Why the Church Needs Authority
Like many other world religions, Christianity claims to be based on revelation, and to provide answers that go beyond human understanding. Consequently, the use of one's unaided reason cannot resolve conflicts between these world religions. Either their answers must be rejected, or accepted on faith; this faith must either be blind, or reasonable. It can be reasonable only if supported by an authority which can be recognized as legitimate. Thus, the "true religion" must, as a minimum, include authoritative teaching. This excludes all forms of Christianity not recognizing such teaching. As will be shown, the authority of Scripture is, however, not sufficient. Vatican II confirms that Roman Catholicism recognizes an authoritative teaching going beyond Scripture; thus Catholicism is one of the few Christian communities formally corresponding to what human reason can recognize as a minimum requirement for the communication of a trustworthy revelation.
1. THE SOURCE OF THE TEACHINGS OF CHRISTIANITY — AN ANALOGY
"In times past, God spoke in fragmentary and varied ways to our fathers through the prophets; in this, the final age, he has spoken to us through his son" (Heb. 1:1-2). This is a succinct explanation of what Christianity takes the source of its teaching to be: A message from God to humans, revelation. Revelation is a one-way street in the sense that its content is exclusively determined by God. If there is revelation in the sense defined, it supersedes everything with which it is incompatible and which humans claim to have discovered through their own efforts. The following analogy shows why this is so:
Imagine a group of people living in a low-lying area enclosed on three sides by high mountain ranges, and on the fourth by the sea. One early spring, they observe a dramatic rising of the sea level, and it is clear that the whole area they inhabit will soon be flooded. Thus, they consider leaving, climbing across one of the mountain ranges. From their observation of the ranges, they seem to be able to recognize several routes up the mountains which one could choose; since, however, no one knows how the other side of the mountains looks, they cannot know whether they will be able to climb down on the other side. By the time they will have reached the ridge, however, the flatlands may have become flooded. Nevertheless, some among the local population defend vigorously various suggestions on what the best escape route would be.
One day, a man appears on one of the mountain ridges and begins his descent. Having reached the lowlands, he points out a route for the ascent, identical with the one he used for his descent, but completely different from the ones which the local thinkers have recommended.
Among the population, there are two opposite reactions. On the one hand, some reason, "Since this man comes from the other side of the mountains, he knows how it looks there; it is, therefore, sensible to go along with what he is saying."
On the other hand, some — probably especially among those who have thought out their own theories on what the best escape route is — keep on clinging to their views. They contend that dismissing arguments in support of other escape routes and accepting the message which the man from the other side of the mountain has brought amounts to being uncritical, to refusing to think on one's own.
Isn't it clear, however, that, if the man from the other side of the mountains appears trustworthy, it is foolish to keep on paying attention to arguments in support of alternative escape routes? Isn't a person who prefers the message of the man from the other side of the mountains to the "local theories" justified in saying, "If you say that I refuse to do my own thinking, you are mistaken"? Is it not rather that person's very own thinking which tells him that someone's first-hand report has more credibility than theories constructed without first-hand experience?
Similarly, a person's own thinking should tell him or her that, if God has revealed himself, it is more sensible to go along with the content of this revelation than with what fallible human minds have tried to find out with the aid of human reason alone.
2. REVISING THE ANALOGY SO THAT IT FITS THE PERSON SEARCHING FOR RELIGIOUS TRUTH
There is one problem, though: My analogy describes the situation someone believes to be in who has made a commitment to a particular religion; but it does not describe the situation of a person who is sincerely searching for an answer to the question of whether there is religious truth, and if yes, where it can be found. As far as that person is concerned, unfortunately, the man from the other side of the mountains has competition. The analogy needs, therefore, to be modified:
As soon as the man from the other side of the mountains has delivered his message, other men appear who also claim to be from the other side of the mountains, presenting conflicting advice on the best route of escape.
To make matters worse, most people living in the lowlands have not met any, of the men claiming to be from the other side of the mountains, but have only heard reports about their teachings, and concerning the teaching of each of them there are numerous contradictory interpretations.
In this modified analogy, the various men claiming to have come from the other side of the mountains represent the various world religions (or their founders), and the contradictory interpretations of the messages correspond to the various denominations, forms, or sects in which the various world religions exist. How is someone searching for religious truth to decide intelligently among these competing claims?
3. CONSIDERATION OF THE LIMITS OF PHILOSOPHY
Maybe he or she will turn briefly from religion to philosophy, which also claims to deal with "questions that matter."
