Are we absolutely sure that Catholicism is true?

[CatholicSoxFan]

There is no reason to believe reason is natural! And the highest form of knowledge is love which is supernatural.

CCC50 says that, “By natural reason man can know God with certainty”

 

[jochoa]

Okay, so if natural reason can know God with certainty, what arguments could we use that would arrive at the conclusion that God exists with certainty? This is very confusing to me, because every single argument that has ever been devised for anything has a way out- deny one of the premises. If any argument that could possibly be devised has a way out, then how can natural reason know God with certainty?

Thank you very much for embracing further discussion with me! I am really enjoying reflecting on the questions!

You are correct in that one could easily deny any premise, and thus personally forfeit the ability to know God. Therefore we should not attempt to argue with them. Instead, we should focus on how to share the opportunity of knowing God with others.

You are also correct in that arguments with ways out are incapable of knowing God with certainty, therefore focus on declarations that personally have no way out.

For example:
Although I can deceitfully perceive a way out of “every living being has needs and/or wants,” I cannot righteously perceive a way out of: “every living being has needs and/or wants.” Any example of life you present to me will either have needs and/or wants. Do you know of any living being that does not have needs and/or wants?

And as an extension, I propose that if you resolve the greatest creation possible, or the greatest being possible, as mentioned in my earlier post, you, and me will eventually arrive at semantically the same being. In order to test this, let’s propose ideas until we can no longer think of a greater being:
My understanding of the greatest creation/being can be stated as:
An infinite amount of eternally true friends (beings equal in capability and morality), where every friend gets everything needed and an unlimited number of wants fulfilled for the experience of unbreakable peace with unending joy for all.

Once we resolve the greatest creation possible, we can then begin resolving the rules for the greatest creation. Once we resolve the rules, then we can resolve the what must happen in order to fulfill this creation. Since the greatest being is equally applicable for you and me, the rules and the what must happen have no way out, they will be universally applicable to you, me and any other rational being.

Once again, I tremendously appreciate your time, consideration, and perspective for you are greatly helping me grow in understaning!

 

[oldcelt]

As I’m sure has been pointed out, it is a rather long thread, the answer to this question depends on the person. If a person believes that the Catholic Church is absolutely true that should be respected.

 

[tonyrey]

CCC50 says that, “By natural reason man can know God with certainty”

The Catechism doesn’t state - or even imply - that reason has a natural origin. Being created in the image and likeness of God implies that, unlike animals, we have supernatural powers…

 

[tcjjmcf]

To accept any one thing on blind faith is to potentially accept any thing on blind faith. It subjugates reason and abrogates the exercise of our free will. We are obliged to examine our inherited beliefs and embrace those truths that are most consistent with reason and the highest moral standards.

Fortunately, a proper foundation can be arrived at through pure reason, i.e., the existence of God, that there is purpose in life, and that there are guides to show us how best to live our lives. However, pure reason can only take us so far, but it is still reasonable to believe some dogma because they are a direct consequence of what we know to be true, and it would not be irrational to even accept full blown mysteries, e.g., the Trinity, given they are embraced by a system of beliefs that is wholly consistent with truth and goodness.

I would humbly suggest one pursue the following rational and spiritual path:

1. Establish the existence of God based on the law of causality and/or intelligent design (reason).
2. Develop some insights as to the nature of God, i.e., He is, of necessity, infinite in all things (pure logic).
3. Since God is infinitely rational, He acts with purpose, thus there is purpose in His creation. This means that God in creating man, His highest form of creation, He would have assigned man a purpose, from this we can concluded life has meaning (logic).
4. God is infinitely just and as such would not create man with a purpose and not provide guides as to what that purpose was to be. The most obvious guide are the laws of nature including human nature. God also imbued man with a moral conscience (fact).
5. With such a solid rational foundation, it is not unreasonable to accept Holy Scripture as yet another set of guides from the Almighty to clearly inform early man his prescribed path (reasonable leap of faith).
6. The clearest guide of all has been provided by the advent of Jesus Christ. There is no questioning the fact of the historical Christ and there is no questioning his living example of love and goodness which all good men would hope to emulate.
7. Here is where we come to the big leap of faith, is Jesus Christ the Son of God? Given all the above, the prophecies from Scripture, the thousands of eye witness accounts of his many miracles, the hundreds of eye-witnesses to his presence after his crucifixion, the refusal of each one of His apostles to recant their beliefs even when it would spare them excruciating torture and death, it would seem more than reasonable to accept that Jesus is indeed the Son of God.
8. Christ’s own words told us why He chose to chose to become man and if we believe in the divine Christ, we can easily believe in our salvation through Him. At this point in one’s thinking (and believing), it is easy enough to accept those mysteries that do require a complete leap of faith, e.g., the Trinity.
9. There is one mystery that is not so hard to accept and that is the establishment of His Church as the mystical body of Christ. Just as an infinitely just God would not allow man to wander throughout life without a clear path to follow, so Christ would not abandon mankind to battle temptations on their own and to be challenged by the many threats to one’s salvation without making His voice available for all men for for all time which is the Church.

One cannot go down this path and not conclude that Catholicism is the one true faith.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

One cannot go down this path and not conclude that Catholicism is the one true faith.

I think certainty is of two types: the certainty of the head and the certainty of the heart. If we have only the certainty of the head, I think we will always be assailed by doubts. But if we are fully engaged in the embrace of God, I do not see how we can have doubts even in the presence of the great mysteries of faith. This I think is what happened to Thomas Aquinas near the end of his life. He had so fully embraced our Lord that all the prodigious work produced by his great intellect seemed as “straw” compared to a mystical experience he had recently had.

As he is reported to have said shortly before his death:

“Thee have I preached; Thee have I taught. Never have I said anything against Thee. If anything was not well said, that is to be attributed to my ignorance. Neither do I wish to be obstinate in my opinions, but if I have written anything erroneous … I submit all to the judgment and correction of the Holy Roman Church, in whose obedience I now pass from this life.”

There are many Catholic theologians who could stand to learn a lesson from those remarks.

 

[tonyrey]

The Catechism doesn’t state - or even imply - that reason has a natural origin. Being created in the image and likeness of God implies that, unlike animals, we have supernatural powers…

In this context “natural” obviously refers to human nature because animals do not have the power of abstract reasoning, cannot establish moral principles of conduct and cannot choose what to believe or how to live.

 

[tcjjmcf]

I think certainty is of two types: the certainty of the head and the certainty of the heart. If we have only the certainty of the head, I think we will always be assailed by doubts. But if we are fully engaged in the embrace of God, I do not see how we can have doubts even in the presence of the great mysteries of faith. **Charlemagne III ****

References to the “heart” have always made me uncomfortable since it is never clear whether one is referring to values or emotion or both. It is my understanding that ‘both’ would be the most accurate reference since one’s emotions are predicated on one’s values. If you change your values, you will generate different emotions, either quantitatively or qualitatively. The intellectual exercise I listed above leaves one dry and cold. It is only when one is convinced of the truth of these discoveries and truly commits to these beliefs that such values become established in one’s ‘heart’. This brings a flood of emotions yielding a much richer experience than the intellectual search that got you there.**

 

[tonyrey]

I think certainty is of two types: the certainty of the head and the certainty of the heart. If we have only the certainty of the head, I think we will always be assailed by doubts. But if we are fully engaged in the embrace of God, I do not see how we can have doubts even in the presence of the great mysteries of faith. **Charlemagne III

References to the “heart” have always made me uncomfortable since it is never clear whether one is referring to values or emotion or both. It is my understanding that ‘both’ would be the most accurate reference since one’s emotions are predicated on one’s values. If you change your values, you will generate different emotions, either quantitatively or qualitatively. The intellectual exercise I listed above leaves one dry and cold. It is only when one is convinced of the truth of these discoveries and truly commits to these beliefs that such values become established in one’s ‘heart’. This brings a flood of emotions yielding a much richer experience than the intellectual search that got you there.**
Welcome to the forum! You have already proved your worth.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

References to the “heart” have always made me uncomfortable since it is never clear whether one is referring to values or emotion or both. It is my understanding that ‘both’ would be the most accurate reference since one’s emotions are predicated on one’s values. If you change your values, you will generate different emotions, either quantitatively or qualitatively. The intellectual exercise I listed above leaves one dry and cold. It is only when one is convinced of the truth of these discoveries and truly commits to these beliefs that such values become established in one’s ‘heart’. This brings a flood of emotions yielding a much richer experience than the intellectual search that got you there.

The reference to the heart is generally a reference to our willingness to believe, to be open to the grace of God, rather than deliberately closed to it.

Welcome to the forum.

 

[williamsm917]

I was having a conversation with someone that was about whether or not I would have converted to Christianity if I was born into Islam, for example. I said that I would have if I would have been able to (and willing to) searched for the truth wherever it lead me. He then asked me, “So, you’re saying that you know for a fact that Christianity is true?” Which makes me wonder about the Church’s stance on it. If the Church does say that we know for a fact that Christianity is true (which I think it does, but if I’m wrong about that, tell me), then how do we respond to a non-Christian who asks us how we know that with absolute certainty? After all, a lot of the arguments I’ve heard mention that Christianity is the best explanation of the facts, which would imply that it is epistemically possible that Christianity is false.

If Christianity is wrong, I would not wish to be right. Your friend may be agnostic, everyone will see the truth of Christ on the day of reckoning. If you believe in him, he will save you. It is best said in John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

I have also heard the comparison of the faith to a swimming pool. Throughout our lives we will fluctuate between the deep end (absolute faith) and the shallow end (questioning our faith).

It is our jobs as followers of Christ to bear his light to the world. If you want more proof, go to mass. That is the body,blood,soul, and divinity of Christ before you.

God Bless!

 

[Contarini]

According to CCC#50, the Church knows that is possible to be absolutely sure that Catholicism is the Truth.

No–if anything it says the opposite. It says that we can know the existence of God with certainty (doesn’t use the word “absolute,” if we want to be picky) by reason along, but cannot attain to the knowledge of revelation itself by our natural powers.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

As I’m sure has been pointed out, it is a rather long thread, the answer to this question depends on the person. If a person believes that the Catholic Church is absolutely true that should be respected.

There’s a big difference between believing that Catholicism is absolutely true and being absolutely sure.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Its a definition. Check any of the dozens of dictionaries on the web or perhaps your own if you have one.I can understand opinion being charged but its a definition.

Right. So it’s not binding on anyone. It’s an observation of how the word is commonly used.

It’s not an accurate description of the orthodox Christian understanding of faith.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Faith has a very technical meaning, and it doesn’t mean without any evidence at all. There are numerous books out there that argue for the Existence of God in countless ways, which can all be seen as evidence for one of the central claims of Christianity ‘God exists’. You also have books that have argued for the Historicity of the Bible (or against), but this again implies that there isn’t ‘no evidence’.

Faith in the vulgar user, and faith in the theological use are two different concepts entirely.

Also, Catholics distinguish (or at least, Catholic theology and doctrine do–many Catholics on this forum are failing to do so) between belief in God and belief in Christian revelation specifically. The former is based on reason, or at least can be. The latter goes beyond reason although it isn’t opposed to it. Only the latter requires faith in the theological sense, and even this faith isn’t without evidence, just without demonstrative proof.

Edwin

 

[jochoa]

No–if anything it says the opposite. It says that we can know the existence of God with certainty (doesn’t use the word “absolute,” if we want to be picky) by reason along, but cannot attain to the knowledge of revelation itself by our natural powers.

Edwin

When I read CCC#50, “By natural reason man can know God with certainty…” I perceive it as an incomplete extension to claim that the proper interpretation is “we can know the existence of God with certainty.”

Would you please share a teaching for me to consider that directly declares, “…we can know the existence of God with certainty…”?

Thanks for extended discussion.

