The idea that since the church produced the canon it, and not the canon itself, is the locus of authority is an important tenet of the Roman Catholic Church. Much about this has been written in Protestant literature since it is a major different between the camps. Unfortunately, much of this material is terribly biased and focused on dismissing the idea, making it difficult to ascertain the origins of the belief. Therefore, a review of history of the canon and a look at two key ideas, canon and authority, are in order.

The word canon itself requires some study. Carson, Moo and Morris point out that the word originated from a Semitic word that meant "reed". It came in time to mean a measuring reed, a standard, and finally a list (Carson, p.487). They go on to say that when we speak of Biblical canon, we are talking about the "closed list" of accepted books (Carson, p.492). It is important to note that these lists came about in the third century (the final affirmation of the canon we use was in A.D. 397 at the Council of Carthage (Johnson, p.36)); that is not to say the books themselves were produced then, only that the need for recognition between inspired works and spurious works had arisen. Problems such as Marcion's "gospel of love" and the gnostic' "secret traditions called for such action. Prior to that time, copies of all the books now included in the Canon were already in circulation and widely viewed as Scripture.

The idea that the church (as an institution) is the locus of authority does not rest entirely on the fact the she produced the canon, but also the historical placement of the church before the canon. According to the Roman Catholic view, the church "existed before the New Testament [and] was the mother of it" (Stuber, p.110). That is to say that the church "secured her being, her teachings, her authority directly from Jesus Christ" (O'Brien, p. 146). Because of this authority, the church was able to determine the canon and thus is able to give the only correct interpretation of the scriptures (Stuber, p. 110). This view is plausible when it is considered that the canon was only consolidated in the fourth century. It would seem that the church took an inordinately long time in producing the written New Testament and the time that it seemed to exist just fine without it would point to the superior authority/ability of the church. However, we must recall that the Canon was only consolidated or closed in the fourth century. The books themselves were already in circulation before that time and were held as authoritative.

Now it is true that the church, the body of Christ, did exist prior to the writing of the books we now call the New Testament. Bear in mind, however, that the church did not exist without Scripture in that period. Since Christ came fulfill the law, the Old Testament Scriptures were read, used and quoted widely. In addition, during the initial period of Christianity, the apostles were there to teach and instruct, having been endowed by the Holy Spirit for that very purpose. What the apostles taught became what could be looked on as a body of "Jesus traditions" (Johnson, p.30). These oral teachings were apparently held in as much authority as anything written. Paul seemed to make no distinction between his written and oral instructions. An example would be Paul's language in Philippians 4:9, "whatever you have learned or received or heard from me - put it into practice". Paul referred to Christ's words as Scripture even before the were written down (I Tim. 5:18).

As the books of gospels and the various letters were written, they became authoritative. Johnson writes,

It is probably amiss to say the New Testament writing became authoritative because they incorporated the traditions as that quote seems to imply. Rather, they are authoritative because they are inspired. That the material in the New Testament, especially the gospels, was already familiar to the reader may have helped assure the veracity and authenticity of the document. These were not "new" ideas that were being written, they had been taught all along. It is known from the New Testament itself that the letters were passed around from church to church while the apostles were still alive; in fact, that was encouraged (cf. Col. 4:16). It is interesting to note as well that Peter refers to Paul's writing as Scripture in II Peter 3:16, using "a technical term used . . . almost exclusively of the Hebrew canon" (Johnson, p.35).

Therefore, to say that the church produced the canon is not exactly accurate, unless you want to split hairs and say that since the church is the body of believers and since the New Testament writers were believers and therefore part of the body, the church, in which case the church (or at least part of it anyway) did produce the canon. However, that is not the usual understanding of that statement. The church (as an institution) merely listed, or closed, the canon. Even there, it was only the canon of the New Testament that the third century church was dealing with; the Old Testament canon had already been codified long before that.

The question then is, why is such an assertation made that since the church produced the canon, she is the locus of authority? The widely held notion, today, is that Peter was the first Pope, that is he was first among the Disciples, and that when he died he passed that Authority on, as did all of the Apostles, thus is authority nested in the church. This view is (oddly enough) said to be supported by two passages of Scripture (why would that be necessary if the church is primary authority and not the Bible?). This first is in Matthew 16:18 were Jesus says, "you are Peter and on this rock I will build my church". The second is in II Timothy 2:2 where Paul instructs Timothy to intrust his teachings to worthy men to carry on the work. There are some misunderstandings here, but much as been written by Protestant scholars to discredit this notion that is also amiss, so we must be careful.

It has been suggested that Jesus would never make the statement recorded in Matthew, especially since it does not occur in the parallel passages in Mark and Luke (Stuber, pp.184ff). That may be true to the extent that Christ would not make the statement as it is often understood (i.e. making Peter first among the disciples), however, it has been suffiently shown elsewhere that the statement is authentic. The "rock" must understood to mean Peter's confession of who Jesus is, not Peter himself. As for Paul's statement to Timothy, there is no indication in the text he speaking of Apostolic succession rather than simply training teachers for the church.

The real roots of idea of this kind of church authority lie in church history. Although problems with proper authority had arisen previously, the question of canon versus church can trace its roots back to a need to distinguish heretical interpretations of the scriptures from just interpretations. In the fifth century, Vincent of Lerin advocated the principles of "universality, antiquity and consensus" for judging such cases (Johnson p.41). This laid the basis for Hugh of St. Victor (1096-1141)'s statement that "As the Prophets follow the Law and the Historians the Prophets, the Apostles follow the Gospels and the Doctors the Apostles" (Johnson, p.41). Thomas Aquinas disagrred, writing, "The authority of the doctors of the church is properly employed, but as merely probable for our faith rests upon the revelation given to the apostles and prophets who wrote the canonical books not ... other teachers." Throughout the twelfth through sixteenth centuries this issue was discussed culminating in the Council of Trent's decision that the Church was superior to the canon in 1563 (Johnson p.43). Therefore, even by Vincent of Lerin's standards, the concept that since the church produced the canon it is the locus of authority is heretical.

In short the idea discussed here is thoroughly mis-guided, regardless of which angle it is viewed from. Although He was speaking on another subject, the words of Christ are applicable here, "Are you not in error because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God?" (Mark 12:6)