According to how philosophy has traditionally been understood, it has been considered as one of its tasks to use human reason for finding answers to so-called existential questions of human life, questions which are of ultimate importance for all humans and at all times. Examples are, "Where do we come from? What — if anything — is the purpose of human existence? Is there a life after death?"
A moment's reflection shows, however, that human reason by itself will quickly come to a barrier when trying to solve such questions. Take the question of what a human's fate after this life is. Even philosophers who hold that there are stringent proofs of personal immortality will have to admit that a recognition of the precise nature of a human's fate after death is not possible for human reason left to its own devices.
4. BACK TO RELIGION: CONTRADICTIONS BETWEEN WORLD RELIGIONS, AND BETWEEN SECTS WITHIN WORLD RELIGIONS
The various world religions claim to give answers to these existential questions of human life, including those which human reason cannot answer. As with all propositions, those which the various world religions propose in response to existential questions of human life must either be true or false; they cannot be both. However, often, the statements which one world religion proposes are in conflict with those proposed by another world religion. Two conflicting statements cannot both be true; at least one of them must be false. Take as an example the statement proposed by Judaism and Islam that there is one God in only one person, and the belief of Christianity that there is one God in three persons. Obviously, at least one of these beliefs must be false.
This confronts a thinking person with the question, "Which message, if any, really comes from the other side of the mountains? Which one of the various world religions — if any — is the true religion?"
Even between various denominations of the same world religion, there are significant disagreements. Jesus instituted the celebration of the Last Supper with the words, "Do this in remembrance of me" (1 Cor. 11:24). How are we to comply with this injunction? Should we attend an Eastern Orthodox liturgy, or a Reformed service? If the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Eucharist is assumed to be true — it includes a belief in the real presence of Christ as true God and true man under the forms of bread and wine — then the Reformed celebration of the Lord's Supper is a man-made ceremony bearing only some outward superficial resemblance to what Christ wanted us to do. If the Reformed view on the Eucharist is assumed to be true it holds that the inner nature of bread and wine is not changed into the inner nature of Jesus' body and blood — then the Eastern Orthodox service involves idolatry,' since bread and wine would be treated as if they were the Savior himself. Thus, even within world religions, the contradictions between the teachings of the various sects go beyond minor details.
5. RETURN TO PHILOSOPHY. WHILE PHILOSOPHICAL POSITIONS MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED ON FAITH, PHILOSOPHICAL CONSIDERATIONS SUPPORT THAT THERE ARE SITUATIONS IN WHICH BELIEVING IS APPROPRIATE AND REASONABLE — DEMONSTRATED COMPETENCE OF A TRUSTWORTHY PERSON AS ONE OF THE FACTORS MAKING BELIEVING REASONABLE.
Accepting a view trusting solely in the truthfulness of the person maintaining it may be out of place in philosophy. Philosophical considerations about the nature of belief show, however, that believing others is often not only an unavoidable necessity for humans to be able to live in a community; rather, there are also situations in which believing others is justified.
One can see the necessity of believing others if one imagines a man who tries leading his life such that he relies only on what he has discovered through his own efforts. Suppose him to suffer from a headache. He could not simply take an aspirin, for this would require him to rely on the truthfulness of the label on the pill container. Rather, he would have to perform a chemical analysis of the pills, and since this is an involved procedure, he would probably have to take a basic chemistry course before he could do something as simple as taking an aspirin.
Thus, human life would become unbearably complicated and in some respects even impossible if we were to refuse ever to rely on other persons' truthfulness.
This is, of course, only a pragmatic justification of trusting others. To begin a theoretical justification, it may be useful to compare the following two examples:
First, a friend told me that he had bought a used car, and it became clear that he had believed, without question, the glowing report the dealer had given him about the car. I take it you would agree with me that my friend acted unreasonably. This example shows that there are situations in which a person's trusting someone else is not justified.
Second, suppose that a woman who has a leading position in a company tells her husband about a business luncheon with a vice president of another company; she is to meet him in the restaurant of the hotel in which he is staying. She has never given the slightest indication of being unfaithful — on the contrary, there have been many signs of her devotion to her husband. Even so, while the luncheon is going on, the husband sneaks to the hotel and periodically checks whether everything is "above board."
His attitude is clearly despicable. If the situation is as described, his wife deserves to be trusted, and he acts contrary to this. Also, since she has demonstrated in the past that she is faithful, it is reasonable to trust her. Thus, this example shows that there are everyday situations in which it is both appropriate and reasonable to trust another person.
