How is truth known as it relates to Christianity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jennifer132
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jennifer132

Guest
I’ll start by saying I’m no philosopher…but I’ve been a Protestant all my life and when I made the decision to convert to Catholicism, what drew me was the fact that Protestantism doesn’t work as it relates to knowing truth for sure. We know that Jesus is the truth, and as Protestants we say we can know Him through the reading of the Bible with the Holy Spirit as a guide. The problem, functionally with that is that everyone can and frequently does come to differing conclusions as to what the truth is on the various Christian doctrines, and on the words of Jesus and the apostles as recorded in scripture. It comes down to, for me, I know truth exists, but I feel like I’m floating from church to church looking for the words that sound “most correct” to me at the time, never knowing for sure if any one interpretation of Scripture is, in fact, true. Which, functionally, makes me the authority over what is true. This makes no sense to me because I know that in the past I’ve truly believed something to be true, and later changed my mind.

As I said this led me to the Catholic Church because it claims to be the arbiter of truth on the authority of apostolic succession. History bears out that the early Christians were very Catholic in practice. But in the end, am I not doing the same thing in choosing the Catholic faith-using my fallen, impaired intellect to choose the Church that seems most correct to me at the time? Am I not making a fallible decision to believe that I have found an infallible interpretation of truth? And if so, how can I be certain that the Catholic faith is true? If I must rely on faith that it is true, then how is that better than what I was doing in the Protestant churches?

I really want to know the answer to this question. I’m not here to argue at all. I discussed this with my father in law last night, a charismatic Protestant, and he basically said we can only know truth for sure (have assurance of it) through our experience of truth. Kind of a “you’ll know it when you see it” approach. That didn’t sit well with me since I know experiences can be erroneous and misleading, and that truth exists outside of our knowledge of it. Thoughts?
 
Well, knowing the CC has the truth is the same as knowing if Jesus was. Jesus said where He was leaving His ministry. So if you have doubt of the CC than logically you would have to doubt the truth of Jesus.

As a dabbler in atheism, the issue when I looked at a religion is it needs to make sense from secular history at which point protestantism falls flat.
 
I hope you are reading the NABRE. The bible is more understandable with notations which explain what’s happening, what is lost in translation, cultural references, OT references, etc… I honestly don’t know how anyone can read the KJV and come away with anything more than a misunderstanding of Christianity.

The Catholic Church does not know all truth. It knows the most.

You are not supposed to rely on faith to know the CC is true. We have authority given by Jesus, written down in scripture; the authority that Jesus gave Peter (the Petrine office) is needed to keep His Church united in one Lord and one faith.
 
The short answer to your question of “TRUTH in the catholic church” is JESUS. HE has told us that HE is the WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIGHT. So JESUS “is” the TRUTH in the Catholic Church.

The full answer is that, as you have found, when left to our own limited wisdom, we define scripture to fit our needs, so who has the final word.

The Catholic Church rest upon three legs, if you will: Holy Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium - which is the Pope in communion with the College of Cardinals and Bishops. And ever since the first Pentecost, the HOLY SPIRIT dwells within the Catholic Church to lead, guide and protect us.

The Magisterium resolves all matters of faith and doubt as they arise, and many heresy’s have arisen over the centuries which threatened to destroy the Catholic Church - unsuccessfully.

I would suggest two actions to take: First seek out a Catholic Church and inquire as to the RCIA Classes, which is for adults who are interested in learning more, or joining the Catholic Church. You can take the classes without committing. Secondly, go to “Tan Publishers” and purchase a copy of “The Catechism of Trent”, wherein you will find the teachings and beliefs of the Catholic Church - most of which stand in opposition to the political state of the world as it now exists. Begin reading this, and you will immediately feast on “Truth”.

GOD’s speed.
 
