In this section, I will provide annotated bibliographies on three topics that are central to Christian religious authority (and thus authentic Christianity): (1) Holy Scripture (as a Canonical Witness Sources); (2) Apostolic Tradition & Its Relationship to the Church; and (3) the Living Vine of the Divine Magisterium.  That is the material focus.

There is also the question of how that vast treasury is to be assessed.  According to what scale?

Regarding questions of formal understanding of these topics on ecclesiology (or, "study of the Church"), however, I also bring in political philosophy's time-honored focus on legitimacy-- including what it is, what are its criteria, etc. "--- while redirecting these concerns away from the polis of this world (hence, "political philosophy") towards more supernatural ends (i.e. The Kingdom of Heaven).   

In many ways, I approach the question of religious authority through a close reading and exegesis of Augustine's The City of God through which I will digest the best and most illuminating works of political philosophy, political theory, and political science from the days of Plato up through John Rawls and beyond.

We are interested, dear reader, in how wisest of thinkers, including jurists, philosophers, public leaders, and other intellectuals of traditional and modern societies have recognized the sources of legitimate claims of authority (as well as the abuse of authority) will be put into the service of settling religious controversy over the main question of what comprises authentic orthodox Christianity and membership to the Body of Christ in its extension to orthopraxy and the public sphere.  To dispel confusions, I hope to use this platform as a space to ground an ecclesiology on the rational criteria of legitimacy, authority, and authenticity which all of the philosophically-inclined despite their sectarian allegiances or lack thereof can appreciate. 

Here, I use the more accessible and natural parameters of political reason when discussing the proper functioning and ends of political communities, sovereignty, the "rule of law", etc. to ground discussion about the criteria of legitimate ecclesiastical authority which are not unrelated to their more worldly corollaries (i.e. States) in so far as they also share the common elements of laws, communities, leadership, and governance.  Between the Church and the State, there is an analogy (even if it is just that-- an analogy).

Why approach ecclesiology in this way?  The three major branches of Christianity are divided over the relevance and relationship of all three of these sources of teaching authority above as they relate to the concept of the Church: where Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants agree is primarily on the authority of Holy Scripture, but they differ on the authority of one or the other two sources. 

Protestants typically reject the authority of both Tradition and the Magisterium, whereas the Orthodox accept Tradition, as they say, but reject the Magisterium (or, the privileged right of the bishops in unity and those in communion with the chair of Peter to interpret both Scripture and Tradition). 

These are broad-brushed distinctions, but they more or less obtain on the whole.  (I say this, because I know that "Orthodox" is somewhat varied, obviously to a much less degree, as Protestant denominations.  We have Copts who are miaphysites and Greeks who are not, etc.). Whatever the case, I am templating Christendom's branches based upon their formal theory of religious authority as opposed to their precise theological commitments on specific doctrines.  We are speaking more immanently about their authority to make theological distinctions in the first place--- to declare this or that as a "heresy" vs. "orthodoxy", etc.

This section isn't intended for apologetics primarily so as to defend the Catholic perspective about the Church (even if that is the perspective presented here), so much as to provide a list of scholarly resources of good and reliable quality on these issues that continue to divide many baptized Christians.   

The blog champions this scholarly inquiry into religious authority and the question of authentic religion as a way of bridging divides rationally and dialectically for the sake of reorienting a fragmented Christendom against the forces of modernity that imperil the entire divided body of Christians.  This section hopes to not entirely bridge such divisions (as only God could probably do so), but to provide some added reason for each of us to see more within our shared baptismal vow than the theological and ecclesiological points that continue to divide us.  That is my hope of platforming a political theology of the Church that draws from political philosophy's dependence on the rule of reason in questions of authority.  This is patterned on Aquinas' reliance upon secular Aristotelian logic and metaphysics in his own elaboration of Catholic natural theology.