To justify in an individual case whether having confidence in another person's word is reasonable, one would have to examine first what the general criteria are which make it reasonable to trust another, and subsequently, one would have to examine whether or not they apply to the case at hand.
I shall mention only one general condition justifying a faith- acceptance of another person's word: Suppose that a person whose trustworthiness has been established demonstrates his or her competence in a certain area. Then it is reasonable to trust his or her word with regard to this area: I observe a trustworthy man building a magnificent organ. In this case, it would clearly be reasonable for me to defer to that person's judgment whenever non- experts dispute a question concerning organ building.
6. WHAT MAKES JESUS OF NAZARETH CREDIBLE?
How about the credibility of Jesus of Nazareth as the New Testament depicts him? He says many things which sound like common-sense advice, such as, "Treat others the way you would like to be treated by them" (Matt. 7:12), but he also says things which are astounding, ridiculous, or ludicrous if one imagines them said by a mere human. Consider examples such as, "Before Abraham came to be, I am" (John 8:58), "Soon, you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the power and coming in the clouds of heaven" (Matt. 26:64), or, "He who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal" (John 6:54).
Jesus knows that these sayings are hard to take. Thus, in order to demonstrate his authority to say them, he appeals to the miracles which he performs. These miracles have the function of lending credibility to his message. He himself says about his healing of the paralyzed man that he did it "to help you realize that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins" (Matt. 9:6), he tells his listeners that the works he does in his father's name give witness in his favor (John 10:25), and he urges that he believed at least because of the works he performs (John 14:11).
Thus, Jesus as depicted in the New Testament clearly comes across as credible. For this reason, if one can show the credibility of those who wrote the gospels, one would have established the credibility of Christianity.
7. REASON AND REVELATION — A NEGATIVE TEST AND A LIMITATION
If God reveals himself, he can surely choose to reveal things which go beyond the reach of human reason, and if he does so, human reason is limited, in assessing the truth of the revelation, to what can be called a negative test. What a truthful God reveals cannot go against human reason; it cannot be logically or metaphysically impossible. Suppose a man claims it to be revealed by God that there are married bachelors, whereby being married is understood as having a spouse, and the word "bachelor" is understood to refer to an unmarried man who has never been married. You express skepticism. He responds, "This is simply a great mystery." You would be justified to reply, "There is no mystery here. My reason tells me that what you say is illogical."
Thus, remembering that we might easily mistake something for being against human reason when in fact it is beyond human reason, we are nevertheless justified in excluding all those statements from the area of genuine revelations which are clearly against reason in the sense of affirming logical and/or metaphysical impossibilities.
How about answers which are not against, but beyond human reason? Given the limitations of the human mind, does one not have to expect most of the answers to existential question of human life to be of this nature? These answers, as for example the claim that there are angels, are such that we can think about their content as long as we want to, our reason will simply not be able to tell us whether or not they are true. Thus, there are only two possibilities: One can reject things which are beyond human reason, or, seeing that these things are metaphysically and logically possible, one can accept them on faith. What is not possible in these cases is to accept these things because one has understood them to be true.
8. SEVERAL LOGICAL AND THREE ACTUAL POSSIBILITIES
I return to the person searching for religious truth. He may say, "I will now try to sort out which possibilities there are with regard to the existence of revealed truth, and with regard to where to find it."
To begin with, there is a possibility under which all religions would indeed be equal — only, they would not be equally valid, but rather equally invalid. This would be the case if atheistic materialism were true. If there is no other world, no message from there could reach us, and all claims that there is revelation would be erroneous.
Next, our agnostic could say, "If there is a personal God, he does not have to reveal himself to humans, but surely, he can do so if he chooses. There are several possibilities for him to do so, and humans must, of course, leave it up to him which one he chooses.
"First, he could reveal himself directly to each and every individual human being. This is not, however, what he seems to be doing.
"Second, God could reveal himself at various places and/or times with different messages for different groups of people. Even though there can be only one truth (in the sense of a collection of all true things), God could choose to reveal various parts of this one truth to different groups of peoples. If that is what he did, then there could be several religions justifiably claiming to be true. A comparison of these religions would, however, turn out differently from that of the actually existing world religions: They would complement each other rather than contradict each other.
"Third, God could have revealed himself in one revelation, possibly over an extended period of time, meant for all humans. If God has chosen this possibility, there would then be only one religion which could be called 'the true religion,' even though other religions, being influenced by the one true religion, could contain parts of true revelation intermixed with human errors."
