Non-Catholics: How do you know that the words of Jesus are true?

[Sy_Noe]

Excellent.

So logically we can assert that some religions teach things which are more true than other religions.

And the reasonable person wants to be in the religion that teaches the most truth.

That’s all we’re asserting here.

You seem to be asserting that it doesn’t really matter what the religion teaches, as long as he’s come to his belief using faith and his heart is sincere, he can believe whatever he wants.

Clearly, that’s gaga, lala nonsense.

You want to search for the religion that has the most truth. Not the religion which makes you happy or good.

Sure you can assert that you believe some religions are more true. As long as you don’t forget the belief part. And understand what you have concluded to believe and accept after searching as being the religion that is teaching the most truth, may not be what someone else has concluded after their search. And both of you could be looking at the same “evidence”, as you might call it, in your searches. There are billions and billions of people in this world and all do not agree or interpret or see things the same way or place their faith in the same persons or entities. I don’t why you have such a struggle with this truth.

 

[Tom_Baum]

Catholic or Non-Catholic, I would say that the only way that one would “know that the words of Jesus are true” would be if God revealed something to someone, other than that, one could only say that they “believe” that the words of Jesus are true.

Jesus even went so far as to say, “Blessed is the one who believes”, who knows maybe this means that one is doubly blessed for believing not only for what they believe but for believing that they are “blessed” for believing.

Many seem to disagree with me but I happen to believe that the words (know and believe) have two completely different meanings, even fervently believing something is still believing, not knowing, something.

 

[Abu]

Sy Noe #655
Sure you can assert that you believe some religions are more true. As long as you don’t forget the belief part. And understand what you have concluded to believe and accept after searching as being the religion that is teaching the most truth, may not be what someone else has concluded after their search.

The lack of following Christ’s teaching is very evident in the above, seemingly either from ignorance or deliberate rejection, especially as you say you are a “Non practicing Roman Catholic”.

For Christ Himself promised “I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15)

The Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth” (1 Tim 3:16).

Thus, some people really make their own trouble, and seem to deserve Christ’s admonition to His Apostles. Until and unless dissenters listen to Christ through His Church they may be in the same boat as His Apostles in earlier days – to His own Apostles, “whom He loved to the end” Jesus exclaimed: “Have you no sense, no wits, are your hearts dulled, can’t you see, your ears hear, don’t you remember?” (Mk 8:17-18). Further, having commissioned Peter as His first Vicar, on whom He founded His Church, Jesus instructed the eleven and proclaimed: “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations….teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you…” (Mt 28:18-20).

Thus, from the first, the faithful “remained faithful to the teaching of the Apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread, and to the prayers.” (Acts 2:42).

Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thess 2:15).

“Take as your norm the sound words that you heard from me, with faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. Guard this rich trust with the help of the Holy Spirit that dwells within us.” (2 Tim 1:13-14). Again St Paul writes: “And what you heard from me through many witnesses entrust to faithful people who will have the ability to teach others as well.” (2 Tim 2:2).

In Colossians 2: 4-23, St Paul calls on his flock to follow Christ “as you were taught” and warns against merely “human precepts and teachings.”

1 Cor 1:10: I urge you brothers, in the name of Our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose.

We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1Jn 4:6).

Thus the Christ did not establish or encourage the welter of sects that individuals have conjured up to suit their own feelings, all teaching something different.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Catholic or Non-Catholic, I would say that the only way that one would “know that the words of Jesus are true” would be if God revealed something to someone, other than that, one could only say that they “believe” that the words of Jesus are true.

Jesus even went so far as to say, “Blessed is the one who believes”, who knows maybe this means that one is doubly blessed for believing not only for what they believe but for believing that they are “blessed” for believing.

Many seem to disagree with me but I happen to believe that the words (know and believe) have two completely different meanings, even fervently believing something is still believing, not knowing, something.

If I understand you correctly, I tend to agree believing and knowing are 2 different things. That’s been the point I’ve tried to make to PRmerger. Unsuccessfully perhaps but I’ve tried. There’s a difference in believing we know and actually knowing. Believing being key.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The lack of following Christ’s teaching is very evident in the above, seemingly either from ignorance or deliberate rejection, especially as you say you are a “Non practicing Roman Catholic”.