That much being said, rather than assume the Protestant view that everything "builds from" Scripture and thus stands or falls upon that foundation (and to mistakenly take that view as common ground of Apostolic Christians--- after all, it is rather uncommon, as we shall see), the true metaphor for Divine Communication is that of a living tree or "vine" as Christ preferred (which is more than just the dead medium of its inner bark upon which thoughts and memories are written is something that both develops and preserves itself so as to bear fruit in the end): Interestingly enough, the word book in the evangelical term "Good Book", according to an etymological dictionary, derives from "the Proto-Germanic *bōk(ō)-, from *bokiz "beech" (source also of German Buch "book" Buche "beech"), the notion being of beechwood tablets on which runes were inscribed; but it may be from the tree itself (people still carve initials in them)."  Similarly, Latin and Sanskrit also have words for "writing" that are based on tree names ("birch" and "ash," respectively). And compare French livre "book," from Latin librum, originally "the inner bark of trees" (see library)."  It seems that the Protestant premium on Scripture--- or literally from the Latin scribere, for "Writing"--- is something that deserves closer inspection!

At the risk of running a tangent, it appears that Scripture is bound to the idea of trees as the physical mediums through which the Divine is conveyed.  That is not an irrelevant insight for we too are embodied creatures (not pure spirits like Angels), but men who have a physical presence in this world as affirmed by the Incarnation whereby the Second Person of the Trinity entered into the violent course of historical time and became man.

The Gospel, therefore, is not so much "transcendental" strictly speaking, meaning that it somehow floats through posterity independently of and untouched by the goings-on of material history (after all, Bibles have to be physically translated and published over and over as languages change!), so much as a message implanted in the social fabric of the Church and fully immersed in temporal prayer that is the Divine Liturgy. 

How else do you get Joel Osteen's "Prosperity Gospel" but in the hyper-commercialized 21st century United States of America?  St. Benedict of the so-called "Dark Ages" when trade was in decline and men's thoughts directed towards the omnipresence of poverty and death would have found Osteen difficult to follow (to say the least)!  

The Gospel in other words is historical in so far as Christianity is a historical religion.   The Church is also a historical institution with a history of its own.  There is a fundamental correspondence that logically entails that the Church is just as visible, institutional, and present (vs. something that is just an incidental collection of believers). An historical document like the Gospel needs an historical institution to interpret just as the U.S. Constitution needs the Supreme Court as new challenges emerge [principally, heresies and, now, modern ideologies] and doctrine develops (as is the case with both theology and constitutional theory).  For skeptical "Bible only" Christians, you would be hard-pressed to find the words "communism" and "gender identity" in the Bible...  The question is, how do we respond together to these new challenges?  Moreover, why do we have institutions to solve worldly problems, e.g. institutes of health and science, building code authorities, public accountancy standards, etc., but nothing to address the spiritual concerns of humanity?  How does that make sense to leave the most important things entirely in the hands of individuals when the Acts emphasizes the communal and regulatory nature of the Church [see Acts 2: 44-45 as well as 1 Corinthians 5]?  [A classic argument against the antinomian "protest" in Protestantism: The fact that a "priesthood of believers" entails an egalitarian right to an endless starting of new churches ultimately entails a race to the bottom (and "defining deviance downwards") for both community and discipline, but that is a post for another day...]

Here is another issue in appeals to Scriptural authority: To prioritize the textual in the Bible over and above the oral is a modern phenomenon.  The witnesses to the Resurrection did not immediately write down their testimony so as to ratify it and thus lend authenticity to it (To that note, wouldn't that be curious if the Resurrection happened not in 33 AD but 1933 AD?). 

This antique bias towards orality (and thus Tradition) by contrast was incredibly strong and it was so because the ancient Christians operated in a world where oral tradition dominated the scene.  To this day, the Orthodox Rabbinic Jews term the oral traditions they regard as authoritative as the Mishnah (מִשְׁנָה).  Indeed, the importance of "oral tradition" was recognized in the late 2nd century when the descendants of the Pharisees began to compile a codex of teachings passed down from father to son [see Exodus 12: 26-27].  This was par for the course, as we say, for the Pentateuch was written down closer towards the days of Christ than that of Moses! 

Writing therefore served an ancillary not a primary function of setting the story straight in the face of competing (and false) stories about Jesus Christ.  This is why the Gospels were written decades after the events in question when false accounts were becoming a heretical threat to catholicity.  If the Apostles were moderns, they may have written it down right after Pentecost so as to get every detail right!  But they didn't because they primarily, if not exclusively (I mean did St. Bartholomew write anything down?), taught through speech to a mostly illiterate audience.  That is how the Church emerged-- not through letter writing or history books--- but through the life of prayer.  The Church emerged through the Mass and the Divine Office of the ancient Christian Liturgies as taught by the Apostles.

And besides, there is something more compelling about the spoken vs. written word: You are more likely to trust a witness in person than a document that may have been forged in their name!  This is why there is more to the eye in the Gospels than just the texts themselves.  There is a background understanding that Tradition preserves by the promise of the Holy Spirit (see John 14:17, Matthew 16:18 together).  The texts themselves have stories of their own which take place within something that Jesus Himself gave to the World: namely, His Church.  This is a laymen's explanation as to why tradition would have currency in the early Church as it notably did even for St. Paul (2 Thessalonians 2:15).  It is not something to be quickly dismissed.  St. John Henry Newman, a great scholar who studied the Patristic period from his youth, journeyed from an evangelical household of "Bible believing" Christians to the Anglican pulpit of his "via media" (or, middle way), to the Roman Catholic prelature and beyond!  He famously said, "to study history is to cease to be Protestant."  So perhaps, following the great doctor's advice, we should all give up the spirit of protest and become obedient to the fullness of the Gospel as taught by Holy Mother Church? 

Just a thought.

Admittedly, this compilation is obviously done from the standpoint of what is now termed "Catholicism" (a modern framing given the "-ism" was infrequently used until the 19th century) but the point of elaborating this three-fold presentation is to present the case for Catholic ecclesiology as a rational demonstration that takes for granted only two things: (1) Classical Theism is true (especially from a philosophical/natural point of view); (2) The Bible is supernaturally inspired (and thus has depth beyond ordinary Human understanding; thereby, requiring extraordinary aid in sorting truths from errors, which have a tendency of multiplying!).  

This pairing of Classical Theism and Biblicism together means that certain superficial interpretations of the Bible (such as God having a body, as in Mormonism, etc.) are necessarily false not because Scripture says otherwise-- in fact, utilizing figures of speech and tropes, the Bible can give the impression to the literally minded that God is actually walking the Garden of Eden, etc.--- but because Reason dictates that God as infinite Spirit cannot have extension (or, a body) as we do. 

Similarly, a certain superficial reading of the New Testament can give the impression the doctrine of the Trinity is wrong about co-equality of the Three Persons [see John 14:28].   However, once you understand God's simplicity as developed in Classical Theism [that is, God having no parts or divisions to His nature], you then come to expect an inner unity and perfect harmony within that same Godhead which precludes the idea of rankings or subordinations within that same Godhead.  This understanding by natural reason about the nature of God can aid us when we read difficult passages such as the opening of the Gospel of John which explicitly accounts how "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  The same was in the beginning with God." (John 1:1).   

When we say "the killer [of Abraham Lincoln] was John Wilkes Booth", we are identifying the killer.  They become synonymous. When the Gospel says, "the Word was God", we can similarly approach this statement by the logical Law of Identity: A = A, which as far back as scholastic philosophy, was considered the primary "law of thought" and is suitable for the opening of John's Gospel (which emphasizes beyond the Synoptics, the divinity of Jesus Christ). 

This means there is no substantial difference between the Word and God (just as there is no substantial difference between the Killer of Abraham Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth).   Once you finish reading the opening chapters of John's Gospel, you also realize the human identity of the Word.  The Incarnation, of course, poses a problem for the classical theist, which is resolved by the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union, or the two natures of Christ, one Human and one Divine, which was perhaps the most conflict-ridden development in all of theology.  But let's not get ahead of ourselves...

It is important to remember that we do not approach the Bible with a totally "blank slate" (given our understanding of languages we learned before we could even read!), but come into the act of reading with a constellation of associations and concepts that come from Reason (what we can personally and directly learn about the world) as well as Tradition (that is, what we are told about the world by our predecessors, such as history).  Neither of those pre-textual realities can be suppressed in any authentic theological reading of Sacred Scripture.  We go into every act of interpretation with both our critical faculties AND our own cultural makeup.  We can set neither aside.  But we can at least be aware they are there, what biases they each involve, for they are often very loud in our minds as we read!