These are the theoretical possibilities our agnostic would have to consider prior to looking at the actual situation in which the world religions find themselves.
The actual situation which one observes among the world religions, which involves genuine contradictions on serious matters, allows, however, only for the following three realistic possibilities:
The first is that there is no true religion, and that all religions claiming to be based on revelation are equally invalid.
The second is that there is only one true religion.
The third is that there is no true religion, but that some or all world religions contain true revelations, intermingled with human errors. It would then be the human errors which are responsible for the contradictions between religions, not the true revelations.
Which of these possibilities is now the case?
9. IF THERE IS REVELATION OF CONTENTS GOING BEYOND HUMAN REASON, GOD MUST EITHER DEMAND BLIND FAITH, OR INVEST THE SOURCE OF REVELATION WITH AN AUTHORITY THE LEGITIMACY OF WHICH CAN BE RECOGNIZED
At this point, it is to be emphasized again: Since the world religions claim to contain teachings going beyond human reason, it is fruitless to try to find answers to the questions just formulated through human reason alone.
Thus, if God reveals things going beyond the reach of human reason, there are only two possibilities. One is that he expects us to believe blindly, in a way similar to how my friend in the earlier example believed the used car dealer. A second is that those parts of the revelation at least which go beyond human reason must come from a source the legitimate authority of which can be recognized. To have a legitimate authority presupposes as a minimum that there is an authority. Thus, unless one thinks it fitting for God to act like a used car dealer, we conclude that the very idea of a credible revelation with a content going beyond the reach of human reason demands authoritative teaching.
10. JESUS CLAIMS ABSOLUTE TRUTH, AND IS DEPICTED AS TEACHING WITH AUTHORITY
Even though liberal Protestantism and Roman Catholic neo-modernism downplay absolute truth and reject authoritative teaching, Jesus of Nazareth claims both for his message.
To the pagan Pontius Pilate, he describes his mission with the words, "The reason I was born, the reason why I came into the world, is to testify to the truth. Anyone committed to the truth hears my voice" (John 18:37). Speaking to his disciples, Jesus calls himself "the way, the truth, and the life," and continues, "No one comes to the father but through me." (John 14:6) Thus, he claims to be not only one truth among many, but the truth, not only one way among many, but the way.
As for authority, Matthew says at the end of his report of the sermon on the mount that Jesus "taught with authority and not like their scribes" (Matt 7:29). The one who himself teaches with authority sends seventy of his disciples out, telling them, "He who hears you hears me. He who rejects you, rejects me. And he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" (Luke 10:16). Finally, he sends his eleven disciples out with his own authority and promises to be with them until the end of the world, a promise which surely had to include their successors, since none of those he actually sent lived to see the end of the world: "Full authority has been given to me both in heaven and on earth; go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations. . . . And know that I am with you always, until the end of the world" (Matt. 28:19-20).
As has been shown, Jesus affirms that his claim to authority is not empty, but that his miracles validate it. And surely, even many non- Christians would agree that meeting a person like Jesus of Nazareth as the Gospels depict him is tantamount to meeting a trustworthy person. Their problem is less with the credibility of the Jesus of the Gospels, but rather with the credibility of the Gospels themselves. If Jesus is credible, however, and if the Gospels are credible, Christianity as a whole is credible.
It goes beyond the scope of this essay to examine in detail the arguments in support of the credibility of the Gospels. The chief argument can only be outlined: On the one hand, the four gospels tell basically the same story, and on the other, there is a sufficient number of differences among them — some looking prima facie like inconsistencies or even contradictions at which times need some ingenuity to be harmonized with one another — to assure us that the writers of the Gospels worked reasonably independently of one another. Thus, we are in a situation in which four reasonably independent witnesses give basically the same testimony, and surely, to believe under such circumstances is not unreasonable.
In view of the many forms of Christianity, however, accepting the truth of Christianity does not end one's search for religious truth. Which form of Christianity corresponds to the one Jesus wanted to exist?
11. RELIGIOUS LIBERALISM, CLASSICAL PROTESTANTISM, ROMAN CATHOLICISM, AND AUTHORITY — THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AS "MATER ET MAGISTRA"
What Jesus of Nazareth said and did — briefly sketched earlier — conforms to the conclusion that revelation of things going beyond human reason must be backed by an authority which can be recognized as legitimate: He confers his own authority on those who teach in his name. This shows that the Church of Christ must be characterized by authoritative teaching.