It may be “very evident” if for instance the accuser or human judge who is deciding another’s heart or their lack of following Christ, believes the CC is the Church Christ was talking about or believes it never strayed. But again that key word, believes. God have mercy on us all.

 

[Peter_J]

Catholic or Non-Catholic, I would say that the only way that one would “know that the words of Jesus are true” would be if God revealed something to someone,
.

You may like the thread where we talked about St Anselm’s so-called Ontological Argument. (Or you may not. )

 

[Abu]

There’s no point in blindly putting Christ in eclipse – He built only ONE CHURCH on Peter, and gave Peter primacy and infallibility, and His Church all authority to teach, sanctify and rule. There is no salvation without His Church whether known or unknown. That is why He gave us also His seven sacraments and His continued sacrifice on our altars. She alone has the fullness of truth and gave us the N.T., infallibly declaring which, of all the writings, form the inspired Word of God in the Bible. There is no Bible without the Catholic Church, some don’t even have seven of the books, thus missing out on vital doctrines, as well as not participating in Christ’s priesthood: “He holds His priesthood permanently.” (Heb 7:24). That is precisely why His continuing priesthood breaks through to our altars at every Holy Sacrifice of the Mass – in the Mystical Body of Christ which is His Bride, His Church.

**Unbroken Apostolic Succession (EWTN)
Question from Steve on 06-30-2003: **
I don’t understand the catholic position on the following: if Peter was the first pope, and there is an unbroken Apostolic Succession between him and the current pope, how is it that the Borgias (and any other of the obviously corrupt, sinful, and wordly popes) don’t interrupt or “break” the God ordained line of church fathers?
**Answer by Catholic Answers on 07-01-2003: **
That some popes were less than holy, as in the case of the Borgias, does not interrupt the line of succession. They were valid popes. That men of such low morals headed Christ’s Church without doing damage to her teachings simply testifies to the presence of the Holy Spirit protecting her from error – as Jesus promised.
Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.
tinyurl.com/qcuesx4

In First Things (November 1997), Harvard Law Professor Mary Ann Glendon wrote that “the Pope himself has acknowledged the mistakes and sins of Christians in connection with, among other things, the Crusades, the Inquisition, persecution of the Jews, religious wars, Galileo, and the treatment of women. Thus, though the Pope himself is careful to speak of sin or error on the part of the Church’s members or representatives, rather than the Church in its fullness, that important theological distinction is almost always lost in the transmission.”

It is vital to understand that the Pope never apologises for the Church which is “held, as a matter of faith, to be unfailingly holy.” [Vatican II, *Lumen Gentium, art 39].

To demonstrate clearly that no one else has any authority against His Supreme Vicar and His Church, Christ gave His Supreme Vicars Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

That is why the bad popes, among the vast majority who have been good popes, have never taught falsehood in dogma or doctrine to the whole Church. That is precisely why designating himself as the servant of the servants of God, Pope Gregory the Great devoted his life in the service of God and things good and peaceful – one of many.

 

[OuiSeigneur]

Sure but a person in good faith and conscience can search and still end up not believing the same as you believe.

So you believe that Jesus left us with no way of knowing the truth?

 

[Sy_Noe]

So you believe that Jesus left us with no way of knowing the truth?

I truly believe faithful and faith-filled Catholics can believe they know the truth. But it takes faith to do that. Without faith and belief in God, in the NT, in the CC, in the ECFs, in CC interpretations of Scripture, of Herself and of the ECF’s, I believe as Tom said that there’s a huge difference between believing and actually knowing. That’s why it’s called faith. And the best any of us humans with finite understanding can do, I believe, is to walk our journeys by faith and our consciences, open to growing in understanding of an infinite God as we seek whatever the ultimate truth turns out to be. And in faith to trust in God’s mercy and capability to understand our hearts, our minds and our souls. But I’d be remiss not to say that I also am one who is more than fine with not thinking I need to know everything in black and white. I’m perfectly fine with much grey. Anyway I hope that helps you better understand my DNA and how I tick even though you may well disagree. And if need be, I am okay with having to agree to disagree on what are essentially matters of faith. May God bless us all as we strive to the best of our limited human understandings to walk in faith closer to. Peace.

 

[Peter_J]

more than fine with not thinking I need to know everything in black and white.

