the Church, is not reducible to these means of knowing. Rather, the Church, qua Church, knows the substance of divine revelation in an intuitive way, and is able to express that substance, in her role as teacher, without explicit or necessary recourse to the same means whereby the scholar expresses his or her conclusions.

The scholar speaks on his own individual authority, authority acquired by work. The Church speaks with the corporate authority of the mystical Body, authority acquired by grace. This authority is based upon divine election, impelled by dominical mandate, and empowered by spiritual power.

The Church’s authority is interpretive authority. It is authority not identical to the Word of God, nor to the word of man, but to the word of the Body of Christ, which has the Mind of Christ, whose Head is Christ.

This interpretive authority is not contrary to Sacred Scripture, because the same Spirit animates both Church and Scripture, and because the same Christ is both the Head of the Church, which is his Body, and the substance of Sacred Scripture, which speaks concerning him.

The Church’s interpretive authority is not superfluous with respect to Scripture, because it pertains to Scripture to be read and interpreted, and that by some on behalf of others; i.e., the Scriptures not only teach, they are to be taught.

The Church’s interpretive authority is not superfluous with respect to the interpretive authority of scholars and spiritual individuals, for the Church, qua Church, is not related to the Word of God in the same way that individuals in the Church are related to the Word; hence, the Church, corporately (organically), has a unique (and epistemically superior) insight into the things of God.

If the Church’s teaching office is as described above, then it stands to reason that every individual who wishes to know the Word of God should submit his own interpretation of the Word to the interpretation of the Church. The Church’s way of knowing Scripture does not exclude rational exegesis, but it is superior to it. What Bryan Cross wrote earlier about the duty of forming one’s conscience should apply here, especially for Bible scholars, and even more especially for those who presume to teach others (in an ecclesial context).

I suppose that the degree of submission of self to Church depends upon the nature of the Church’s knowing with respect to the Word of God. Is it such as to exclude error in her definitive teaching? That is nub of the matter. The Reformed Christians holds back from full submission to the Church’s teaching due to his estimation of her potential for error. All ecclesial teaching is more or less probable, never infallible. The Catholic Christian cannot, on pain of deadly sin, thus withold his allegiance to the Body of Christ.

comment 75

The RCC has several criteria for discerning when and where the Church, as Church, has spoken its mind. Some instances are more definite, others less so. The dogmatic decrees of the Ecumenical Councils and the ex cathedra teachings of the Popes are, of course, prime examples, and easiest to identify (especially the Councils). The consensus of the Fathers would be another criterion for definitive ecclesial teaching. This does not mean that the Fathers don’t contradict one another (and themselves) at points–they clearly do. Rather, the consensus patrum is discerned where there is virtual unanimity among the Fathers on a matter of doctrine or morals, whatever their disagreements might have been on other matters. In this way, Rome certainly does not pick and choose among the Fathers. The RCC is bound to hold that which has been held by the consent of the Fathers. Protestants are free to reject anything patristic, even if there is a consensus.

from comment 441 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/01/the-canon-question/#comment-53380

It would be ad hoc for the Protestant to claim that God protected from any possible error the human judgment involved in producing the canon, but that God has not protected other human ecclesial judgments from any possible error. Or, if the judgment involved was not protected from error, then the list of books in the Bible is fallible, which condition would completely erode the foundation for confidence in Sacred Scripture (which, we all would agree cannot be the case)

and at another place:

"One of the big philosophical ruptures between Protestants and Catholics is the role of ecclesial authority. The two alternatives are the Church always deciding what constitutes orthodoxy (and using those standards to judge the individual), or the individual always deciding what constitutes orthodoxy (and using that standard to judge the Church). The problem for Confessional Reformed churches is that they want the middle ground (where sometimes the Church judges your orthodoxy while leaving open the possibility of your judging the Church’s orthodoxy). But this middle ground is untenable because it ultimately reduces to one of the above two options"

— from comment 235 here http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2009/09/why-protestantism-has-no-visible-catholic-church/

From comment 160 below http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/03/world-vision-and-the-quest-for-protestant-unity/

I disagree on about your comments that the catechism is not a list of essential doctrines for Rc’s to believe. One of the purposes of the a catechism serves this function.

Not in the sense that you seem to be talking about ‘essential doctrines.’ Your idea of essentials appears to be a list of all and only those things which are necessary to believe; the Catechism is not that. The Catholic is bound to believe the Church, because it is God’s divine mouthpiece. Thus when, in future, some new controversy arises which it is necessary for Christians to know the truth of, the Church will be able to tell him – even although it is not in the current copy of the Catechism. That’s what I mean when I say that the idea of a list of essentials is not a Catholic concept at all.

also from a comment   17  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/10/michael-horton-on-schism-as-heresy/

No, I think we can be sure that in Christ’s system of adjudicating disputes in Matthew 18, a dispute between two local church pastors can be appealed to the next higher authority, and the next, and end ultimately with a final arbiter where “the buck stops.” That way, there’s One Church we can “take it to.”