In light of this, the fact that liberal Protestantism and neo- modernist Roman Catholicism have dispensed with authoritative teaching makes them ineligible for being the form of Christianity Christ could have envisioned.
In contrast to liberal Protestantism and Roman Catholic neo- modernism, classical Protestantism vested, following Luther's sola scriptura (Scripture only) principle, the absolute authority of religious teaching in Scripture, and in Scripture only. Thus, we find here at least the acknowledgment of authority. Classical Protestantism fails to see, however, first that Scripture by itself is not even sufficient to determine which books belong to it. For this determination, one needs what Roman Catholicism calls Tradition. Second, there is no statement in Scripture to the effect that Scripture is the only source of transmission of revelation, so that ironically, the sola scriptura principle itself goes beyond Scripture. Third, the Scriptures of Christianity grow out of Tradition; this gives rise to the embarrassing question — embarrassing because there is no answer which would not have the character of arbitrariness — as to when Tradition ceased to be functional. Further, it is a historic fact for all to see that the experiment of basing Christianity on the authority of Scripture alone has failed: Even apart from Protestant liberalism which assails — as does neo-modernist Roman Catholicism — the authority of Scripture, Protestantism has splintered into many sects. Moreover, St. Paul denotes the Church, not Scripture, as the pillar and bulwark of truth (1 Tim. 3:15).
Thus, not only is, as argued before, authoritative teaching a minimum requirement for the possibility of accepting revealed truth going beyond reason if this acceptance is to be more than blind faith, but a teaching authority in addition to the special authority Christianity has traditionally ascribed to Scripture is needed.
Among the many Christian denominations, there are few which teach with an effective authority. Some of them, such as the Mormons, whose teachings are in many respects contrary to Christ's message, and the Jehovah's Witnesses, who have repeatedly and with full authority predicted the precise date of the end of the world — dates which passed uneventfully — cannot rationally be considered as serious contenders for being the true Church of Christ.
Roman Catholicism as reconfirmed by the Second Vatican Council is the only serious contender. The Council's teachings fully support the continued relevance of the Church's teaching authority, and this authority continues to be fully recognized in those segments of the Roman Catholic Church which take, with Pope John Paul II, the Second Vatican Council seriously, rather than appealing to the infamous "spirit of the Council."
The Council's Dogmatic Constitution of the Church states concerning the "sole Church of Christ": "This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him" (# 8). Concerning authority, the same Council document also reconfirmed the infallibility of the pope (# 18), the community of the bishops teaching under his leadership, and with this, the dogmatic declarations of the various ecumenical councils (# 25).
Even the one passage of the Council which is most frequently cited as supporting that there can be a legitimate teaching in the Church opposed to that of the pope and the bishops needs to be truncated and misinterpreted to suit the purpose intended: "The holy people of God shares also in Christ's prophetic office .... The whole body of the faithful who have an anointing from the holy one cannot err in matters of belief. This characteristic is shown in the supernatural appreciation of the faith (sensus fidei)" (# 12).
Abridged in this manner, the passage is often misinterpreted as saying that the content of the faith in which the holy people of God cannot err is to be determined not by authoritative teaching, but by democratic votes and sociological questionnaires in which even totally uninformed and uncommitted Christians are to participate.
This neglects, however, to mention that the paragraph quoted states about the sensus fidei: "By this appreciation of the faith, aroused and sustained by the spirit of truth, the people of God, guided by the sacred teaching authority (magisterium), and obeying it, receives not the mere word of men, but truly the word of God." This passage, emphasizing guidance by the magisterium even with regard to the sensus fidei, clearly precludes a conflict between the sensus fidei and the magisterium.
Thus, the Roman Catholic Church as envisioned by the Second Vatican Council has not abandoned the characteristic of authoritative teaching, a characteristic which has earlier been shown to be a necessary condition for trustworthy revelation. The Catholic Church corresponds, therefore, admirably to the requirements which human reason can recognize as indispensable for an institution proposing a belief in revealed truths which go beyond the reach of human reason, but which can be accepted with more than blind faith.
If the message of the "man from the other side of the mountains" is indeed safeguarded and proclaimed by the Roman Catholic Church, then it is not uncritical to prefer her teachings to the results of human inquiries; rather, one's very own thinking should lead one to recognize the Catholic Church, in the words of Pope John XXIII, as one's "mater et magistra," one's "mother and teacher."
This item 3540 digitally provided courtesy of CatholicCulture.org
