Roma Locuta; Causa finita est? : Om sanningsvisshet i den romersk-katolska kyrkan

Sammanfattning

This study explores whether doctrinal certainty can be achieved through submission to the pope's and the magisterium's authority in the Roman catholic church. The primary question addresses whether the church’s claims to infallibility and authority provide a reliable foundation for truth. The investigation is guided by three sub-questions: the reasonableness of believing in papal infallibility, the extent to which catholics can trust their interpretations of papal declarations, and the compatibility of the church’s structure with Linda Zagzebski’s theory of legitimate religious authority.The study employs Zagzebski’s Justification of Religious Authority thesis (JRA) alongside Thomson’s argument analysis model to evaluate the church’s claims of infallibility, apostolic succession, and interpretative authority as formalized in Vatican I and Vatican II. Central to the analysis is whether these claims withstand scrutiny from exegetical, historical, and philosophical perspectives.Findings suggest that the church’s theological and historical foundations for papal infallibility and apostolic succession are less robust than often portrayed. Modern biblical commentary and patristic consensus do not universally support the Roman catholic interpretation of key scriptural passages, such as Matthew 16:18–19 and John 21:15–17. Furthermore, the burden of interpreting a larger body of infallible declarations paradoxically increases epistemic uncertainty for Catholics. The study concludes that the Roman catholic church does not adequately meet Zagzebski’s criteria for a legitimate religious authority, as its structure and claims do not sufficiently guarantee doctrinal certainty. Consequently, the church’s authority is called into question, challenging its capacity to provide a unique resolution to the epistemic problems posed by interpretative pluralism.