Thus, we already see that Faith (sourced in Revelation) and Reason (manifest in the rightly ordered natural use of the Mind) do not say contrary things and, more strongly put, cannot say contrary things lest God deceive us.  Why is that?   A safe inference then is that God will not lie either in what He directly reveals or through the proper use of His creation's intellect.  Lying is a sin, deception about divine truths which are the highest truths to be known is also gravely evil, and it would be a fundamental error to infer that God can sin.

The bottom line is that there is a certain confidence we can acquire in the fundamentals of divine knowledge such that our Faith does not seem blind and arbitrary, but prompted.

An important distinction for Classical Theism, most of which predates Christianity, is that God is perfectly Good and the source of Truth itself. 

Another distinction that accords with truthfulness is God's self-sufficiency as unique to His existence: thus, God is not just a 'god' among others, such as Zeus, Ra, or Quetzalcoatl, etc., all of which had a "backstory", but He anticipates what Plato said of 'Zeus' above what Homer said [for Plato's criticisms of the poet, read Books II-III of the Republic]. As Aquinas would argue, when properly understood, God is the ground of Being Itself [see Aquinas' Summa Theologiae: alone among all realities, God's Existence is His Essence, such that only He properly exists!] and that ontology is fundamentally different from our own as particular instantiated beings [including "gods", i.e. demons] who are said to exist by virtue of His self-subsisting Will.  Everything that exists abides the Will of the Creator [John 1:3]. 

This transcendental aspect of the Godhood has infinite precedence above all that we can see, think, and infer as mortals, and whose mysteries ways are thus notably different from the anthropomorphic ploys of some fickle trickster god, mythical monster, or foreboding spirit.

Again, what I have listed below are resources intended to demonstrate how these two assumptions above allow a clear path through a recovery of authentic Christianity (rather than its many modern imposters and permutations). 

Even if I am unsuccessful, it is also best to understand our history as baptized Christians first and foremost.  Know what it is that matters to you and what is truly at stake rather than add salt to old wounds that you scarcely understand!  Let us first understand what the distinctions are before litigating over the past of church history itself!

On the Concept of Religious Authority: Dogma, Doctrine, & Truth

Biblical Studies: Annotated Bibliography

Sacred Tradition, Appeals to Apostolic Tradition, & Ecclesiology: An Annotated Bibliography

Divine Magisterium & the Ecumenical Church: An Annotated Bibliography

Annotated Bibliograph (2024-5) --- Theme: The Bible as "Canon" (Standard of Rule)

Biblical Canonization:

• Armstrong, Karen (2007) The Bible: A Biography. 
• Barnstone, Willis (ed.) (1984). The Other Bible: Ancient Alternative Scriptures. 
• Childs, Brevard S. (1984). The New Testament as Canon: An Introduction.
• Meade, John D. (2017). The biblical canon lists from early Christianity: texts and analysis.
• Schneemelcher Wilhelm (ed). Hennecke Edgard, New Testament Apocrypha, 2 vol.
• McDonald, Lee Martin (2009). Forgotten Scriptures. The Selection and Rejection of Early Religious Writings. 
• McDonald, Lee Martin (2000). Early Christianity and Its Sacred Literature. 
• McDonald, Lee Martin (2007). The Biblical Canon: Its Origin, Transmission, and Authority. 
• Pentiuc, Eugen J., ed. (2022). The Oxford Handbook of the Bible in Orthodox Christianity. 
• Souter, Alexander (1954). The Text and Canon of the New Testament. 
• Stonehouse, Ned Bernhard (1929). The Apocalypse in the Ancient Church: A Study in the History of the New Testament Canon. 
• Wall, Robert W.; Lemcio, Eugene E. (1992). The New Testament as Canon: A Reader in Canonical Criticism. 
• Westcott, Brooke Foss. (1875). A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament.
• Francis Bruce Vawter's Biblical Inspiration
• Histoire critique du Vieux Testament (1678) 
• Roland Edmund Murphy's The New Jerome Biblical Commentary 

FOR 2025-26, the SHIFT will be towards "Tradition" (2025) and "Magisterium" (2026) (as the triple source of ecclesiastical authority of the Holy Catholic Church)