(Otherwise, the verse would have read, “Take it to your local church; and if you can’t get agreement there, leave that church and join another with doctrines more to your liking.”)

Another reason we can be sure of this is because Matthew 18 clearly presupposes that the decisions being made in these judgments will sometimes include binding decisions about doctrine, and these binding decisions will somehow be made infallibly correctly: What is bound on earth is bound in Heaven (and Heaven never makes incorrect bindings, nor does Heaven disagree with itself).

Imagine a situation where two Christian women attend two local churches. One is contemplating having an abortion. The other exhorts her not to do it; but the first woman says she thinks it isn’t wrong. The second woman brings another woman or two along to talk to her a second time; still, she doesn’t budge. So, the second woman is now supposed to “bring the matter to the Church.”

We can clearly envision a situation in which the first woman’s local church pastor and elders agree with her that the unborn are not people and that abortion is not a sin, but the second woman’s local church pastor and elders hold that the unborn are people and that abortion is murder. What then would be the outcome, if Matthew 18 were discussing only the local church? “The Church” (understood purely in a Congregational sense) would have “bound” and “loosed” abortion simultaneously, meaning that Heaven both agreed and disagreed with it!

In your second paragraph, you say,

You seem to have an implicit assumption that everyone needs to agree with Rome. And this leads you to conclude anyone not in communion with Rome is therefore in schism.

Well, yes: That does indeed seem to be the Scriptural model, after all.

When Korah disagrees with Moses about centralized authority roles in the People of God, it is decidedly not okay for him to march off and start a new People of God on the opposite street corner.

When 10 tribes of Israel got fed up with the Son (technically, the spoiled-brat grandson) of David, they split the kingdom. God even allowed it, and did not forget them, and blessed them for a time. But I ask you: Did God’s promise of an eternal kingdom come through Samaria, or Jerusalem? Did the scepter depart from Judah and go to the Northern Kingdom? Or were there two “scepters?” When it was time to restore the people to the land, who got restored, and who was scattered?

God provides a locus of unity for His people. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be. So where is the locus of unity for the Kingdom, today?

Jesus, of course! …but He is in Heaven, at the right hand of the Father. The flock need a shepherd they can see. Did Jesus give no thought to that?

Of course He did. He did what the Davidic Kings always did: He had stewards in every place in the Kingdom, with specific territories or zones of authority. And when the king was away, the chief steward (who had a robe and throne of office, and who held the Keys of the House of David) was the person who kept the kingdom unified until the king returned. The “Al Bayith” had various functions: He was “like a father to those in Jerusalem”; he could “bind and loose” with stewardly authority on behalf of the king like the other stewards (but as chief steward, he could loose what others bound and bind what others loosed; and what he bound, none could loose, and what he loosed, none could bind).

That office was the locus of unity when the king was absent, under the sons of David. Is Jesus the rightful heir, the “Son of David,” or not?

He is. So the matter becomes simple: We look for Christ’s stewards, and let them adjudicate disputes; and if there is ever a dispute that the stewards themselves disagree about, then the chief steward will resolve it. Once that happens, he who rejects the authority of the chief steward is rejecting the authority of the King. If a large group does so, it becomes a rebel province separating from the Kingdom.

To determine to whom Jesus granted the office of chief steward, we need only ask: To whom did Jesus give the Keys of the House of David? (But of course, the Old Covenant type is the Davidic Kingdom; the New Covenant fulfillment is the Kingdom of Heaven. So whereas a Davidic king might assign his chief steward “the keys of the kingdom of David,” Jesus will naturally assign His chief steward “the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.”)

Protestant scholars generally agree with Catholic scholars about Matthew 16: Jesus here makes Peter the chief steward. Isaiah 22 is the background in the Old Covenant for this conferral of authority in the New.

Now the stewardly offices could increase or decrease in number as the kingdom grew; but when one steward died, a successor was always chosen for his office. We see a successor chosen for the office of Judas Iscariot in Acts 1, so we know that this stewardly succession was not merely an Old Testament practice, but continues in the New.

Does it not follow that Peter, as Al Bayith, would have successors also? Does it not follow that when following the Matthew 18 process, if stewards disagree the best practice is to appeal the matter to the chief steward who can bind what others loose, and loose what others bind, and thereby settle the matter for the whole Kingdom? “Roma locuta, causa finita est.”

It’s all deeply Scriptural, and it makes church discipline according to the Matthew 18 model possible.

Also from a comment here 225  http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/03/the-quest-for-the-historical-church-a-protestant-assessment/

There are other levels of authority besides infallibility. The Holy See answers a "dubium" on a fairly regular basis. <a href="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19951028_dubium-ordinatio-sac_en.html" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">Here</a> is one example.