How does one discern the correct claim of divine revelation?

[Izon]

Ah, I see it did. Not that I was really referring to that part, but fair enough.

 

[fhansen]

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).

There’s simply no way to get around the fact that a subjective, spiritual ingredient is also at work; we, as individuals, recognize and respond to the Shepard’s voice, having been made in His image to begin with.

 

[Izon]

There’s simply no way to get around the fact that a subjective, spiritual ingredient is also at work; we, as individuals, recognize and respond to the Shepard’s voice, having been made in His image to begin with.

That seems to be in line with what the Catechism says. But that old Catholic Encyclopedia article I read seems to say that, although subjective experience of a divine revelation’s truth is valuable, it isn’t sufficient to prove that truth (on its own, anyway).

(the link again, for convenience - newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm)

 

[fhansen]

That seems to be in line with what the Catechism says. But that old Catholic Encyclopedia article I read seems to say that, although subjective experience of a divine revelation’s truth is valuable, it isn’t sufficient to prove that truth (on its own, anyway).

(the link again, for convenience - newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm)

I didn’t read the article fully, but based on what I did read I fail to see how it strays from the notion that faith is a necessary and a supernatural gift-of grace. Private revelations, which the Church allows to be fully possible, can never contradict or add to the faith once delivered with the advent of Christ. But faith, while personal, is of a different order than locutions, visions appearances, epiphanies, etc; faith is the ability to believe what we cannot discern on our own-to believe beyond what reason alone can ascertain. Many of the tenets of our faith are* not *provable in any case, which nonetheless doesn’t render them unreasonable.

 

[Izon]

I didn’t read the article fully, but based on what I did read I fail to see how it strays from the notion that faith is a necessary and a supernatural gift-of grace. … Many of the tenets of our faith are* not *provable in any case, which nonetheless doesn’t render them unreasonable.

I didn’t mean to say that the article strays from any of that. It doesn’t. It allows that faith is reasonable, and above reason.

But it still says the following:
“The fact that Revelation is not merely possible but morally necessary is in itself a strong argument for the existence of a revelation, and imposes on all men the strict obligation of examining the credentials of a religion which presents itself with prima facie marks of truth. On the other hand if God has conferred a revelation on men, it stands to reason that He must have attached to it plain and evident criteria enabling even the unlettered to recognize His message for what it is, and to distinguish it from all false claimants.” (emphasis added)

The article goes on to describe those “plain and evident” criteria, one of which is “the internal conviction felt by the soul as to the truth of the doctrine.” Recognizing and responding to the Shepard’s voice, as you put it.

But the article makes effort to emphasize that it isn’t sufficient by itself:
“The testimony afforded by inward experience is undoubtedly not to be neglected. Catholic doctors have always recognized its value. But its force is limited to the individual who is the subject of it. It cannot be employed as a criterion valid for all; for its absence is no proof that the doctrine is not true. … Taken alone and apart from objective proof it conveys but a probability that the revelation is true. Hence the Vatican Council expressly condemns the error of those who teach it to be the only criterion” (emphasis added)

The whole section labeled “Criteria of revelation” is probably all you need to read. Sorry I just dropped the entire article on you wholesale :imsorry:

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The essential and official criteria of revelation has to be found in the teaching authority of the Church. Scripture alone, and subjective experience alone, cannot by themselves be official or “authentic” since the interpretation of Scripture belong to the Church, not to the individual. Private interpretation of scripture was warned against by the apostle Peter, the first head of the Church who received his authority directly from Jesus. The scriptures themselves were never authenticated as true until the formal canon of the New Testament was approved by a Church Council in the 4th century.

Those outside the Church who are asked to investigate the claim of true revelation by the Church have to expose themselves not only to scripture, but to the official interpretation of scripture authenticated by the Church. They supernaturally will be visited by the Holy Spirit and granted personal insight that confirms the experience of true revelation. This is called conversion.

J.H. Newman indicated his own conversion to the Catholic faith by the realization that to be steeped in history is to be Catholic. That is, it seemed to him that although reason could not by itself reveal the great mysteries, the revelation of the great mysteries was consistent with a reasonable approach to them through the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. All that is required for this kind of conversion is a heart and mind open to the truth and willing to make the “leap of faith.”

There is no other way to find the Way short of an authentic vision such as St. Paul experienced.

 

[PumpkinCookie]

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.

Protestantism is the “breaking up of the Catholic Church into thousands of sects.” There have always been heretical groups and schismatics. Pope Francis formally apologized to the Waldensians (a long standing heretical group) just last month. The RCC has splintered many times. Same with the Eastern Church, the largest splinter group (according to the western point of view). The cult of Jesus has never been 100% united; the shattering is evident even in Paul’s letters, in my opinion.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

Izon:

On the other hand if God has conferred a revelation on men, it stands to reason that He must have attached to it plain and evident criteria enabling even the unlettered to recognize His message for what it is, and to distinguish it from all false claimants." (emphasis added)

To make this as clear as possible: The Church teaches (and reason confirms) that Divine Revelation is verified by internal AND external evidences.

Internal = Subjective, external = Objective evidences.

The Church claims that Internal/Subjective evidence ALONE is not enough. Otherwise we would need to believe Muhammed and Joseph Smith who both founded religions based on their own private/subjective evidences of Divine Revelation.

On the other hand Objective evidence (or miracles) are evident to all, even the uneducated and simple. That is why miracles are crucial as credentials to Divine Revelation. Not private miracles which might be the delusions of the mind, but PUBLIC miracles evident to every kind of intelligence. Such were the Scripture miracles. Such also are the ecclesiastical miracles that continue into our own day.

