The Authority of the Catholic Church

[grannymh]

The CCC is convoluted and contradictory. Also, we apparently need another authority to interpret it.

My apology. I do not know what “your CCC” stands for.

Regarding the question: “How did you personally come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church holds religious authority?”

It is my understanding that Philosophy can use the Deductive Method of Reasoning. Therefore, my first two axioms are 1. God as Creator exists. and 2. God as Creator interacts with human creatures. The example I use is Chapter 14, Gospel of John. In particular, Jesus Christ has established Himself as God, axiom 1. His interaction with human creatures is established in the Last Supper discourses, axiom 2.

The Catholic Church accepts the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Since the OP asked for personal ways one can come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church holds religious authority and I am a personal member of the Catholic Church, I do not see the necessity for debating the doctrine of God being three Persons in one Divine Nature. I submit that the truth of the Holy Trinity is axiom 3.

With the above three axioms firmly in place, John 14: 26 is my personal means for reaching the conclusion that the Catholic Church hold religious authority.

John 14: verse 26. “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name–He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.”

 

[mikeeh]

Okay. I’ll bite the bait.

How did you personally come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church holds religious authority?

Jesus left Peter in charge of the Church (aka the Catholic Church, aka the Universal Church). Peter left the Catholic Church at Rome in charge.

Why are you placing your faith in the Catholic magisterium?

Jesus left us the Catholic Church and He did not forbid that it could be added to.

What exactly is your rationale for holding such a belief? Can you rationally justify it?

Consider the following: If I were to borrow $10,000 from you and upon repayment I give you money that was clearly counterfeit, would you accept it? Or if I were to give you money with my name and picture on it, would you accept it? You would most likely only accept a currency that is backed by a stable and wealthy government. Yet when it comes to Christianity, the oldest and largest Church is somehow not good enough. My rationale is that there is a creator who created this magnificent universe and that he loves us or he wouldn’t have given us such a beautiful would; with that said I have found Christianity to be the closest to this understanding of life and the Catholic Church the most original and authentic church.

Your argument is based on the premise that the Scripture are authoritative. Why do you believe the Scriptures are authoritative?

What do you consider authoritative? If not scripture, what then? It seems that this thread was created on plurium interrogationum.

 

[Counterpoint]

The church is your family.

You’re simply explaining one of the benefits of belonging to an organized religion, namely, that it provides a support system. But I fail to see how this rationally justifies the belief that it speaks with authority on religious matters.

 

[Counterpoint]

Me: Because God’s Church, tells me they are authoritative, within the overall authority of the Church.

You: Then how do you know the Church is right? - that is - authoritative?

Me; because the Church goes back to Christ - Who, being God incarnate, is the ultimate authority…

But the Church says that Christ is God incarnate. So, your reasoning appears to be circular.

 

[Counterpoint]

Counterpoint:

The CCC is convoluted and contradictory. Also, we apparently need another authority to interpret it

And this comment fosters intelligent discussion how?

IMHO, the “scholarly work” of the CCC is not a very compelling argument to believe in the authority of the Catholic Church for reasons stated above.

 

[Counterpoint]

How often do people question whether or not Plato actually conveyed the ideas we have in our current copies and translations of his works? Almost never. If the message of these other ancient teachers aren’t questioned, why should Jesus be any different?

Why do you question the teachings of Muhammad?

 

[Counterpoint]

My apology. I do not know what “your CCC” stands for.

CCC = “Catechism of the Catholic Church”

It is my understanding that Philosophy can use the Deductive Method of Reasoning. Therefore, my first two axioms are 1. God as Creator exists. and 2. God as Creator interacts with human creatures. The example I use is Chapter 14, Gospel of John. In particular, Jesus Christ has established Himself as God, axiom 1. His interaction with human creatures is established in the Last Supper discourses, axiom 2.

Do you also accept Krishna as an incarnation of God? It says that he is in the “Vishnu Purana.”

 

[Counterpoint]

Okay. I’ll bite the bait.

Jesus left Peter in charge of the Church (aka the Catholic Church, aka the Universal Church). Peter left the Catholic Church at Rome in charge.

Jesus left us the Catholic Church and He did not forbid that it could be added to.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches. But let’s assume that it is true for sake of argument, why do you believe the words of Jesus?

What do you consider authoritative?

I don’t believe any religious institution speaks with authority on religious or spiritual matters.

 

[JRKH]

IMHO, the “scholarly work” of the CCC is not a very compelling argument to believe in the authority of the Catholic Church for reasons stated above.

Yup - which is why I always end up back at God - and back at the Church…

I know it’s not philosophically sound probably - but you asked for my reason and that is it…circular or not…that’s it…

One other point I should make is that I believe on Jesus and the Father because they are Love…and love (Agape) is the underpinning of all. Christianity seeks to extend that Love as far as possible.

Here I use the word Love (Agape) as something of a composite term for all things positive, creative, supportive, and organized toward the greatest good.
Again - I don’t claim to be a philosopher…Just a simple Christian.

God is Love - the creator, the supporter, that which is positive and organized for the greater good.

God is - and because God is - His son Is - the one who came from and for Love.
Because his Son is - His Church is - the one that He commissioned to spread his Holy word and act as His authority on earth.
Because His Church is - I believe and follow His Church - out of Love for Him…

It all stems from Agape…

That is about the best I can do…

Peace
James

 

[grannymh]

Do you also accept Krishna as an incarnation of God? It says that he is in the “Vishnu Purana.”

