Knowing vs. Believing

  • Thread starter Thread starter SenorSalsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SenorSalsa

Guest
Are thy the same thing?

let me explain a little about how I came to this question

I was thinking about True Presence in the Eucharist, and the fact that many people, including many Catholics dont believe it. I was wondering if I believed it, and i came to the conclusion that I know that it is Jesus, becuase the Church says it is, and I trust the Church, but it was almost like i didnt believe it. Like if I didnt know the Church taught that, and i went to a Mass, i wasnt sure i would still know/believe that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood.

Is this a reasonable thing, or am i just going into semantics?
 
SenorSalsa said:
Are thy the same thing?

let me explain a little about how I came to this question

I was thinking about True Presence in the Eucharist, and the fact that many people, including many Catholics dont believe it. I was wondering if I believed it, and i came to the conclusion that I know that it is Jesus, becuase the Church says it is, and I trust the Church, but it was almost like i didnt believe it. Like if I didnt know the Church taught that, and i went to a Mass, i wasnt sure i would still know/believe that the Eucharist was the Body and Blood.

Is this a reasonable thing, or am i just going into semantics?
Click to expand...
Many people use the terms synonymously, in that belief is knowledge rather than faith.

Some will distinguish knowledge from what you can be certain of and can demonstrate (such as God’s existence) and believing as what you have come to accept through faith (such as the Trinity). So then the question is: can you demonstrate transubstantiation, or is it a matter of faith?

Most people will use it in one way at one time and others at another time.

Yet others hold that all knowledge is ultimately faith, for our perceiving and reasoning is always fallible and we can’t have absolute certainty of what is true.
 
You can know transubstanitiation is true, I believe, strictly using logic. In the same way that you can know God exists or that you can determine that the world is round without actually seeing it from space. The hitch is that without being able to scientifically investigate you really can’t know a whole lot about the process. Maybe logical and theological inquiry guided by the holy spirit and the Church is sort of a spiritual scientific method.Hmmmm.
🤷
 
I can “believe” the Apostles Creed on faith. I can “know” Jesus Christ because I experience the personal intimate relationship with Him in the Eucharist. Adam knew Eve. It is a communion. This is the personal intimate relationship. The Greek word for, to know, is “gnosko”.
 
Cathryn said:
I can “believe” the Apostles Creed on faith. I can “know” Jesus Christ because I experience the personal intimate relationship with Him in the Eucharist. Adam knew Eve. It is a communion. This is the personal intimate relationship. The Greek word for, to know, is “gnosko”.
Click to expand...
That’s a good point. Many languages distinguish between knowing someone personally and knowing facts. English is more vague, however.
 
Knowledge and belief are clearly different.

There is no such thing as false knowledge (“false knowledge” is an oxymoron), but there is certainly such a thing as false belief (for instance, the belief that the earth is flat). That is, all knowledge is true; but beliefs can be either true or false.

Knowledge corresponds to reason in particular, while belief corresponds to faith in general. I say “in general” for faith because, in particular, that is, regarding the matters of the true revealed religion, there can be no falsity, while in general, including false religions, there is both truth and falsity.

Matters of true faith can become a kind of knowledge: a personal knowledge. But this is unlike “regular” or objective knowledge; it is not universally knowable, but only knowable in a personal way to those individuals who have faith.
 
in my younger days, i recall this story being told to us in cat. classes where a priest didn’t believe in transubstantiation.

after he concecrated the host & wine, it actually turned into actual flesh + blood.

i did a google and found this and this
 
JCismywingman said:
in my younger days, i recall this story being told to us in cat. classes where a priest didn’t believe in transubstantiation.

after he concecrated the host & wine, it actually turned into actual flesh + blood.

i did a google and found this and this
Click to expand...
But might one not argue that the priest did not have proper intention and thus the consecration would have been invalid?
 
ABostonCatholic said:
But might one not argue that the priest did not have proper intention and thus the consecration would have been invalid?
Click to expand...
You could if you wanted to, but i guess the point of it was to show that the host and wine IS really transformed into actual flesh and blood. God works in his mysterious ways 🙂
 
You believe something on some evidence, but you don’t really know for sure. I would say that if the probability is less than one, then you believe it. When the probability is one then you know something.🤷

You cannot know and believe something at one and the same time. It is either one or the other.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top