Hmmm … sounds like something a Catholic would say.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure you can assert that you believe some religions are more true. As long as you don’t forget the belief part. And understand what you have concluded to believe and accept after searching as being the religion that is teaching the most truth, may not be what someone else has concluded after their search. And both of you could be looking at the same “evidence”, as you might call it, in your searches.

There’s nothing in the above that I disagree with.

People can use their heads and their hearts to come to different conclusions about what’s the true religion.

Agreed. Correct.
No argument there.

But it’s where you take the above afterwards that we need to talk about.

Your implication is: if someone has used his head and his heart to discern God’s Word and comes to a different conclusion than you have come to, so what? He’s sincere in his search!

My response is 3 words:
Westboro Baptist Church.

Prince Phillip Movement

Church of Euthanasia

 

[PRmerger]

If I understand you correctly, I tend to agree believing and knowing are 2 different things. That’s been the point I’ve tried to make to PRmerger. Unsuccessfully perhaps but I’ve tried. There’s a difference in believing we know and actually knowing. Believing being key.

Oh, I’ve never denied that believing and knowing are two different things, Sy.

Unless you can post to something I’ve said which says differently?

I tend to ignore comments about believing and knowing being 2 different things because they are silly and otiose, so I’ve never actually addressed my POV about that.

Please don’t assume, ok?

 

[benhur]

Indeed. I am surprised that more Protestants are not offended by Colossians 1:24:

“in my flesh I am filling up what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions”.

How dare Paul say that anything is lacking in Christ’s afflictions!

Then how about “for through weakness He was crucified yet He liveth by the power of God…and we are also weak in Him but shall live with Him by the power of God towards you”" 1 Cor 4:4

We have no problem with the verse, especially better translations (behind the afflictions, what remains of the afflictions thru us). It is a poor understanding that His afflictions are lacking especially as mediatorial. What He suffered both as redeemer and minister are complete. Now He suffers as we suffer(persecution) but we do not "add’’ to His but it is our own, in union with Him however. He does not need our affliction but we do.or benefit from it.

We are not offended any more than you are with “call no man your father”, or “avoid repetitious prayers”.

Blessings PR

 

[PRmerger]

Then how about “for through weakness He was crucified yet He liveth by the power of God…and we are also weak in Him but shall live with Him by the power of God towards you”" 1 Cor 4:4

We have no problem with the verse,

Apprently, some do.

Some think that what Paul wrote is NOT part of the kerygma.

How do you answer them as someone who doesn’t submit to the authority of the CC? They are doing exactly what you claim to do: read the Bible and determine for yourself what should be in there and what shouldn’t.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Oh, I’ve never denied that believing and knowing are two different things, Sy.

Unless you can post to something I’ve said which says differently?

I tend to ignore comments about believing and knowing being 2 different things because they are silly and otiose, so I’ve never actually addressed my POV about that.

Please don’t assume, ok?

Ok so am I correct in assuming that when Catholics go around continuously saying we have the truth, that they mean they don’t really know that they do. But only believe that they do? If that’s the case, I sure wish they’d be more specific about only believing they know because it’s something that just drives me nuts and is a turnoff. It just appears so arrogant to me to go around saying I know and everyone else is wrong.

 

[benhur]

Apprently, some do.

Some think that what Paul wrote is NOT part of the kerygma.

How do you answer them as someone who doesn’t submit to the authority of the CC? They are doing exactly what you claim to do: read the Bible and determine for yourself what should be in there and what shouldn’t.

And some think Jesus was married etc., etc… and we do need a scapegoat…so let’s blame mode of inspiration, even claimed inspiration. And blame it because it can lead to error ? But then sometimes it leads to Truth. So then is it because it mostly goes against your mode ?

Did Jesus or the apostles answer to His magisterium, to His staus quo, or the Sanhedrin or the High priest ? Clearly their mode of inspiration troubled many people.

These anti Paul folk not only do not answer to the CC but also most P’s and the O’s. And not to mention you and me both:knight2::nunchuk:

Blessings

 

[PRmerger]

Ok so am I correct in assuming that when Catholics go around continuously saying we have the truth, that they mean they don’t really know that they do.

I can’t speak for other Catholics. I can only speak for myself on this issue and I can indeed say that I know that what I believe is true.

All “knowledge” is, is a “justified belief” about an issue.

