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

[Peter_J]

but how on earth is it possible for every human to understand everything?

Indeed.

I’ve made a point not to spend an inordinate amount of my life studying philosophy … But it doesn’t take a philosopher to realize the simple fact that our brains aren’t perfect. (Granted, someone could say “Well, if your brain is imperfect, how can it know that someone else’s brain is imperfect?”)

 

[ffg]

Interesting thread, great discussion(s).

I can’t help but think of Thomas in reading this thread.

Surely his heart was with Jesus when with Him. Surely Thomas listened intently, but his senses on Good Friday drove him to think differently from what was taught (until a literal ‘come to Jesus’ moment).

It did not take until the birth of Protestantism for more Christians than Thomas to experience ‘Thomas’ moments and try and move away from core Christian teaching.

Even some Popes had ‘Thomas’ moments (or lives).

But it is important to note, though some Pope’s had those moments (or lives), I don’t believe a bad Pope tried to change the Bible to support a directional change in teaching.

Where one of the early moves of the reformation was to dump context (the 7 OT books) to support a directional change in teaching.

Which obviously leads to user discretion (what does it mean to you?) in the end (vs learning a teaching from an unchanged foundation, which requires a teacher, in this case the CC).

I don’t believe this action a few hundred years ago means a non-Catholic (any) can’t know Jesus is true. Any convert comes to a pretty firm knowledge before they are officially converted.

 

[Tom_Baum]

One of the things that seems interesting to me is that some seem to think that God can only work thru “official” channels.

Jesus told us about the “mission” of Jesus’s Church (I AM the Vine, you are the branches, not I AM the Vine, you are the branch) which is “… and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against It”, the “mission” of Jesus’s Church is NOT that is be without blemish but that even with It’s blemishes, It will accomplish It’s MISSION.

If we are to believe “that the words of Jesus are true” than we are to believe that God works in God’s Way even if God’s Way does not mesh with our preconceived ideas of what God’s Way should be.

 

[PRmerger]

One of the things that seems interesting to me is that some seem to think that God can only work thru “official” channels.

If any Catholic states that, you can tell them, “You are not correctly articulating Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching states that God works through unofficial channels as well as official channels.”

 

[PRmerger]

On the contrary, it shows the falsity of ORAR, once right always right.

Let’s take this back a step, ben.

Are you ceding that the Church is indeed right on the canon of the NT?

Are you conceding that it’s true, as has been the position of most of us Catholics here, that the ONLY way you know what books are theopneustos is because you defer to the authority of the CC?

Yes? Or no?

 

[Telstar]

Thank you for this post! It reminds me that all of us, not just Catholics, should be children of God and not have to be the intellectuals that know everything. The burden of having to understand everything in order to consider myself a child of God must be extremly daunting. I’m not saying that understanding is bad, but how on earth is it possible for every human to understand everything? Some of us will just have to rely on other’s to know what truth is. IMHO, I guess it just would be good if everyone could see and admit we all rely on someone to understand what truth is.

Peace!!!

Thanks.

There’s much more to consider in religion than what we can learn through our own intellect. I think God gave me a decent intellect, but I came from a very poor family. I knew I wouldn’t really have the opportunity to go to college, so I quit school to go to work. Looking back on it, God might have been protecting me from the swill-hole in college campuses of that time. I should have graduated HS in 1970. Looking back at all that happened in the in the early 70s, I’m glad I didn’t go, because if I did, I might not even be here, now.

Indeed.

I’ve made a point not to spend an inordinate amount of my life studying philosophy … But it doesn’t take a philosopher to realize the simple fact that our brains aren’t perfect. (Granted, someone could say “Well, if your brain is imperfect, how can it know that someone else’s brain is imperfect?”)

When it comes to God, intellect can certainly be important. First of all, it helps us to figure out whether or not it makes any sense for us to believe in God, then it helps us determine where to go from there. With all the religious choices out there, today, it’s not always easy to decide just which religion is the right one. First, we need to look at what we believe about God, then look at which religions teach similar beliefs, starting with the basics, then digging deeper to see which ones make the most sense to us. But, can we really make a sound decision about which religion to follow, based solely on logic or intellect? Maybe some of us can, but I think there has to be something more than that involved. In the long run, I think we need to consider one last thing, and that would be God’s love. Without that, practicing any religion (especially Christian) would be rather pointless.

So, where can we find real signs of the true love of God in any church? I’m not talking about human love, like the love of family, or friends or any kind of emotional connections that we might ‘feel’ when we go to any particular church. Those are certainly important to us in a personal way. It’s nice to be surrounded by family and friends in church. But, God’s love is much more important than any of those personal relationships that we have with other people.

