[552] in several cases, in many experiences, to be able to be trusted because, very often, what he said or demanded proved to be the right thing, theoretically or practically. Now this kind of authority is of course still a very living authority^a, and is hard to resist, but is still not an authority in principle. But it CAN BECOME an authority in principle. Here we come to the third level, the authority ^bin principle which we have for instance in Protestant biblicism, which we have in most perfect, and almost incomparably perfect, form in the Roman Catholic Church, which we have in secularized form in totalitarian movements like Nazism^c, and which we have in the paternalistic systems of family life where the authority of the father is neither that of the older man who knows more, nor of the man whom one can trust, but of the divinely established authority about everything which happens in the family. Now this last form of authority^d is the authority in principle. It can be defined in the

following way: There is somewhere in reality a place which is not only the bearer of expert knowledge or immediate experience, which is not only a place trustworthy, because of his character, but which has the quality of infallibility for those who belong to the group of which he is the ultimate representative and authority. This authority in principle, as I would say, religiously speaking, has demonic character. Why? Because here one place beside all other places is singled out to have ultimacy, because authority in principle (or INFALLIBLE authority, which is the same) is the identification of this place with God Himself. Therefore the real problem of authority is this ultimate authority, the place which is identical with the ultimate itself.