The Authority of the Catholic Church

[polytropos]

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.

I did not say that the preambula fidei directly justify belief in the Catholic Church’s Magisterium. But insofar that they support a historical argument for Jesus’s resurrection, they can lend support to scripture.

From there one would have to reason from the nature of the Catholic Church itself and from scripture. I think, for instance, that most of the disputes of the Protestant Reformation emphasized one element to the expense of others (ie. Chesterton’s “A heresy is always a half-truth turned into a whole falsehood”). I think also that there is basically no support for sola scriptura, and consequently if the Son of Man wanted to establish a church, then he had to establish a proper authority… and I do not see any other church but the Catholic Church as doing the job.

These are all, of course, inductive and rhetorical (in the classical sense) arguments. I don’t claim that the soundness of the Magisterieum can be demonstrated. But that does not imply that it is not reasonable.

 

[grannymh]

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.)

Interesting expansion of ideas.
However, my point stands. May I respectfully explain.

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

Also accepting Krishna is not part of the Catholic Church of which I am a member. However, that may not be as clear to others as it is to me.

Regarding this comment. (The only reason why you think the Christian argument is more compelling is simply due to cultural conditioning and nothing more.)

Actually, if you go back to Post 21, I used the Deductive Method of reasoning which did not include cultural conditionings. An axiom is an axiom which can be used by any culture, past, present, and future.

Yes, I do find chapter 14, Gospel of John, to be compelling evidence of the authority of the Catholic Church. I can deduce its truth because of the three stated axioms (general principles) in post 21.

 

[Memaw]

Why do you believe the Catholic Church received its authority from Jesus Christ?

Read the “Faith of the Early Fathers”, by William Jurgens, 3 vol set, and you’ll see why. Be sure and have your Bible at hand. Can you tell me of any other Church that can trace its beginnings to Jesus. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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

Because I believe, rationally, that if there is a God, Jesus is the only one God has sent to claim all religious authority in God’s name.

I also believe, in case that is your next question, that it is rational to believe in the existence of God. Nothing can make sense without God, and the human mind cries out for meaning. So it is really caving in to the irrational to believe there is no God, and there is really no way of rationally proving that anyway.

 

[Alindawyl]

Let me state up front that I say none of this to convince you. You asked how I personally came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church holds religious authority, so this is it.

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

Given the premise that the testimony presented to us in the New Testament is true (which you seem to accept on at least some level as you frequently quote the New Testament to support your arguments), and given the premise that the testimony presented to us by the lived faith of the saints since the time of Jesus is also true, I don’t see the possibility for any reasonable argument that a group of Christians other than the magisterium of the Catholic Church possesses authority from God to teach on matters of faith and morals.

Why are you placing your faith in the Catholic magisterium?

As attested to by the New Testament writings, the extra-Biblical writings of the early Christians themselves, and the practices of those same early Christians, the magisterial authority given to the Church by Jesus is exercised by the holder of the keys and his successors, and the other bishops in union with him.

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

I find the testimony of the apostles, the early Christians, and the saints to be compelling beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

Please cite some examples. I have never found any contradictions in it.

The authority for the Catechism is the Magisterium of the Church. And the Church gets its authority form Christ, who is the Word or Truth of God. Where is the authority of Islam or of any other religion?

Linus2nd

 

[KingCoil]

quote ]
Originally Posted by Counterpoint
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.
/quote ]

I find it very difficult to define this as a philosophy question, as any discussion on the Authority of a construct of faith like the Church is outside the framework of pure philosophy and brings it into the discussion of Theology.
The existence of God is a philosophy discussion, but once you move forward outside the apologetics of reason then you cannot support the authority of any belief structure.

“The existence of God is a philosophy discussion, but once you move forward outside the apologetics of reason then you cannot support the authority of any belief structure.”

On the hasis of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, in particular judging everything from the last criterion of experiences of man, God exists, that is an inferential certainty.

Now, a human wants to join the Catholic Church and accepts the religious authority of the Catholic Church, that is a choice of a human drama of religion.

