How does one discern the correct claim of divine revelation?

[Izon]

The CCC states the following: “By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.”

Many different religions claim they have received divine revelation. So if revelation can’t be known by our ability to reason, is there no rational way to discern which claim is true? If there isn’t, how do we discern the truth?

It’s fair to mention that I did manage to find an old article, which describes “internal” and “external” criteria for revelation to be authentic. However, it doesn’t directly apply these criteria against other major religions (let alone obscure ones); furthermore, although the article did receive a Nihil Obstat, I’m unsure if these criteria are an actual teaching of the universal, ordinary magisterium (or of the extraordinary magisterium).

 

[ChibiViolet]

Would you please post a link to this article and or tell us more about it? I would like to read it if possible.

 

[Izon]

newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm

It was actually hyperlinked with the text, “an old article,” but maybe I should’ve chosen clarity over style.

 

[oldcelt]

Aye, there’s the rub.

John

 

[Michael19682]

The CCC states the following: “By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.”

Many different religions claim they have received divine revelation. So if revelation can’t be known by our ability to reason, is there no rational way to discern which claim is true? If there isn’t, how do we discern the truth?

It’s fair to mention that I did manage to find an old article, which describes “internal” and “external” criteria for revelation to be authentic. However, it doesn’t directly apply these criteria against other major religions (let alone obscure ones); furthermore, although the article did receive a Nihil Obstat, I’m unsure if these criteria are an actual teaching of the universal, ordinary magisterium (or of the extraordinary magisterium).

I can’t read the article right now. But I have thoughts on your point about the surpassing nature of divine revelation. If it is true revelation should it not be “backed” by subsequent doings consonant with the predictions of what it should be in itself capable of? For example, until a scientist can work a solution to a problem, the solution or theory is want of revelation. If I say that this theory should enable us to do this, but it doesn’t, then the rational apparatus that led to the theory is either incorrect, or used incorrectly.
Thus, if and when we go to heaven, it will not be by our own merit, but God’s grace.
Only then do we have true proof of that component of the revelation? Healing, speaking in tongues, driving out devils and other miracles give proof of other components, but since these are accomplished with or within a mortal body, as constituent components they remain delimited by the birth and death of our bodies. Since all religions as you say claim these things, isn’t that why** the Catholic Church acknowledges and honors every thing Spiritual in all religions**? We believe simply and more profoundly than can be understood by all that Jesus can lead us mysteriously to the revelation that is universal, God’s spirit.

 

[oldcelt]

So, as I am reading thus far…it takes the word of other human beings to declare a divine revelation? I, obviously, find that hard to accept…particularly given the history attached to such revelations.

John

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The CCC states the following: Many different religions claim they have received divine revelation. So if revelation can’t be known by our ability to reason, is there no rational way to discern which claim is true? If there isn’t, how do we discern the truth?

We discern the truth by faith in the scriptures and the word of Christ that his Church would teach the truth and be foolproof against teaching heresy.

If the true Church is not foolproof against teaching heresy, then there is no guarantee of truth anywhere.

 

[teeboy]

Thomas Aquinas wrote a good treatise on how to prove God exists in the beginning of Summa Theologica. His method uses reason alone.

 

[teeboy]

The CCC states the following: “By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.”

Many different religions claim they have received divine revelation. So if revelation can’t be known by our ability to reason, is there no rational way to discern which claim is true? If there isn’t, how do we discern the truth?

It’s fair to mention that I did manage to find an old article, which describes “internal” and “external” criteria for revelation to be authentic. However, it doesn’t directly apply these criteria against other major religions (let alone obscure ones); furthermore, although the article did receive a Nihil Obstat, I’m unsure if these criteria are an actual teaching of the universal, ordinary magisterium (or of the extraordinary magisterium).

One way to help discern Truth is to understand that their is only one Truth and not more than one Truth.

 

[Izon]

Thomas Aquinas wrote a good treatise on how to prove God exists in the beginning of Summa Theologica. His method uses reason alone.

I appreciate the resource, but I’m actually not looking for proof of the existence of God. The CCC already says that we can come to know Him through reason.

I just want to know, if we can’t come to know Jesus through reason (as the CCC also says), then how is my hypothetical agnostic friend supposed to choose Him?

One way to help discern Truth is to understand that their is only one Truth and not more than one Truth.

I agree with this. But several people claim to have that Truth, and I’m looking for the common reason that Catholic apologetics gives (or better yet, the official church teaching) for why this claim is accepted above all the other claims.

We discern the truth by faith in the scriptures and the word of Christ that his Church would teach the truth and be foolproof against teaching heresy.