 

[HisCross]

Our faith is not a blind faith, for the light of Christ is bright, so overwhelmingly, He guides us completely to Himself, as He promised. God gave us our faith, He put it in us. God gave us our hearts to let Him in. His words unlock a door inside our heart, if we let Him in. The Word created us, He spoke us into being. We are of His voice, His very voice sustains us, and so those who listen to His voice will find Him within their very hearts, for the Word resides in our heart. The Word became flesh and entered His own voice, our being, and by coming to us in the most intimate way, we recognize His voice through the very hearts He has given us. We have been united with our creator in that way. He created us in His own image, we bear the likeness of God, He did this out of love. He would not abandon us to our wicked ways, he came to complete us by giving Himself completely. He brought to us the part that is not us, His divinity, eternal life and righteousness. By Christ’s righteousness we have become righteous and by His life we have inherited eternal life. By this, we are complete. We have the hope and joy of His coming, or our going. Our history and our existence would have no context or direction without the Catholic faith.

Only God can judge our hearts, but if our Hearts let Him in, then we will know who our heart belongs to, and we will long for Him, and He will come to us. Christ promised that those who love Him, will be loved by the Father and Him, and that He would come to them. Is this just a matter of faith that He comes, just a saying, or does He really come and reveal Himself? His revelation is real.

In a sense the Catholic Church has accepted the covenant fully. We have been given a gift from Christ himself, the Holy Spirit, and a Church to lead us to truth and unity in Him. So it is true that that Catholic Church contains the true faith, but it doesn’t leave out our separated brothers and sisters in Christ (the gentiles in a sense,… we are the Jews). Those who believe they are truly following what Christ taught, within the bounds of what scripture reveals without further teaching and theology, may find salvation.
Those who are a part of the Catholic Church, or are not, and believe it is truth but do not act on it, are probably in trouble.

 

[Contarini]

When I read CCC#50, “By natural reason man can know God with certainty…” I perceive it as an incomplete extension to claim that the proper interpretation is “we can know the existence of God with certainty.”

Would you please share a teaching for me to consider that directly declares, “…we can know the existence of God with certainty…”?

Thanks for extended discussion.

I’m not sure what you mean by “an incomplete extension.” If you put that affirmation in context of the teaching of St. Thomas and of Vatican I, it’s pretty clear that it’s talking about the existence of God and some of God’s basic attributes. This is also why the Church affirms (to the shock of many Catholics, apparently) that Muslims worship the true God. Any knowledge of one eternal God is a knowledge of the true God.

I can provide you with more evidence when you make it clearer just what you are questioning about my statement. What is your alternative interpretation?

Edwin

 

[jochoa]

I’m not sure what you mean by “an incomplete extension.” If you put that affirmation in context of the teaching of St. Thomas and of Vatican I, it’s pretty clear that it’s talking about the existence of God and some of God’s basic attributes. This is also why the Church affirms (to the shock of many Catholics, apparently) that Muslims worship the true God. Any knowledge of one eternal God is a knowledge of the true God.

I can provide you with more evidence when you make it clearer just what you are questioning about my statement. What is your alternative interpretation?

Edwin

From Vatican I, Session 3 Chapter 2

On revelation

1. The same Holy mother Church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things, can be known with certainty from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason

I perceive “knowing God’s existence absolutely,” as an incomplete interpretation to what is being declared from Vatican I. “The source and end of all things” seems to encompass more to me than “existence.”

Instead, I perceive “with certainty” and “absolutely” are synonymous. Therefore, one alternate interpretation is “…God, the source and end of all things, can be known absolutely from the consideration of created things, by the natural power of human reason.”

I hope this helps make clearer my perception of incompleteness of only being able to know God’s existence absolutely.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…This is also why the Church affirms (to the shock of many Catholics, apparently) that Muslims worship the true God…

It’s not all that shocking really. In a sense, Muslims do worship the same God as Christians. In another sense Muslims do not worship the same God as Christians.

Likewise, in a sense, Protestants worship the same Jesus as Catholics. While in another sense, Protestants do not worship the same Jesus as Catholics.