Though i do not agree with such a man as Rosmini, a fundamental issue is that of what the supreme infallible authoritative source by which Truth and error is determined and judged by is.
It has been asserted that the (one true infallible) Catholic Church is that standard, and does not need any external authority to validate it any more than God does.
But this must have a basis, and thus I have asked what the RC basis is for assurance that Rome is the one true and infallible church, to which one answer is that since the promise of Jn. 14:26* (among others i am sure) was made to the entire Church thru Apostolic succession, then therefore it is the Church Catholic (or i presume more precisely, the infallible Roman Catholic church), that is this one true and infallible church (even though the infallible part is conditional).
But this meaning of Jn. 14:26 is an interpretive assertion which itself must have a basis. It seems some RCs argue that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation and Scripture (for the RCC contends it is) means such are the infallible authorities on what it is and means (and thus on what Jn. 14:26 means), therefore dissent to it is necessarily rebellion against God (and so Prots are censured).
What is your take on the above, if you or others care to comment?
* But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (John 14:26)
Jesus promised the Holy Spirit to all believers, not just some elite.
That verse in no way promised infallibility to any church organization. The Catholic church is not mentioned by name in the Bible that it claims it wrote, nor are there any instructions given concerning apostolic succession.
The claims are like that of any group claiming special revelation, that they alone have divine truth, thus making anyone claiming to be the sole repository of truth a cult.
It has been asserted that the (one true infallible) Catholic Church is that standard, and does not need any external authority to validate it any more than God does.
That was me, in a private mail (we had a good thread locked and continued privately).
I only have a few minutes today, it's Ann + Alex's wedding anniversary number twenty.
The brief answer is: it is a matter of faith. Like any faith, it has a basis in history and is conforms with the Holy Scripture. But ultimately, I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church by the same mechanism by which I believe in One Lord Jesus Christ eternally begotten from the Father, and the rest of the Creed. That mechanism is the gift of faith that I received at confirmation.
Make no mistake, historical reasons are part of the foundation for my faith in the Church but they aren't the only reasons and indeed not even the most important. To answer your question directly, for me the answer is "experience".
Experience is a reason perhaps the chief reason. Why? Well I think it's profitable to examine what it means to have "authority". What does "authority" mean and where does it come from, in our experience as human beings. Who do we give authority to, who do we recognize as authorities in our lives?
Ultimately (because I don't have enough time to go into this with as much detail as it deserves) we recognize others as authorities when we find them to be trustworthy. For example, I don't test the food my mother gives me for poison, each time she feeds me. I would, if I didn't find her trustworthy. I would, if I didn't recognize her as an authority on food (trust me she's a good cook!).
We can all find examples such as this in our own lives where we "automatically" give authority to others, because quite simply (quite humanly) we have found them to be trustworthy, by our own experience.
So it goes (for me) with the Church. I don't trust Her just because she "says" she is of God, has the authority of God, rather I trust her because I haven't been led astray by Her. I have had sin defeated in my life because of cooperating with the Sacraments she offers. I have met and made the best friends I've ever had in my life because of her. I met and married my wife because of her. Finally (but most important) I have met CHRIST through Her.
Given all these experiences, and more, which are facts in my life, why shouldn't I trust her in other areas if my life when I seek answers? To not do so, for me, would be exactly the same thing as saying, "I don't believe the earth revolves around the sun" or "I don't believe the continent of Antarctica exists". It would be the exact same thing as saying those things, for the EXACT same reason.
What I'm trying to say is this: the authority of the Church comes from God, and the proof of this is not (ultimately)'found in a book or in history or even in what I'm sharing with you now (which is my testimony). The proof of her authority is found for anyone who comes to see for yourself, experience Christ in her midst for yourself, come and be transformed into a new creation, not by your own power, and thus by the only Other who could transform you: God Himself.
Now one might say: well that's all very well and good for you 47, but that's not my experience in the Church. I was raised Catholic, I know what it's like and there's no reason for me to recognize her authority.
That very well may be true, for someone for many people I really don't know. I do know this though, for myself I know I was poorly catechized. I thought I knew everything there was to know about the faith, when I left it.
But when I found myself searching again, searching for God IN the world, in REALITY, I found myself asking this one question over and over again: If God established and still establishes a Church today, what would it look like? Would it be recognizable? Would it be full of sinners or sinless people? Would it be welcoming to me as I was (a wretched horrible sinner) or would it only accept the elite? The ones who were "right" all the time and or the ones who already understood God and the Bible.
Of course for me the Church is a home. A place where I am welcomed not because I have all the doctrines "right", but I am welcome precisely because I do NOT, do not have anything "right" really. And this is why Jesus became man, really, to meet man where man was/is, not to expect man to become like Him BEFORE approaching Him, but to come to Him to walk a path, a journey, towards Him and His likeness.
This is the message of hope the Church offers me on a daily basis. This is what I have seen manifest already in my life and continues to manifest. THIS, is the "reason" for the Church's authority (for me): my EXPERIENCE, when I approached (and still do approach) her in poverty of spirit.
She hasn't failed me yet, in every instance I've been so poor. I submit she would have failed me already, if the authority I recognize in her were false.
Hope that helps.