Hello! I would suggest that you give this article from the Catholic Encyclopedia a read - newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm
I will quote the part I have in mind -
"When we speak of the motives of credibility of revealed truth we mean the evidence that the things asserted are revealed truths. In other words, the credibility of the statements made is correlative with and proportionate to the credentials of the authority who makes them. Now the credentials of God are indubitable, for the very idea of God involves that of omniscience and of the Supreme Truth. Hence, what God says is supremely credible, though not necessarily supremely intelligible for us. Here, however, the real question is not as to the credentials of God or the credibility of what He says, but as to the credibility of the statement that God has spoken…
(b) These motives of credibility may be briefly stated as follows: in the Old Testament considered not as an inspired book, but merely as a book having historical value, we find detailed the marvellous dealings of God with a particular nation to whom He repeatedly reveals Himself; we read of miracles wrought in their favour and as proofs of the truth of the revelation He makes; we find the most sublime teaching and the repeated announcement of God’s desire to save the world from sin and its consequences. And more than all we find throughout the pages of this book a series of hints, now obscure, now clear, of some wondrous person who is to come as the world’s saviour; we find it asserted at one time that he is man, at others that he is God Himself. When we turn to the New Testament we find that it records the birth, life, and death of One Who, while clearly man, also claimed to be God, and Who proved the truth of His claim by His whole life, miracles, teachings, and death, and finally by His triumphant resurrection. We find, moreover, that He founded a Church which should, so He said, continue to the end of time, which should serve as the repository of His teaching, and should be the means of applying to all men the fruits of the redemption He had wrought. When we come to the subsequent history of this Church we find it speedily spreading everywhere, and this in spite of its humble origin, its unworldly teaching, and the cruel persecution which it meets at the hands of the rulers of this world. And as the centuries pass we find this Church battling against heresies schisms, and the sins of her own people—nay, of her own rulers—and yet continuing ever the same, promulgating ever the same doctrine, and putting before men the same mysteries of the life, death and resurrection of the world’s Saviour, Who had, so she taught, gone before to prepare a home for those who while on earth should have believed in Him and fought the good fight. But if the history of the Church since New-Testament times thus wonderfully confirms the New Testament itself, and if the New Testament so marvellously completes the Old Testament, these books must really contain what they claim to contain, viz. Divine revelation. And more than all, that Person Whose life and death were so minutely foretold in the Old Testament, and Whose story, as told in the New Testament, so perfectly corresponds with its prophetic delineation in the Old Testament, must be what He claimed to be, viz. the Son of God. His work, therefore, must be Divine. The Church which He founded must also be Divine and the repository and guardian of His teaching. Indeed, we can truly say that for every truth of Christianity which we believe Christ Himself is our testimony, and we believe in Him because the Divinity He claimed rests upon the concurrent testimony of His miracles, His prophecies His personal character, the nature of His doctrine, the marvellous propagation of His teaching in spite of its running counter to flesh and blood, the united testimony of thousands of martyrs, the stories of countless saints who for His sake have led heroic lives, the history of the Church herself since the Crucifixion, and, perhaps more remarkable than any, the history of the papacy from St. Peter to Pius X.

(c) These testimonies are unanimous; they all point in one direction, they are of every age, they are clear and simple, and are within the grasp of the humblest intelligence. And, as the Vatican Council has said, “the Church herself, is, by her marvellous propagation, her wondrous sanctity, her inexhaustible fruitfulness in good works, her Catholic unity, and her enduring stability, a great and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefragable witness to her Divine commission” (Const. Dei Filius) . “The Apostles”, says St. Augustine, “saw the Head and believed in the Body; we see the Body let us believe in the Head” [Sermo ccxliii, 8 (al. cxliii), de temp., P.L., V 1143]. Every believer will echo the words of Richard of St. Victor, “Lord, if we are in error, by Thine own self we have been deceived—for these things have been confirmed by such signs and wonders in our midst as could only have been done by Thee!” (de Trinitate, 1, cap. ii).
(d)
 