If the true Church is not foolproof against teaching heresy, then there is no guarantee of truth anywhere.

So what you’re saying is, the Catholic Church is the only religious body that claims it doesn’t teach heresy? Not that I, personally, doubt this claim, but I’m relatively sure most other religions make the same claim.

Thanks for the responses so far, everyone. I appreciate that people care.

 

[fred_conty]

The CCC states the following: “By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.”

Many different religions claim they have received divine revelation. So if revelation can’t be known by our ability to reason, is there no rational way to discern which claim is true? If there isn’t, how do we discern the truth?

It’s fair to mention that I did manage to find an old article, which describes “internal” and “external” criteria for revelation to be authentic. However, it doesn’t directly apply these criteria against other major religions (let alone obscure ones); furthermore, although the article did receive a Nihil Obstat, I’m unsure if these criteria are an actual teaching of the universal, ordinary magisterium (or of the extraordinary magisterium).

A number of searchers have found it looking thru history. In which are the saints whose lives were not only miraculous in themselves, but also were given to doing miracles. What other religious organization has done this? Miracles are outside the scope of man except when God intervenes and gives the person the power to do them.

So look for the miracles…not just one…not just of one type…not just a few… not just small ones…not just for one period of time…not just with 10 or 20 people… observe and see.

Some might object and say but you cannot prove they were miracles scientifically. But no religion can do that because God does it so quickly without fore-warning. But it can be seen by those who are searching openly and honestly for God because without that fairness, the search if for naught anyway. If the mind is closed then why waste the time.

Here are just a few who have performed miracles.
Alphonsus Ligurori
Joseph of Cupertino
Lydwine of Schiedam
Martin De Porres
Catherine Dei Ricci
Mary of Agreda
Francis Of Paola
Drogo
Anthony of Padua9
Peter Regalado
Francis Xavier
Francis Xavier Bianchi
Vincent Pallotti
John Edward Lamy
Paul of Moll
John Bosco
Padre Pio
Teresa of Avila
Teresa of the Child Jesus
Maria Villani of Naples
Gerard Majella
Anthony Mary Claret
Martin de Porres
Gemma Galgani
Dominic of Jesu Maria
Thomas of Cori
Mary of Jesus Crucified
Maria of the Passion
Agnes of Montepulciano
Clara of Rimini
Francis of Posadas
John Joseph of the Cross
John of St. Facond
Lutgarde of Aywieres
Lutgarde
Margaret of Metola and Castello
Dominic
Philip Neri
Flora of Beaulieu
Thomas Aquinas
Jean Marie Baptiste Vianney
Catherine of Siena
Rose of Viterbo
Rita of Cascia
Pope Benedict XIV
Polycarp
Benedict
Valery
Mary of Oignies
Hermann
Ida of Louvain
Dominica of Paradiso
Catlina de Cardona
Joan Marie of the Cross of Rovereto
Mary of the Angels
Veronica Giuliani
Paul of the Cross
Mary Frances of the Five Wounds
Marie Celine of the Presentation
Anna Maria Taigi
John of the Cross
Mary Martha Chambon
Charles of Sezze
Clare of Montefalco
Margaret Mary Alacoque
Michael of the Saints
Margaret of Citta-DI-Castello
Francis De Sales
Jane Frances DE Chantal
Ammon the Great
Seraphin of Montegranaro
Bentivoglia DE Bonis
Pere Lamy
Colette
Germaine Cousin
Martin de Porres
Peter of Alcantara
Catherine of Racconigi
Francis Solana
Raymond of Penafot
Averez of Cardova
Jane of Signa
Hyacinth
Gonsalvo of Amarante
Rita of Cascia
Gaspar del Bufalo
Joseph Benedict Cottolengo
Isidore the Farmer

Here is an amazing story.
therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Calanda.pdf

 

[Charlemagne_III]

So what you’re saying is, the Catholic Church is the only religious body that claims it doesn’t teach heresy? Not that I, personally, doubt this claim, but I’m relatively sure most other religions make the same claim.

The Catholic Church is not only the only Church that claims the charism of infallibility, but the Catholic Church is also the only Church that received this charism from the lips of God himself in the person of Jesus Christ.

If there is infallible truth anywhere in religion, it is to be found in the Catholic Church and nowhere else.

The simplest indication of this is that the Catholic Church has not broken up into thousands of sects, as Protestantism has.

As for agnostics and atheists, each is a sect unto himself. They all agree infallibly on one thing only: that the Catholic Church is Public Enemy # 1.

 

[teeboy]

Many denominations are sola scripture. However, nothing in scripture supports sola scripture.