What indeed is the religious authority of the Catholic Church?

It is the power to impose obedience on man so that he will get to the kingdom of God, because God has appointed the Catholic Church to act in His name on His sovereignty of the universe, that simple.

And how does the Catholic Church prove that God apponted it to be His attorney in fact?

Simple, the Catholic Church is founded by Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, and Jesus Christ worked miracles during his lifetime in particular during his working years, to prove that He is the Son of God made man.

Miracles are very very very important in the Catholic Church, miracles also prove that a human is already with God in heaven, that is one essential requirement for a human to be declared a saint, worthy thus of veneration by mankind at least in the Catholic Church.

KingCoil

 

[Linusthe2nd]

“The existence of God is a philosophy discussion, but once you move forward outside the apologetics of reason then you cannot support the authority of any belief structure.”

On the hasis of intelligent thinking grounded on logic and facts, in particular judging everything from the last criterion of experiences of man, God exists, that is an inferential certainty.

Now, a human wants to join the Catholic Church and accepts the religious authority of the Catholic Church, that is a choice of a human drama of religion.

What indeed is the religious authority of the Catholic Church?

It is the power to impose obedience on man so that he will get to the kingdom of God, because God has appointed the Catholic Church to act in His name on His sovereignty of the universe, that simple.

And how does the Catholic Church prove that God apponted it to be His attorney in fact?

Simple, the Catholic Church is founded by Jesus Christ, the Son of God made man, and Jesus Christ worked miracles during his lifetime in particular during his working years, to prove that He is the Son of God made man.

Miracles are very very very important in the Catholic Church, miracles also prove that a human is already with God in heaven, that is one essential requirement for a human to be declared a saint, worthy thus of veneration by mankind at least in the Catholic Church.

Doesn’t sound like someone " on a leave of absence " to me?

Linus2nd

KingCoil

 

[Counterpoint]

Please cite some examples. I have never found any contradictions in it.

It’s teaching on hell. (Is it a place, or only a state? There doesn’t appear to be any consensus on what it actually teaches.)

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It’s teaching on hell. (Is it a place, or only a state? There doesn’t appear to be any consensus on what it actually teaches.)

God never revealed exactly what the ontological status of hell was. All he said is that it exists. And since the Church teaches the Word of God, it can say no more. And by the way, we don’t know the ontological status of Heaven any better, we just know that it exists and that those there will be with God and " all their tears will be wiped away, "
and that their joy and happiness will be eternal.

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

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.

This is an irrational demand. One only gets resurrected once. The time is long past for observing Jesus in the flesh walking the earth.

What other kind of extraordinary evidence is possible than the one the apostles witnessed?

What would be really extraordinary would be the claim that the apostles all lied about their witness to the resurrection. Do you have extraordinary evidence to back up such a claim?

 

[thecone137]

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 think all decisions to believe involve some degree of reason and faith, lest we be accused of being either evidentialists or fideists. With that said, I hold to the Catholic Church for three main reasons:

1.Authority
2.Scripture
3.Tradition

 

[Alindawyl]

This is an irrational demand. One only gets resurrected once. The time is long past for observing Jesus in the flesh walking the earth.

What other kind of extraordinary evidence is possible than the one the apostles witnessed?

What would be really extraordinary would be the claim that the apostles all lied about their witness to the resurrection. Do you have extraordinary evidence to back up such a claim?

Demanding extraordinary evidence for anything is silly. I have never understood that statement. All that’s necessary for any claim is sufficient evidence to support the claim.

If someone claimed they had aliens coming to visit them every Thursday evening at 930PM, which I think would be taken as an extraordinary claim, there is no need for any kind of extraordinary evidence. The rather ordinary evidence of dropping by yourself on a Thursday evening to meet the aliens would be quite sufficient.

In the case of the resurrection of Jesus, no extraordinary evidence was necessary to validate it. All that was necessary was the rather ordinary evidence that Jesus was alive rather than a corpse. Being seen walking and talking, being able to be touched, and eating food, are all simple things. No one in their right mind would say that even one of those things would be insufficient to show someone was not a lifeless corpse.

When someone demands extraordinary evidence for the resurrection, I think they are really just saying that they doubt the testimony of those who were eyewitnesses. But of course, as you say, even a cursory examination of that testimony shows that the truly extraordinary claim would be that eyewitnesses to it lied about it, especially to the point that they were all willing to die horrible deaths rather than say the resurrection did not happen. All except John, who while he was willing to die for Jesus, was not given a martyr’s death but was exiled instead of executed.

People will willingly die for all kinds of things that they believe to be true, but no one dies for a lie. Asking us to believe the apostles lied about the resurrection, and then died for what they knew was a lie, is just ridiculous.

 

[Counterpoint]

This is an irrational demand. One only gets resurrected once. The time is long past for observing Jesus in the flesh walking the earth.

What other kind of extraordinary evidence is possible than the one the apostles witnessed?

What would be really extraordinary would be the claim that the apostles all lied about their witness to the resurrection. Do you have extraordinary evidence to back up such a claim?

Do you believe in the the resurrection of “Poompavai from an urn of bones and ashes in old Kapaleeshwarar Temple at the location of the current San Thome Basilica?” [1]

1 (source: Wikipedia: Resurrection)

 

[CrossofChrist]

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 actually came to the conclusion multiple ways. The first way was looking to the Scriptures and Church Tradition. In a nut shell, you will be led to the Catholic Church if you strive to be faithful to Tradition and Scripture. When I first came to this conclusion, the divinity of Jesus was taken for granted.

Later, I inquired more into the history behind Christianity. Basically, the only satisfactory explanation was that Jesus rose from the dead, and that he is the Christ. But obviously if you a priori rule out a supernatural event by using the historical critical method in a positivist fashion, you will not find the evidence and remain in the dark about what happened outside of Jerusalem some 2000 years ago.

Finally, what for me ultimately has the most “proof” is personal experience. I know the faith is true because Jesus has touched my heart. You might not think that this is a rational argument, but in my opinion it most surely is. Reason itself has faith built into it; there’s ultimately no way to prove that reason “works” and that the world is rational, that we should trust our reason. We take it for granted that we have logic; we claim that certain things are self-evident. But we can’t prove that various principles are self-evident. So why do we say that? Why not accept nihilism? Because reason is built into us (for lack of a better term), and when we encounter the world we all have an experience that touches us to our core which enables us to “know” that reason really is at the foundation of reality. Similarly, through various means there is objective evidence (objective in the sense that anyone can experience and recognize if they let themselves have an encounter) that Jesus uses to touch our hearts that cause us to “know” that he is God. And conversely, experiences had within the faith, such as receiving the Eucharist, are a kind of proof for believers because the beauty produced by the faith shows that so many others have been loved by Jesus as well.

There’s a beautiful image Ratzinger uses in his Introduction to Christianity: the Cross hanging over the abyss, yet giving meaning to our lives. This is what keeps us from giving up and is what allows us to rise above ourselves to complete Truth.

 

[ericc]

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.

What constitute evidence that is good enough for you? We are talking 2000 yr old history here. You would apply methods appropriate for historical claims won’t you?

Paul wrote that the resurrected Christ appeared to him, the apostles, and 500 other brothers some of whom were still alive at that time of his writing. Paul is saying he and many others were eye witnesses to Jesus resurrection which any one could challenge the truthfulness of his claim. As it stand, if he was proven a fraud, the Church would not be standing here today. But despite the opposition of the Pharisees/Sadducees who were keen to kill off this new movement, they were not able to disprove him. The Apostles were preaching openly in the temples and any opponent could challenge their claims. Apostles such as Peter were nobodies in the Jewish society. Only a fisherman. It must have been easy for highly educated temple priests to neutralize threats like him if they could.

Many of his disciples died for their beliefs which lend support to the idea that people would not die for a hoax knowingly.

 

[Counterpoint]

What constitute evidence that is good enough for you? We are talking 2000 yr old history here. You would apply methods appropriate for historical claims won’t you?