And I can certainly justify all of my beliefs.

Can’t you? Do you believe something that you can’t justify your belief in?

If that’s the case, I sure wish they’d be more specific about only believing they know because it’s something that just drives me nuts and is a turnoff. It just appears so arrogant to me to go around saying I know and everyone else is wrong.

I find this to be such a peculiar comment.

It’s like saying, “It’s arrogant when someone says that Manila is the capital of the Philippines. Someone told me that it was, when I believe it to be Jakarta. How arrogant of her to think she can assert something different than I do!”

 

[PRmerger]

Ok so am I correct in assuming that when Catholics go around continuously saying we have the truth, that they mean they don’t really know that they do. But only believe that they do? If that’s the case, I sure wish they’d be more specific about only believing they know because it’s something that just drives me nuts and is a turnoff. It just appears so arrogant to me to go around saying I know and everyone else is wrong.

Sy: I think the question I asked above is a very important one, and I am awaiting your answer.

Do you have any belief which you can’t justify why you believe it?

 

[Sy_Noe]

I can’t speak for other Catholics. I can only speak for myself on this issue and I can indeed say that I know that what I believe is true.

All “knowledge” is, is a “justified belief” about an issue.

And I can certainly justify all of my beliefs.

Can’t you? Do you believe something that you can’t justify your belief in?

I find this to be such a peculiar comment.

It’s like saying, “It’s arrogant when someone says that Manila is the capital of the Philippines. Someone told me that it was, when I believe it to be Jakarta. How arrogant of her to think she can assert something different than I do!”

PRmerger, per your wait, I hope you weren’t waiting too long as I do have other things in life to attend to than CAF. No. But just because something is a “justified belief” as you put it, doesn’t in my book mean we can know with certainty what we believe is true. Not when it comes to human beings with finite understanding and matters of faith and God. And we are talking about matters of faith here, PRmerger. Not the capital of the Philippines. In the end though I believe, no I know from our discourse, or maybe I shall just assume, that we have different definitions on what it means to know with certainty about matters of faith. And I shall leave it at that now so I don’t keep you waiting further.

 

[Abu]

Sy Noe #673
But just because something is a “justified belief” as you put it, doesn’t in my book mean we can know with certainty what we believe is true. Not when it comes to human beings with finite understanding and matters of faith and God. And we are talking about matters of faith here

It’s time to face reality.

Modern Catholic Dictionary by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
CERTITUDE. Firm assent of the mind to a proposition without fear of error. It implies clear knowledge that the evidence for the assent excludes even the possibility of error.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

Our certainty within the Church derives from objective historical facts; the testimony of the apostolic Church witnesses to the Christ-redemption from which came the New Testament. Thus the Son of God, Christ, established His Church to enable us to know His truth with certainty, and to be able to choose freely to follow that truth.

The Catholic Church then gradually built western civilization based on faith and reason – which is why science arose in Christian Europe and nowhere else.

As St John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor #64 teaches: “The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it.”

The only way we know “Christ’s teachings” with certainty is through His own Church which He established and which gave us the Sacred Scriptures as the Word of God, as Christ wrote nothing. Further dogma “proposes, in a form obliging the Christian people to an irrevocable adherence of faith, truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes, in a definitive way, truths having a necessary connection with these.” Doctrine] (CCC #88).

Fr Thomas Dubay, S.M., Faith And Certitude, Ignatius Press, 1995, p 82-4:
Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.

Doubt and Difficulty
“A negative doubt is a close relation to ignorance. An opinion is an assent of the mind but with a well-founded fear that the opposite may be true.” With an unhealthy doubt, “a person suspends judgment even when the evidence is conclusive and completely adequate. This is skepticism, intellectual cowardice……A difficulty is a problem, a not-seeing how two realities fit together….a situation we do not yet understand and perhaps will never understand. It is a limitation on our knowledge, a passing or permanent limitation.”

John Henry Cardinal Newman said “ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt, as I understand the subject; difficulty and doubt are incommensurate.” (Apologia pro vita Sua).

Since the Catholic Church has the clear mandate from the Son of God to teach, sanctify and rule, She not only teaches infallibly but develops doctrine infallibly. Questions can, and are, put to the Magisterium through its dicasteries (the official congregations of the Holy See), to help with any difficulties and the Magisterium clarifies those difficulties.