Question is a philosophical non sequitur to the statement “I am a personal member of the Catholic Church.” found in post 21.

 

[Bahman]

But the Church says that Christ is God incarnate. So, your reasoning appears to be circular.

Why is a circular argument wrong if everything is well defined?

 

[grannymh]

Do you also accept Krishna as an incarnation of God? It says that he is in the “Vishnu Purana.”

Question is a philosophical non sequitur to the statement “I am a personal member of the Catholic Church.” found in post 21.

 

[ericc]

How did you personally come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church holds religious authority? Why are you placing your faith in the Catholic magisterium? What exactly is your rationale for holding such a belief? Can you rationally justify it?

Note: This is a philosophy forum (or, at least, it purports to be one). So, I expect a rational argument. If you did not arrive at your belief rationally, then just say so.

A long long time ago, my religious ancestors said that God(Jesus) came to live with us humans. He did wondrous things, taught and enlightened the people. He died for us and rose again. His teachings were taught orally initially but later on written down and assembled in what we call the Bible.

Jesus said that he built his Church on Peter and charged him with the responsibility of caring for his flock. He gave Peter his perpetual guarantee that the Church will prevail. And he gave his authority to the apostles to bind/loose. We’ll, that was how it all started.

Of course historically we can trace the development of the Church so that we are assured that the Church that Jesus founded is the same church existing today. Despite the ups and downs of the Church, one has to honestly acknowledge that the guarantee that Jesus gave is still good even after 2000 yrs.

The history of the Catholic Church holds up and the Bible as an ancient document is well attested. What the Catholic Church taught throughout the ages remains unchanged which is indicative of the integrity of its beliefs. I can’t think of any reason why the Catholic Church is not authoritative.

 

[Counterpoint]

Why is a circular argument wrong if everything is well defined?

Because it begs the question, and “begging the question” is an informal fallacy.

 

[polytropos]

How did you personally come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church holds religious authority? Why are you placing your faith in the Catholic magisterium? What exactly is your rationale for holding such a belief? Can you rationally justify it?

Note: This is a philosophy forum (or, at least, it purports to be one). So, I expect a rational argument. If you did not arrive at your belief rationally, then just say so.

I believe the preambula fidei have good philosophical support.

I believe that (given the preambula fidei), there is a good case for the historical resurrection of Jesus.

I believe that the Catholic Church possesses the qualities that the true church founded by Christ would have to have (permanence, size, reverence, witness in the lives of the saints, etc.) to a greater degree than other institutions.

One can also believe rationally on the basis of authority (ie. from parents or church community). Most of my beliefs (including those non-religious) have been legitimately acquired through authority. Since authority is a legitimate channel of belief formation, believers can acquire knowledge by the authority of their church, given that its claims are true. Since authority strictly speaking does not exclude all “competitors” (ie. other religions, in this case), one who acquires beliefs by authority may not have second-order knowledge (ie. they may not know that they know), but that is not required for a rationally held belief. (And this is where other inductive, rhetorical arguments can come in.)

(James Ross’s “Rational Reliance” is a good article on this topic, defending the position that for some truths one must “believe so that he may understand.”)

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How did you personally come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church holds religious authority? Why are you placing your faith in the Catholic magisterium? What exactly is your rationale for holding such a belief? Can you rationally justify it?

Note: This is a philosophy forum (or, at least, it purports to be one). So, I expect a rational argument. If you did not arrive at your belief rationally, then just say so.

As to the first question, I believe the Catholic Church holds religious authority because it, and it alone, can trace its institution and roots back to Jesus Christ, who holds all religious authority and conferred it specifically on Peter and the apostles.

I put my faith in the Catholic magisterium for the same reason that I put my faith in the Church. The magisterium that existed on Ascension Thursday received the great commission from Christ to go out and baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Because I rationally trust the authority of Jesus Christ, I rationally trust the authority of the magisterium.

Remember, the magisterium is a collection of human spirits. So while I may not trust the authority (or even the rationality) of an individual member of the magisterium, taken as a whole I believe Christ assured us that we could trust them, and that we could believe with confidence that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church, as Christ promised, because the magisterium will see to it that they don’t.

 

[Counterpoint]

A long long time ago, my religious ancestors said that God(Jesus) came to live with us humans. He did wondrous things, taught and enlightened the people. He died for us and rose again. His teachings were taught orally initially but later on written down and assembled in what we call the Bible.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There is no extraordinary evidence for Jesus’ alleged resurrection. So, you have no rational basis to justify such a belief.

 

[Counterpoint]

I believe the preambula fidei have good philosophical support.

I believe that (given the preambula fidei), there is a good case for the historical resurrection of Jesus.

That there may be a rational argument to justify a belief in the existence of God does not qualify as a rational basis to justify belief in the authority of the Catholic Church and its magisterium.

 

[Counterpoint]

As to the first question, I believe the Catholic Church holds religious authority because it, and it alone, can trace its institution and roots back to Jesus Christ, who holds all religious authority and conferred it specifically on Peter and the apostles.

How do you rationally justify the belief that Jesus holds all religious authority?

 

[Counterpoint]

Question is a philosophical non sequitur to the statement “I am a personal member of the Catholic Church.” found in post 21.

The Christian argues that we know that Jesus is the incarnation of God because the Holy Bible tells us so. The Muslim argues that we know that Jesus is not the incarnation of God because the Holy Qur’an tells us so. The Christian argument is no more persuasive than the Muslim argument. (The only reason why you think the Christian argument is more compelling is simply due to cultural conditioning and nothing more.)