The external evidence of miracles, combined with our own internal evidences (or antecedent probability) as John Henry Newman might say, help us discern authentic Divine Revelation from the phony.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Protestantism is the “breaking up of the Catholic Church into thousands of sects.” There have always been heretical groups and schismatics. Pope Francis formally apologized to the Waldensians (a long standing heretical group) just last month. The RCC has splintered many times. Same with the Eastern Church, the largest splinter group (according to the western point of view). The cult of Jesus has never been 100% united; the shattering is evident even in Paul’s letters, in my opinion.

First, the Catholic Church has NEVER broken up into thousands of sects. The Catholic Church has always been whole and united. Catholics have left the Church to begin their own sects. It was the Catholics who splintered up, not the Catholic Church. As Christ promised, the gates of hell would never prevail against his Church.

Secondly, Paul’s letters simply repeat what Jesus said in the gospels, that he (Jesus) wished his disciples to be one as he and the Father were one. That is the view of the Catholic Church to this day. Such unity can only be possible if there is one to whom that unity is entrusted, namely the vicar of Christ on earth, Peter and his successors.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

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).

Good question, and I doubt if any of us could pin it down.

I’ve been an atheist, a Protestant and now a Catholic. While I believe the Catholic Church is “closest” to the truth, I could hardly say my progress has been due to an uninterrupted rational examination of religions, to find out which one was the “right” one. It took difficult circumstances, plus some rather insistent spiritual pushing, before I somewhat nervously tripped through the door frame of my old Presbyterian Sunday School abode. And more spiritual pushing, some years later, to get me anywhere near a Catholic joint.

What’s puzzling is that if God cares so much about the human race, why He isn’t more assertive in enforcing His claim that His Son is the Way, the Truth and the Life. He’s had two thousand years to convert one planet, and He still hasn’t done it.

Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Shinto have been around for centuries, even millennia, yet God hasn’t made major inroads into any of them, if Christ is the Truth. What’s stopping Him?

The Orthodox Church separated from the Catholic Church a millennia ago. The Protestants very nearly half a millennia. Once again if God’s so concerned about the unity of His Church, what’s stopping Him?

Don’t tell me He hasn’t got the power. You’ve only got to look at the boiling surface of the sun, a million miles across, to get some idea of what His wrath might be like, yet He lets His church be divided, and these other religions to flourish for centuries, and doesn’t seem to do much to change it.

Christ made the statement that no-one could come to Him unless the Father drew him. So ultimately it’s God’s responsibility. We may be expected to evangelise, but the actual conversion is not our responsibility.

Defining Divine Revelation is a mystery, like a lot of other things. And we won’t understand God’s timing till we go to Glory ourselves.

In the meantime about all we can do is try to discern God’s will for our own lives, and see what difference that might make.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, and Shinto have been around for centuries, even millennia, yet God hasn’t made major inroads into any of them, if Christ is the Truth. What’s stopping Him?

The Orthodox Church separated from the Catholic Church a millennia ago. The Protestants very nearly half a millennia. Once again if God’s so concerned about the unity of His Church, what’s stopping Him?

Don’t tell me He hasn’t got the power.

Yes, God certainly has the power. And he is using it by his own schedule, not ours.

From a handful of apostles to 1 1/2 billion souls under his care in two thousand years.

If the world goes another two thousand years, there might be an exponential conversion of nations throughout the world.

It is easy to be skeptical or impatient with God’s plan.

If we were as patient with God as he is with us … ?

 

[Izon]

To make this as clear as possible: The Church teaches (and reason confirms) that Divine Revelation is verified by internal AND external evidences.

Internal = Subjective, external = Objective evidences.

The Church claims that Internal/Subjective evidence ALONE is not enough. Otherwise we would need to believe Muhammed and Joseph Smith who both founded religions based on their own private/subjective evidences of Divine Revelation.

On the other hand Objective evidence (or miracles) are evident to all, even the uneducated and simple. That is why miracles are crucial as credentials to Divine Revelation. Not private miracles which might be the delusions of the mind, but PUBLIC miracles evident to every kind of intelligence. Such were the Scripture miracles. Such also are the ecclesiastical miracles that continue into our own day.

The external evidence of miracles, combined with our own internal evidences (or antecedent probability) as John Henry Newman might say, help us discern authentic Divine Revelation from the phony.

This is a good summary of that section in the CE article. Sorry I wasn’t more clear with mine.

The article makes sense to me, but here again are the two main issues I have with it:

1. I have no idea if these external/internal criteria are what the church actively teaches. Though the article received the Nihil Obstat, this only means that it’s absent of moral error, according to a censor. It doesn’t mean that everything in it is what the church specifically and infallibly teaches. I’m sure that the criteria are reasonable to trust, since no error was found in them, but the whole thing is a really obscure teaching. I haven’t found it talked about anywhere else, so for all I know it’s just an opinion (but still an error-free one, at best).
2. The article doesn’t negatively apply these criteria to any other religion. Though it affirms that Christian revelation is indicated by external criteria, and conforms to internal criteria, it doesn’t explicitly deny this for the revelation of Islam or of Hinduism (it only does so implicilty). Obviously it would be tedious to do this for every religion (I still haven’t gotten around to researching Charlemagne’s claim that only Christianity claims to be infallible), but it’s troubling that I haven’t yet found anything in the CE or other sources which definitively refutes a major world religion’s revelation via these criteria.