The Authority of the Roman Catholic Church is in doubt


This post was taken from a thread entitled “A Fundamentalist Answer to a Fundamentalist Question”

Are you saying that the the historical Jesus is a “myth” (not factual) created to control societies?


I thought that no serious atheists and agnostics unless they are called Chris (oh the irony) Hitchens believe in that the historicity of Jesus is beyond doubt.


Without a fundamental basis to conclude that Jesus ever existed, the Authority of the Roman Catholic Church is in doubt.

What a bizarre claim! It is, of course, all of Christianity that would then be in doubt, not simply the Authority of the Catholic Church. Sheesh!


Well Duh?! If Jesus never rose from the dead (let alone never existed) we might as well hang up our cleats and go home. This was St. Paul’s opinion. But then, if He never even existed how did Christianity (the Catholic Church) get started and take hold in the ancient world against so much opposition and such insurmountable odds? It would be stranger than fiction if He never even existed!
But in discussions like this I always fall back on the logical proofs of the existance of a God of some kind, and the general agreement that God (however one imagines Him) must be all good and all powerful. With that minimum established in most people’s minds…it is almost certain that the Catholic Church is the true church - for God would be at the least irresponsible to allow it to succeed and last and claim to be the one true church for so long and be believed by so many billions - if it was not in fact true. That’s my opinion anyway.


Laudatur Iesus Christus.

I do not understand the distinction. What is “Christiantity” that does not depend on the authority of the Catholic Church?

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner


Mark 1:17 Jesus called out to them, “Come, be MY disciples,


Laudatur Iesus Christus.

What makes you think that Jesus said that, besides having it on the authority of the Catholic Church?

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner


Mark 1:17 Jesus called out to them, “Come, be MY disciples,

Is Jesus subject to the authority of the RCC?


At one time, there was one (Church). Now there are many. Why is it not apparent to those who are one of the many, that there is now something wrong?


2 Peter 2:1 there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies


Insightful question. The answer depends entirely on whether the person asking is a Catholic or non-Catholic Christian.


I think you can look into the Jewish historian Jocephus
to find more info on our Lord and Savior
God Bless.


You got it, and they’ve been trying it since the beginning. From Simon Magus mentioned in Acts chapter 8 to the reformers themselves, people have been coming after the Church Jesus founded. Good thing He said He would lead it into all truth and the gates of hades would not prevail against it.


Laudatur Iesus Christus.

That is not a fair response to my question; nevertheless:

Jesus is the authority of the Catholic Church. Jesus is, in fact and deed, “subject” to His own authority. This makes Him subject to the Head of the Catholic Church, and in turn the Popes, Bishops, priests, and all members of the Church are subject to that same authority, in their proper places. In this way, all members of the Church are subject to Christ, to the Father, and to the Holy Spirit.

Given this prologue, my answer is “Yes; Jesus as its Head is subject to the authority of the Catholic Church, but this does not make Him subject to the Pope, Bishops, or other subordinate members of the Church.”

The fact which I meant to highlight, however, was that it is by Christ’s authority that the words of Jesus have been taught by the Catholic Church. It is that very authority which gives us the ability to read the translated quotation to which you referred. We know what Jesus said during His public ministry precisely because of the authority of the Catholic Church – that is by the authority of Christ acting in the history of the world since His Ascension.

Through this very authority, Jesus has called us to be His disciples. After all, to be a disciple is to be a *student *subject to discipline and instruction. The Catholic Church is the provision Christ has made for teachers to exercise His discipline, by His authority. It is through this authority of the Church that anyone who today strives to know and follow Christ has access to His earthly words, teachings, and example.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner


2 Peter 2:1 there will be false teachers AMONG you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies

Is Jesus subject to the authority of the RCC?

**1 Corinthians 15:28 Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. **


Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear Undefined:

You will have to be a little more expressive for me to make out your meaning. Are you suggesting that Jesus is not subject to Himself – that He lacks chastity or temperance? The Agony in the Garden, indeed the entire Passion, demonstrates His self-mastery.

St. Paul is correct, of course, that the Holy Trinity has not been made subject to Christ, but this does not seem relevant to Christ’s self-mastery or His headship of the Catholic Church.

Pax Christi tecum.

John Hiner


**Do I detect a mixed message? **


Laudatur Iesus Christus.

Dear Undefined:

The truth and the message are both subtle and multifaceted. Does that seem “mixed” to you?

Again, more words would make it easier to discern what you are trying to say.

Pax Christi tecum.

John Hiner


guanophore . . . I do appreciate you starting a new thread to examine this question.

I’m asking the question, ‘what is the proof that Jesus every existed?’

With no historical record of Jesus existence, then the Authority of the Roman Catholic Church is in doubt.


Thank you for staying on topic . . .

Allow me to supply a starting point to compile a list of historians.

1 Josephus


2 Cornelius Tacitus
3 Lucian of Samosata
4 Suetonius
5 Pliny the Younger

Regretfully, the word Chrestus is a reference to a title not a name.

“A short note on the name ‘Chrestus’: From the examination of the Greek for Chrestus and Christos I have observed that the former is a common slave name which has the basic meaning of ‘good’ and the latter derived from the rare Greek word (rare or just closest?) ‘to anoint’ and thus Christos is the best match for the Aramaic word ‘messiah’ - which also, essentially means ‘anointed one’ with the Jewish associations of king, etc. What may be important is that while both names basically mean something different from each other they are, I have read, phonetically the same.”

  • Mark Carlin

“‘Chrestus’ is the correct Latin form of a very common Greek name and is not a misspelling, but some scholars believe that Seutonius meant to use ‘Christos’ instead. One problem with this (if indeed Seutonius was referring to Christ) is that the context of the passage suggests that someone named Chrestus was living in Rome at the time, a century after Jesus. Kee and Wells get around this problem by assuming that Seutonius was referring to Christian preachers who were announcing that the Messiah in Jesus was coming. Kee (Jesus in History) also adds that Suetonius may have had his dates confused and was instead referring to the actual disturbances that occurred during the reign of Tiberius (14-37 CE). Wells (The Jesus of the Early Christians) is not as generous and sticks closer to the known in that ‘Chrestus’ was probably an agitator who emerged from the Roman ghetto proclaiming himself as the Messiah. Messianic fervor ran high during the time of the fall of Jerusalem (70 CE) and this is a highly likely explanation. In any case, it is very difficult to construe from Suetonius anything that even remotely speaks to the historicity of Jesus.”

  • James Still, “Biblical and Extrabiblical Sources for Jesus”

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit