Are we absolutely sure that Catholicism is true?

[MarcoPolo]

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.

For the sake of argument, let’s say that it’s not “provable,” but that Christianity remains the “best explanation of reality.” Not only that, I would submit that the Christian worldview is not only “best,” but coherent. And I would submit there is no superior worldview. I recently did a book review related to this called How to Talk to a Skeptic. If that is the case, what would prevent the skeptic, therefore, from not embracing the best, coherent explanation (which includes creation, morality, the historical events of Christ, etc)? In order to reject Christianity in favor of an unknown superior view, one would at a minimum, need to point out “flaws” in Christian thought.

 

[SMA_12]

Are we absolutely sure Catholicism is true?

I am.

The martyrs were to point of suffering and dying for it.

I pray that I would have such courage.

 

[fhansen]

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.

We have to acknowledge and admit to our own human weaknesses and limitations in knowing anything with certainty about the supernatural world or the afterlife. We believe through the gift of faith, without which it would be impossible to believe in the truths the Church proposes to us, even as there are many decent arguments for the existence of God, for example, based on reason.

 

[wcknight]

IF Muslims and others have some verifiable miracle workers, who are they ???

Just name a few so we can compare if they are anything worth looking into.

We hear about many frauds and want a bes but are there some real deals out there in a league with any of the more famous Catholic saints?

Maybe it’s time to have another contest of prophets like Elijah against the Baalist priests, each making an altar and God showing who He really accepts as His representative.
IF you haven’t read the story… The Baalists danced for hours naked and nothing happened…Elijah pours water on his altar and offering, prayed and a bolt of lightning consumed his holocast… It must have been quite a scene!

 

[Blood_Angel]

Big question.
I mean there’s Buddhism which is a good religion but then some might say it’s more of a philosophy or lifestyle but then there’s Hinduism which might even be older than Christianity maybe? I’m not sure about that one.

 

[Lapey]

I’m very sorry. Frequently folks on this forum will bring up the fact that I’m still Episcopalian as a way of attacking my ideas when it really isn’t relevant to what is being discussed. I misunderstood you and I apologize.

Edwin

I would not do that with you. I have come to respect your knowledge and the diversity of perspectives you bring to these discussions. I can remember quite a few conversations you and I had while I was in formation some years back and I know you are very well educated and very wise where it comes to religious matters and life in general.

Apology accepted and no harm done!

 

[Lapey]

Are you are saying that if the CC does something that you deem inappropriate then you would no longer believe that it is the one true church and find another religion?

If that is so then how is it that different from many former Catholics who left the church when they felt neglected and marginalized, let’s say for example, gay Catholics and divorced Catholics?

I am sorry if you didn’t see what I wrote clearly as I thought it was. My meaning is this, if the Church changed its teaching on these issues, it would show that she is not the true Church and I would then be in a search.

The people you speak of left not because the Church changed its views, but because She did NOT change Her views. The teachings in which you question me on are God’s teachings shared by Christ in the gospels, they cannot be changed. Divorce and remarriage is adultery and that cannot change; if it were to change it would not be truth anymore. The same is true with homosexual acts.

Just because a group of people do not accept what is truth and society does, truth is not changed. If I cheat on my wife because I follow the natural temptations I have towards other women, does that mean since so many men fall to this sin that it is now right and therefore okay to partake? Please let me know the day that happens because I suffer from severe opposite sex attraction!

Clear now?

 

[Contarini]

Big question.
I mean there’s Buddhism which is a good religion but then some might say it’s more of a philosophy or lifestyle but then there’s Hinduism which might even be older than Christianity maybe? I’m not sure about that one.

This is one reason why I find language like “absolutely sure” misguided. Truth is absolute. Our perception of it never is.

Both Buddhism and Hinduism are older than Christianity. In a sense that actually gives Christians a way of explaining them: the Indian religions are, like Greek philosophy, examples of human beings seeking the truth in the absence of the revelation found in Jesus. It took the Church a long time to sort through what was true in Greek philosophy, and it will probably take much longer with regard to Eastern philosophy. Indeed, I suspect that neither enterprise will ever really be finished.

Edwin

 

[frobert]

I am sorry if you didn’t see what I wrote clearly as I thought it was. My meaning is this, if the Church changed its teaching on these issues, it would show that she is not the true Church and I would then be in a search.

The people you speak of left not because the Church changed its views, but because She did NOT change Her views. The teachings in which you question me on are God’s teachings shared by Christ in the gospels, they cannot be changed. Divorce and remarriage is adultery and that cannot change; if it were to change it would not be truth anymore. The same is true with homosexual acts.

