Replies

>> And so, given the utter centrality of Jesus —who is the Word, the Truth, and the Life— and who Himself intercedes on our behalf as high priest, why should we hold to the inferiority of a magisterium when given the utter excellence of Christ?
>
> This is an example of an argument that either proves too much, or proves nothing at all.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proving_too_much
> For example, which is superior, the "the utter excellence of Christ Himself" or the Book of John?

John (and his book) testify to Jesus, how can either be superior to the thing they testify of?
Indeed, John lays that out explicitly both in his gospel and in his first epistle:

(John 20:31)
But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.
(1 John 1:1-4)
We declare to you what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands, concerning the word of life— this life was revealed, and we have seen it and testify to it, and declare to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us— we declare to you what we have seen and heard so that you also may have fellowship with us; and truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ. We are writing these things so that our joy may be complete.

If you say, Christ, then I can replace the magisterium in your formulation with the Book of John and generate an absurd result, ie that you should reject John because Christ Himself is superior.

Really — and then why should you believe? Because some priest told you?
Don't you know what Jesus said to the Pharisees about the scripture? that they testified of Jesus:

(John 5:39-47)
“You search the scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that testify on my behalf. Yet you refuse to come to me to have life. I do not accept glory from human beings. But I know that you do not have the love of God in you. I have come in my Father’s name, and you do not accept me; if another comes in his own name, you will accept him. How can you believe when you accept glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the one who alone is God? Do not think that I will accuse you before the Father; your accuser is Moses, on whom you have set your hope. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But if you do not believe what he wrote, how will you believe what I say?”

So we see that the testimony is inferior to the thing itself, and yet the rejection of that testimony indicates rejection of the thing itself.

Then, to make any point at all, you would need to argue that Jesus did not intend the Church to have authority.

That's incorrect; just because there is some authority that is given to individuals/the church or anything does not mean that such authority is independent of Jesus. (The nature of authority is that he who is sent is not greater than the one sending.) — To claim that the church having authority does not mean that scripture does not, indeed we can see this in our own government: just because a judge has authority does not mean that the sheriff does not… but the scope [and purpose] of their authority is limited. (Neither can, for instance, legitimately demand you pay them personally a sum of money or else.) — Or, in the military, a sergeant in charge of a gun range can physically disarm an officer for violating safety protocols.

If you prove that point, your argument about which is better is beside the point, for one is infintely good and the other is nothing at all. If on the other hand you don't prove that point, then the argument that Christ is superior to the magisterium doesn't establish anything more than my example argument about the Book of John.

Jesus is infinitely superior to John.
I can think of no Christian who would, given a choice of having the book [or even apostle] of John or having Jesus [in the physically-present sense] would choose John… precisely because Jesus is better than John. (Just like the Law and the Prophets, which testified of Jesus were rendered obsolete by the reality of Jesus because they were merely shadows of the thing-to-come: God incarnate.)