Did The Apostles Pass Their Authority to Men or Writing?

Again, this was written earlier in my discernment, and I've since felt hesitant.

4) If so, did they pass it to men or to their written words? Viewing the church from a written-word-as-authority theorem (i.e., sola scriptura), and judging by the squabbling sectarianism and even outright heresy (e.g., Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses) borne of it, one must ponder that the Apostles and the Holy Spirit left at best a very difficult rule of faith. As the presence of their Holy Writings and our understanding of the early church make clear, the Apostles did do something to pass on their authority or their authoritative teachings. I think with this I have finally climbed to the peak of my current obstacle. I am not compelled by existing evidence that the Apostles intended to leave an authoritative, mystically blessed, succession of church leaders. Neither am I compelled that the Apostles intended for their writings to be adequate teachings of the rules and norms of the Faith for all times. I am not compelled that the Apostles intended for councils or the Roman See to establish rule, nor that they would be in favor of a democratic church, a congregational church, or some other yet-to-be-construed ecclesial polity.

To argue in the negative, Scripture does not decisively outline a plan of Petrine or other apostolic succession, but other Catholic evidence is noteworthy. According to the New Advent Catholic website, “In the third century the popes claim authority from the fact that they are St. Peter's successors, and no one objects to this claim, no one raises a counter-claim.” The absence of dissent throughout church history on many points that were later deemed to be marks of an apostate church during the Reformation is worth considering. And in this case I cannot help but feel swayed by the lack of criticism of several early fathers' remarks on submission to the Vatican. Again from New Advent:

“St. Irenaeus (180-200) states the theory and practice of doctrinal unity as follows:
With this Church [of Rome] because of its more powerful principality, every Church must agree, that is the faithful everywhere, in this [i. e. in communion with the Roman Church] the tradition of the Apostles has ever been preserved by those on every side. (Adv. Haereses, III)”

Were all the would-be Luthers of the early church sleeping while on watch? Would they not have been alarmed, and therefore compelled to write to their sister churches, at this claim of central Christian authority? I have seen no such testimony of criticism.

With my bias growing stronger, let me more effectively argue in the negative regarding the possibility that the Apostles intended for their written word to guide the church. With knowledge of church history, and remembering Christ’s promise to have his church as “one flock” (John 10:16), it seems difficult to posit that the “Bible contains all the extant revelations of God, which He designed to be the rule of faith and practice for his Church; so that nothing can rightfully be imposed on the consciences of men as truth or duty which is not taught directly or by necessary implication in the Holy Scriptures (Charles Hodge, The Protestant Rule of Faith).” Would it be fair to believe that this approach, which has caused such clear opposition of belief even amongst reasonable and faithful Christians (e.g. the number of Protestant Sacraments as viewed by Lutherans and Presbyterians), is a reliable norm of authority? Scripture, like any other text, requires interpretation. The Interpreter must have authority to interpret for his interpretations to be Authoritative. Otherwise, we are all under the authority of none but ourselves.

Hodge says that Protestant believers “are bound to read and interpret it for themselves; so that their faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the Church.” But then, “for an individual Christian to dissent from the faith of the universal Church (i. e., the body of true believers), is tantamount to dissenting from the Scriptures themselves.” This strange dichotomy leaves some serious doubts on the table. Do we measure this “universal Church” by numbers (Catholicism), history (Catholicism), or the individual’s conscience (Protestantism)? Hodge, and I think historically consistent Protestants as well, would subscribe to the latter. This talk of “private judgment” stirs violently my anxiety over individualism and its evil sibling, relativism.

Regarding Conciliar rule, Papal rule, Democratic rule, or Congregational rule, one can only say that scripture is not explicit, with a democratic notion being the most foreign to it (casting lots to choose an apostle being a more literal rule). Something resembling both Conciliar and Papal rule seems most consistent with the testimony of the church fathers.

To be continued...