Just because a group of people do not accept what is truth and society does, truth is not changed. If I cheat on my wife because I follow the natural temptations I have towards other women, does that mean since so many men fall to this sin that it is now right and therefore okay to partake? Please let me know the day that happens because I suffer from severe opposite sex attraction!

Clear now?

Thank you for your clarification.

Personally, I am not as sure as you that the CC has not changed its doctrines over time and will do so again the future.

An example of a dogma, defined by several popes and several councils, that has been claimed by many to have changed over time:

Original:
“Outside the Church there is no salvation, thus membership in the Church is necessary.” (Adam S. Miller, The Final Word, Tower of David Publications:Gaithersburg (1997), p. 16)

Updated version:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc. - Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 244 w/Imprimi Potest of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

I am not an expert, I am an ordinary person seeking to understand and find what appear to be contradictions. I think I can say with certainty that one can dismiss these contradictions but only with several layers of complex reasoning not easily understood by ordinary folk like myself.

From this thread I have remembered something that I thought about many years ago. There are or can be three parts to faith:

1. Faith in God.
2. Faith in a religion, I.e. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.
3. Faith in a particular sect of a religion, i.e. Catholicism, Sufism, Zen, etc.

The CC attempts to tie the three faiths into one neat package.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

These two videos provide good information.
First short, second long.
youtube.com/watch?v=MZ5tEzXxSvs
youtube.com/watch?v=Q_KUe-DdhAA

 

[Della]

Thank you for your clarification.

Personally, I am not as sure as you that the CC has not changed its doctrines over time and will do so again the future.

An example of a dogma, defined by several popes and several councils, that has been claimed by many to have changed over time:

Original:
“Outside the Church there is no salvation, thus membership in the Church is necessary.” (Adam S. Miller, The Final Word, Tower of David Publications:Gaithersburg (1997), p. 16)

Updated version:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc. - Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 244 w/Imprimi Potest of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

I am not an expert, I am an ordinary person seeking to understand and find what appear to be contradictions. I think I can say with certainty that one can dismiss these contradictions but only with several layers of complex reasoning not easily understood by ordinary folk like myself.

Your first quotation isn’t Church teaching about non-Christians but is, I would surmise without having read the whole of the author’s writings, a summation from a Church document written about and to formal heretics.

A formal heretic is a very different sort of person than one who has never heard the Gospel, which is what the paragraph from the CCC is discussing. So, you see, the Church has not changed it’s teachings because one who is a formal heretic has placed himself outside the Church, but one who has never heard of Christ has not/could not do that, and so cannot be guilty of heresy.

Christ’s redemptive act covered all humanity, which is why we, who are mostly Gentiles, may be saved in him, as St. Paul taught us. This means that salvation is open to all through Christ’s redemption. It’s really that simple and that profound.

From this thread I have remembered something that I thought about many years ago. There are or can be three parts to faith:

1. Faith in God.
2. Faith in a religion, I.e. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.
3. Faith in a particular sect of a religion, i.e. Catholicism, Sufism, Zen, etc.

The CC attempts to tie the three faiths into one neat package.

Rather, it might be better to say that the Church embodies all three aspects because it is what is claims to be–the Body of Christ, Christ who is the Son of God and the Son of man, the Head of the Church, who is one with the Father and the Holy Spirit–the only true God.

 

[Lapey]

Thank you for your clarification.

Personally, I am not as sure as you that the CC has not changed its doctrines over time and will do so again the future.

An example of a dogma, defined by several popes and several councils, that has been claimed by many to have changed over time:

Original:
“Outside the Church there is no salvation, thus membership in the Church is necessary.” (Adam S. Miller, The Final Word, Tower of David Publications:Gaithersburg (1997), p. 16)

Updated version:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc. - Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 244 w/Imprimi Potest of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

I am not an expert, I am an ordinary person seeking to understand and find what appear to be contradictions. I think I can say with certainty that one can dismiss these contradictions but only with several layers of complex reasoning not easily understood by ordinary folk like myself.

From this thread I have remembered something that I thought about many years ago. There are or can be three parts to faith:

1. Faith in God.
2. Faith in a religion, I.e. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc.
3. Faith in a particular sect of a religion, i.e. Catholicism, Sufism, Zen, etc.

The CC attempts to tie the three faiths into one neat package.

Dogma does not reverse course! Dogma will always be dogma and cannot be changed. Our understanding of it can evolve.

The example you bring up has not changed, our understanding of it has. There is no salvation outside of the Church. That still holds true today as yesterday and will be truth tomorrow. Our understanding of what that means has evolved to understand that the entire human race is “the catholic church” which is our choice to accept or reject. In so doing we accept or reject Jesus who is Head. If a person is never taught of Jesus, how can he reject Him? Therefore can “achieve” salvation by the Grace of God. To understand this more read the canons of the Council of Trent; I assure you these teachings of Trent are still completely in affect today.