 

[Izon]

Many denominations are sola scripture. However, nothing in scripture supports sola scripture.

True, but I don’t think Charlemagne was talking about that element of Protestantism.

I should make it especially clear to everyone, I’m not looking for information on Catholicism vs. Protestantism, or on Theism vs. Atheism. I’m just looking for information (ideally, cited Church documents) specifically in regards to choosing Christianity over other Abrahamic religions, Eastern religions, and any other obscure belief that claims to hold true divine revelation.

The Catechism, as far as I can tell, says we can’t choose Christianity through reason. So I’m trying to figure out how, according to the Church, one IS expected to do that.

 

[teeboy]

True, but I don’t think Charlemagne was talking about that element of Protestantism.

I should make it especially clear to everyone, I’m not looking for information on Catholicism vs. Protestantism, or on Theism vs. Atheism. I’m just looking for information (ideally, cited Church documents) specifically in regards to choosing Christianity over other Abrahamic religions, Eastern religions, and any other obscure belief that claims to hold true divine revelation.

The Catechism, as far as I can tell, says we can’t choose Christianity through reason. So I’m trying to figure out how, according to the Church, one IS expected to do that.

Without Faith, I doubt you can reason your way to Jesus Christ.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The CCC states the following: “By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works. But there is another order of knowledge, which man cannot possibly arrive at by his own powers: the order of divine Revelation.”

Many different religions claim they have received divine revelation. So if revelation can’t be known by our ability to reason, is there no rational way to discern which claim is true? If there isn’t, how do we discern the truth?

It’s true we cannot know Revelation truths merely by reasoning toward them. So that is where the element of faith comes in. But we are not expected to discount reason altogether in choosing between faiths, whether Abrahamic or Oriental.

It is reasonable to infer that Christianity is truer than any other religion because its claims are rooted in divine revelation. Other religions do not make that claim or cannot point to specific claims that are divinely inspired. Even Buddhism does not refer to an encounter with God that results in specifically divine revelations that are infallibly inspired.
Nor, for that matter, does Mohammed refer to a specific encounter with God such as that experienced by Moses at the burning bush.

So it is reasonable to not only infer the existence of God, but also to infer that God would reveal himself by various encounters with the prophets, and finally by appearing in person through the redemptive mission of Jesus Christ. So far as I know, the Judeo-Christian Revelation is the only religion that claims Revelation from a living and breathing divinity. It is therefore the only religion that needs to be taken seriously, and all the more so because it is the only religion that claims infallibility according to the teachings of its Founder.

 

[Izon]

Other religions do not make that claim or cannot point to specific claims that are divinely inspired.

Really? The Wikipedia article on infallibility says otherwise (though I’ll admit, it isn’t as academically written as other Wikipedia articles I’ve read): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility

Nor, for that matter, does Mohammed refer to a specific encounter with God such as that experienced by Moses at the burning bush…

Does this not count?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad’s_first_revelation

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Really? The Wikipedia article on infallibility says otherwise (though I’ll admit, it isn’t as academically written as other Wikipedia articles I’ve read): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infallibility

Does this not count?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad’s_first_revelation

The Wikipedia article is very flawed, and if you believe all the undocumented claims in it, you are too.

As for Moses and Mohammed, neither was the Founder of a religion who claimed to be infallible. If you can cite where that claim of infallibility is stated by either, please let me know.

Whereas Jesus Christ said the gates of hell would never prevail against the Church he was founding. Clearly this means that the Church would not fall into heresy and deliberate deception, so that the means of our salvation would be forever corrupted, as it has been corrupted numerous times by the Protestants, all of whom reject infallibility and cannot even begin to claim it without claiming that the thousands of Protestant sects, all contradicting each other in various ways, are telling the same truth. That is an absurdity that begs ridicule.

 

[Izon]

The Wikipedia article is very flawed, and if you believe all the undocumented claims in it, you are too.

I acknowledged it’s a flawed articled. Of course I’m not going to accept anything that isn’t cited, but it did cite a lot of its claims (though I’m now finding some of the key citations have become dead links).

…as it has been corrupted numerous times by the Protestants

Again, let’s please leave Protestantism out of the discussion.

As for Moses and Mohammed, neither was the Founder of a religion who claimed to be infallible. If you can cite where that claim of infallibility is stated by either, please let me know.

I’ll get back to you on that, maybe in a week’s time.

Peace!

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Again, let’s please leave Protestantism out of the discussion.

Peace!

I’m certainly willing to do that, but the first article you cited brought Protestantism into the discussion.