But much misunderstanding exists regarding the meaning and office of the motives of credibility. **In the first place, they afford us definite and certain knowledge of Divine revelation; **but this knowledge precedes faith; it is not the final motive for our assent to the truths of faith—as St. Thomas says, “Faith has the character of a virtue, not because of the things it believes, for faith is of things that appear not, but because it adheres to the testimony of one in whom truth is infallibly found” (De Veritate, xiv, 8); this knowledge of revealed truth which precedes faith can only beget human faith it is not even the cause of Divine faith (cf. Francisco Suárez, be Fide disp. iii, 12), but is rather to be considered a remote disposition to it. We must insist upon this because in the minds of many faith is regarded as a more or less necessary consequence of a careful study of the motives of credibility, a view which the Vatican Council condemns expressly: “If anyone says that the assent of Christian faith is not free, but that it necessarily follows from the arguments which human reason can furnish in its favour; or if anyone says that God’s grace is only necessary for that living faith which worketh through charity, let him be anathema” (Sess. IV). Nor can the motives of credibility make the mysteries of faith clear in themselves, for, as St. Thomas says, “the arguments which induce us to believe, e.g. miracles, do not prove the faith itself, but only the truthfulness of him who declares it to us, and consequently they do not beget knowledge of faith’s mysteries, but only faith” (in Sent., III, xxiv, Q. i, art. 2, sol. 2, ad 4). On the other hand, we must not minimize the real probative force of the motives of credibility within their true sphere—"**Reason declares that from the very outset the Gospel teaching was rendered conspicuous by signs and wonders which gave, as it were, definite proof of a **definite truth" (Leo XIII, Æterni Patris)." (bolding mine).

In His awesome wisdom and mercy the Lord has given us weak sinners certain, definite, and clear proofs of His Catholic Faith, His truth. I would add to the above the scientifically and medically inexplicable cures at Lourdes, further proofs provided by God (through Our Lady) of the truth of His Catholic Faith. For more info on Lourdes you might check out this link -
pamphlets.org.au/docs/cts/australia/html/acts1518.html
 
Jennifer132 said:
I’ll start by saying I’m no philosopher…but I’ve been a Protestant all my life and when I made the decision to convert to Catholicism, what drew me was the fact that Protestantism doesn’t work as it relates to knowing truth for sure. We know that Jesus is the truth, and as Protestants we say we can know Him through the reading of the Bible with the Holy Spirit as a guide. The problem, functionally with that is that everyone can and frequently does come to differing conclusions as to what the truth is on the various Christian doctrines, and on the words of Jesus and the apostles as recorded in scripture. It comes down to, for me, I know truth exists, but I feel like I’m floating from church to church looking for the words that sound “most correct” to me at the time, never knowing for sure if any one interpretation of Scripture is, in fact, true. Which, functionally, makes me the authority over what is true. This makes no sense to me because I know that in the past I’ve truly believed something to be true, and later changed my mind.

As I said this led me to the Catholic Church because it claims to be the arbiter of truth on the authority of apostolic succession. History bears out that the early Christians were very Catholic in practice. But in the end, am I not doing the same thing in choosing the Catholic faith-using my fallen, impaired intellect to choose the Church that seems most correct to me at the time? Am I not making a fallible decision to believe that I have found an infallible interpretation of truth? And if so, how can I be certain that the Catholic faith is true? If I must rely on faith that it is true, then how is that better than what I was doing in the Protestant churches?

I really want to know the answer to this question. I’m not here to argue at all. I discussed this with my father in law last night, a charismatic Protestant, and he basically said we can only know truth for sure (have assurance of it) through our experience of truth. Kind of a “you’ll know it when you see it” approach. That didn’t sit well with me since I know experiences can be erroneous and misleading, and that truth exists outside of our knowledge of it. Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I really don’t want to use the word “rumor,” but think about it. We all say Jesus is the Son of God. Who really knows? Who can you believe?
That is the word absent from your inquiry. Who?
The Holy Spirit says preaching is the folly of men. You demonstrated that: sometimes this person says the right thing, sometimes that person nails it, and vice versa.
Fact is, you can no longer nail it.
One more thing to think about, possibly.
Jess said, You didn’the choose him. He chose you!
 
The person who asks what is truth or how can we know what is true may be asking this because they have lost sight of truth. With so many competing ideas for what is true it could make someone sceptical that truth can be found. Because you have changed your mind on what you thought was true you ask this question. The search for truth should lead us to God who is the Creator of truth. Only God can create truth. We can only discover it. If your search leads you away from God then you have not found truth. Jesus claims to be the Truth. Only God can be Truth. Thus, Jesus claims to be God. This is the truth of Christianity. We can know certain things through reason. But other things only through divine revelation. Many Christian truths are from divine revelation. Jesus said if you hold to his teaching then you will know the truth, and it will set you free. To find truth we must come to God and put our faith in him to show us the Way. And he has made a way for us in his Son.

Hope this helps you.
There is a book I recommend for you called “Ten Steps to Truth” by Peter Kreeft.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top