There has been no change in dogma, on the other hand discipline has and will continue to change.

My point was simply if the Catholic Church chooses by man’s decisions to reject Jesus’ teachings, like no divorce and remarriage, then something is severely wrong or missing. That is all.

 

[frobert]

A formal heretic is a very different sort of person than one who has never heard the Gospel, which is what the paragraph from the CCC is discussing. So, you see, the Church has not changed it’s teachings because one who is a formal heretic has placed himself outside the Church, but one who has never heard of Christ has not/could not do that, and so cannot be guilty of heresy.

Just as I had predicted that there would be attempts to dismiss the contradictions with an addition layer of reasoning. The 800 pound elephant in the room though is that the vast majority of ordinary folk, Catholics as well as non Catholics would not know of the nuances or if they did not comprehend them.

I strive to simplify my life. I am a practicing catholic, I wasnt always and in the time I was not I believed living a good life by doing what you could to help the less fortunate is enough in the eyes of god–whatever religion you were. Since my return to the CC I still believe that but being a practicing catholic allows me to worship within a spiritual community.

 

[Della]

Just as I had predicted that there would be attempts to dismiss the contradictions with an addition layer of reasoning. The 800 pound elephant in the room though is that the vast majority of ordinary folk, Catholics as well as non Catholics would not know of the nuances or if they did not comprehend them.

I guarantee you that most ordinary folk haven’t the least notion what the term “no salvation outside the Church” means, nor many other such terms. We need to understand what it means and what it doesn’t mean. That’s not an attempt to dismiss supposed contradictions (which don’t exist) but to make it clear what it refers to and, probably more importantly, what it doesn’t.

I strive to simplify my life. I am a practicing catholic, I wasnt always and in the time I was not I believed living a good life by doing what you could to help the less fortunate is enough in the eyes of god–whatever religion you were. Since my return to the CC I still believe that but being a practicing catholic allows me to worship within a spiritual community.

Well, I wouldn’t state it as “living a good life in God’s eyes is enough” and neither does the Church. What the Church states is we must cooperate with the graces God gives us in order to please him. And, since this is the case, the more grace one has received the more one is responsible for it before God.

Those who have never heard the Gospel or about Our Lord, have been endowed with enough grace to be saved if they cooperate with that grace. Again, this is the work of Christ’s redemption and has nothing to do with our human efforts, which is makes it God’s free gift to us. God is not unjust. He doesn’t expect us to answer for what we could not know.

Those who deliberately reject God’s grace are the ones who are in danger of damnation. God grace comes in many forms. This is because we aren’t being examined like bugs in a lab, but rather we are being loved by Our Father, who wishes to help us all he can so we can be saved, and so be happy with him forever.

Our job is to evangelize so that everyone everywhere will have full access to all the graces God has given us through his Church, which is why those who deliberately set themselves outside it are in danger of damnation far more than the dear soul who never heard of Christ but cooperates with the graces God has given him.

 

[TarkanAttila]

Absolutely? I don’t think so. There are many gaps where an agnostic or an atheist might choose to hide himself.

But I like Peter Plato’s post, wherein he says you must take all the evidence into account - Scripture, the Tradition of the Church, the Magisterium, and personal experience. I would add to that just the sheer course of history that the Church and the people Israel have swum in. Again, there are gaps and uncertainties.

For example, there is no evidence the Israelites were ever in Egypt during the time the Exodus occurred. However, given the Israelites became nomads, and likely embarrassed the Egyptians by their leaving, it’s feasible to believe the Israelites left no evidence.

Similar situations have occurred; consider, for example, the Scythians, a nomadic race who lived in northeastern Eurasia. They only left two pieces of evidence for their existence: burial mounds called kurgans (and the contents of these), and the words of Herodotus and Strabo. Or consider the empire of the Hittites, of whom no evidence existed save the Old Testament, until the latter part of the 1800s.

The New Testament is the best preserved book in ancient history. There are no comparably preserved books, with hundreds of copies and fragments thereof, dating not even a century from their original writing date. (There is a fragment from John’s Gospel found in 1935 which dates to 120 AD; many people would date John’s gospel to being originally written around 90 or 100 AD.) We have very little reason to dispute the texts as we have them, compared to similar texts written around the same time.

Does that mean it is not myth, or not partially? No. I still find the contradiction between the Nativity of Matthew and that of Luke confusing. The chronology of the Gospels is also weird at times; I’m not sure we need to believe the events in each Gospel all happened in the order they are written.

But other things, like the depth of the personalities of characters (such as Herod and his wife) involved - which you don’t find in myths - verifiable historical references (verified by historians such as Josephus, or Philo), embarrassing details like the cowardice of the Apostles or women finding the empty tomb first, not to mention you have to explain that empty tomb as well as eleven men seeing a man all at the same time, on several occasions, eating food - all these things seem to,erm, “triangulate” on being just a bit too real to be a mere apologetic.