Do you believe in the the resurrection of “Poompavai from an urn of bones and ashes in old Kapaleeshwarar Temple at the location of the current San Thome Basilica?” [1]

1 (source: Wikipedia: Resurrection)

Many of his disciples died for their beliefs which lend support to the idea that people would not die for a hoax knowingly.

What does that prove? Religious fanatics have always been willing to die for their cause.

 

[ericc]

Do you believe in the the resurrection of “Poompavai from an urn of bones and ashes in old Kapaleeshwarar Temple at the location of the current San Thome Basilica?” [1]

1 (source: Wikipedia: Resurrection)

Errr, can we let someone else who wants to believe in that do their own job? There are many many things in this world which are mysteries ranging from UFOs, Bermuda triangles, ghosts to Atlantis. Whosoever wants to make a case for any of these please go ahead. But there is no need for any hostility or name calling for those who wants to make a case for them. I don’t go around calling Darwinist supporters names for an unproven theory with fake evidence or show hostility to people who believe in it. I don’t ask Darwinists for exceptional evidence for exceptional claims. So do you ask a Darwinist for exceptional evidence? If not, do you think that is a fair minded approach on your part?

What does that prove? Religious fanatics have always been willing to die for their cause.

In what way were the apostles fanatics? Just calling them names do you no good. You need to support your claims. I see them on the very basic level, folks who preached the Good News, do good (healing the sick e.g.) i.e. do good. They do no acts of terrorism. They asked people to repent from their evil ways. Calling them fanatics really show your rather strange sense of thinking. If people were to die for their country, you called them patriots, heroes. If they die for God, you called them fanatics? What do you have against them? These are good holy people. You ought to reflect deeply your own sense of self, what kind of person are you. Have you been fair? Or are you a product of circumstances and you are acting unfreely?

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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

" And men became vain in their reasoning. "

Linus2nd

 

[Linusthe2nd]

It sounds like you are not only looking for a rational argument for the Authority of the Catholic Church, but a rational argument for Christianity as well. For this, in addition to a rational argument for the authority of the Church, please sit tight and read my long post: (By the way this is not how I personally came to believe in the Church, but it is a very rational argument which supports my belief)

1) The New Testament is the most bibliographically sound ancient written work.
Take a look at this chart: carm.org/manuscript-evidence

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?

2) In the New Testament, Jesus claims to be God

(Mark 14:61 Douay-Rheims version)
(John 8:58 Douay-Rheims version). Note that ‘I am’ is in present tense, in reference to the name of God given to Moses at the burning bush. (Exodus 3:14) The One Who Is, the Being Who IS existence itself. To God, there is no past or future since He is eternal and outside of time, hence the present tense. He does not use the natural grammar construction “before…I was”. He uses “before… I am”.

There are many other places where he claims to be God as well.
in John 20:27-29, Thomas says that Jesus is God and Jesus acknowledges that he has “believed” and does not reproach him for it. John 14:1-12 is another one.

3) If Jesus claimed to be God then He could only be either…(C.S. Lewis’ “Liar Lunatic Lord” argument)
**a liar **(He wasn’t God and knew He wasn’t),
**a lunatic **(He wasn’t God but He thought He was),
or The Lord (He was God).
There is evidence that he was neither a liar (would a liar go to the cross for his lie?) nor a lunatic. He must be God. Believing that Jesus was just a “kind man”, as many non-Christians do, is clearly not a supportable position.

So far, this gets us to Christianity in general. Now for Catholicism in particular:
4) In the New Teestament, Jesus founded the Church in history.
The verses mentioned by the other poster supports this. (supports it for historical accuracy, i.e. Jesus actually said those words, and the early Church actually practiced those things) posted by JRKH: Mt 16:19 says: (Douay-Rheims version)

5) If Jesus was God, and He said what is recorded in Mt 16:19, then that means God gave the Church authority.

Note that this argument does not require one to believe in the infallible authority of scripture before hand, only in the historical accuracy of it.

And we don’t have the original works of Aristotle either, yet we do not question the authority of what the " copies " tell us.

Linus2nd