Are apologetics part of the New Testament? I think surely. And again someone can hide in that fact and say they don’t believe the NT because it is an apologetic. It’s made to make you think Jesus rose. What did you expect? Would you really expect a Greek pagan, very convinced of the reality of Zeus and all the gods, to profess belief in the Resurrection of a man who claimed to be the only God, and to still remain a pagan? Of course it is a controversial issue. If you believe, it changes your entire world. The Christian faith is no trivial matter. It is a matter of life and death.

So if people choose not to believe, I think it is because they believe too much is at stake, and they’re not willing to pony up. I think - I am not sure - I believe, because I believe too much is at stake if we do not follow the evidence and have faith, even if the evidence is not satisfying. You threaten not only society, civilisation, families, and even the meaning of life by throwing away Christ. But you, even further, throw good and evil to the wind.

 

[Auntie_A]

I wonder if there is a difference between what you call ‘certitude’ and faith. As Catholics we accept what the church teaching on faith, in effect we are certain because of our faith. I believe that this can become a crisis of faith when a church tells us that if you have doubt you have lost your faith.

I often respond to those who are hostile to doubters: Why was Thomas, the apostle allowed to doubt, and not be kicked out? No, Jesus let him touch the wounds, then He leaves a big present for us (any believer who comes to Christ after He left us) when He says Blessed are they who believe and do not see. It’s not that doubting is grounds for censure but that a true blind faith is greater.

 

[Auntie_A]

But other things, like the depth of the personalities of characters (such as Herod and his wife) involved - which you don’t find in myths - verifiable historical references (verified by historians such as Josephus, or Philo), embarrassing details like the cowardice of the Apostles or women finding the empty tomb first, not to mention you have to explain that empty tomb as well as eleven men seeing a man all at the same time, on several occasions, eating food - all these things seem to,erm, “triangulate” on being just a bit too real to be a mere apologetic. QUOTE]

I love this. I have often been drawn to true stories because they just ring true. The story of Christ from OT to NT is filled with the best nuggets of gritty realism, irony, history, human nature, and God’s nature.

 

[CatholicSoxFan]

I often respond to those who are hostile to doubters: Why was Thomas, the apostle allowed to doubt, and not be kicked out? No, Jesus let him touch the wounds, then He leaves a big present for us (any believer who comes to Christ after He left us) when He says Blessed are they who believe and do not see. It’s not that doubting is grounds for censure but that a true blind faith is greater.

Notice how Christ said “Blessed are those who believe and do not see”, rather than, “Blessed are thise who believe without reason.” I don’t know if you were referring to what is usually called “blind faith”, but if you are, that verse supports the common definition that faith is believing without direct proof from your senses (or believing something that hasn’t been realized), and not what is usually called “blind faith”, or, belief without any reason at all.

 

[frobert]

I guarantee you that most ordinary folk haven’t the least notion what the term “no salvation outside the Church” means, nor many other such terms. We need to understand what it means and what it doesn’t mean. That’s not an attempt to dismiss supposed contradictions (which don’t exist) but to make it clear what it refers to and, probably more importantly, what it doesn’t.

I think it is how someone views the alleged contradictions and the complexity of the rational for them which leaves much room for debate. I doubt the CC would agree because it, and I believe to its detriment, does not allow debate by laymen or even much of the clergy.

Our job is to evangelize so that everyone everywhere will have full access to all the graces God has given us through his Church, which is why those who deliberately set themselves outside it are in danger of damnation far more than the dear soul who never heard of Christ but cooperates with the graces God has given him.

I believe that evangelization is best done by good example. We need to follow Pope Francis’s example.

 

[Della]

I think it is how someone views the alleged contradictions and the complexity of the rational for them which leaves much room for debate. I doubt the CC would agree because it, and I believe to its detriment, does not allow debate by laymen or even much of the clergy.

You’re wrong that the Church doesn’t allow debate. That’s just what theologians do–debate what is and what isn’t sound teaching. I’m afraid you don’t know enough about this teaching to say that it is contradictory. There are many examples from Scripture that God saves whom he pleases outside any covenant he has made with mankind, from both the OT and the NT. This is not a “new” teaching.

As I explained before, the teaching that there is no salvation outside the Church comes from the time of the reformation–when thousands of people were being led out of the Church by formal heretics. That is what it was meant to address, not the whole question of who may be saved.

I believe that evangelization is best done by good example. We need to follow Pope Francis’s example.

I agree it’s certainly quite effective and definitely ought to be practiced. :yup: It’s not the only way, of course, or no one would be coming to CAF with questions.