So, which church has the greatest sign of God’s love for us? To me, the answer is simple. The Catholic Church has the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. He promised to be with us “until the consummation of the world”, and He really is always with us in Holy Communion, the true Communion of Saints. So, it fits the bill from both the logical/intellectual side of the debate, and in my opinion even more importantly, it’s the only place on earth to find the greatest sign of God’s eternal love for us in this world, or in the next, in the Holy Eucharist.

I can’t help but think of Thomas in reading this thread.

Surely his heart was with Jesus when with Him. Surely Thomas listened intently, but his senses on Good Friday drove him to think differently from what was taught (until a literal ‘come to Jesus’ moment).

I think Thomas was most likely an intellectual that wasn’t easily swayed by his emotions. That’s probably what caused him to have doubts, because a lot of what Jesus was teaching them in the days leading up to the Crucifixion, was certainly a strain on the human intellect. In the end, he had the experience of seeing Jesus standing in front of him, and putting his hands into His wounds, to convince him that Jesus was truly resurrected. I have to wonder if he ever would have believed if that didn’t happen.

It did not take until the birth of Protestantism for more Christians than Thomas to experience ‘Thomas’ moments and try and move away from core Christian teaching.

Even some Popes had ‘Thomas’ moments (or lives).

But it is important to note, though some Pope’s had those moments (or lives), I don’t believe a bad Pope tried to change the Bible to support a directional change in teaching.

Actually, I don’t recall which Pope it was, but one of them was planning on making a heretical declaration that would have changed the whole direction of the Church. But, the Holy Spirit protected the Church from falling into error. The night before his planned heretical declaration, that Pope died of natural causes. :bigyikes:

Where one of the early moves of the reformation was to dump context (the 7 OT books) to support a directional change in teaching.

Which obviously leads to user discretion (what does it mean to you?) in the end (vs learning a teaching from an unchanged foundation, which requires a teacher, in this case the CC).

I don’t believe this action a few hundred years ago means a non-Catholic (any) can’t know Jesus is true. Any convert comes to a pretty firm knowledge before they are officially converted.

That’s a very important point. Sure, anyone can read the Bible and try to figure it out on their own, but the real danger is that there’s a good possibility that they will interpret many things, incorrectly. The best example of this is when Phillip met the Ethiopian who was reading from the Book of Isaiah, but he needed Phillip to teach him, to understand what it really meant.

 

[ffg]

Actually, I don’t recall which Pope it was, but one of them was planning on making a heretical declaration that would have changed the whole direction of the Church. But, the Holy Spirit protected the Church from falling into error. The night before his planned heretical declaration, that Pope died of natural causes. :bigyikes:

Ha!

I was giving ‘bad Popes’ the benefit of the doubt in that they would know they could not change, what could not change.

Much more dramatic and interesting to have a wayward Pope lose his life for trying.

Details! Time to hunt.

 

[Contarini]

Hi Edwin, and thanks for posting that.

Just one note: I don’t think one can automatically assume that something’s true because the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia says it – which is not to say, either, that what you cited from it is wrong .

Of course not. But they tend to get basic historical facts right. And in this case, I was citing the CE because it’s a source that folks on this forum tend to respect.

Edwin

 

[Peter_J]

Of course not. But they tend to get basic historical facts right.

Yes I think that’s sums it up pretty well.

 

[Peter_J]

When it comes to God, intellect can certainly be important. First of all, it helps us to figure out whether or not it makes any sense for us to believe in God, then it helps us determine where to go from there. With all the religious choices out there, today, it’s not always easy to decide just which religion is the right one. First, we need to look at what we believe about God, then look at which religions teach similar beliefs, starting with the basics, then digging deeper to see which ones make the most sense to us. But, can we really make a sound decision about which religion to follow, based solely on logic or intellect?

I would say No.

 

[Peter_J]

The Catholic Church has the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist. He promised to be with us “until the consummation of the world”, and He really is always with us in Holy Communion, the true Communion of Saints. So, it fits the bill from both the logical/intellectual side of the debate, and in my opinion even more importantly, it’s the only place on earth to find the greatest sign of God’s eternal love for us in this world, or in the next, in the Holy Eucharist.

This is the part of your post that makes me go “Hmmm.”

If you say that only TCC has the Holy Eucharist, and TCC says that others like the Eastern Orthodox have the Holy Eucharist, who should I believe?

 

[Eddie_Mac]

I’m not going to read all 20 odd pages of this thread, so forgive me if this has already been posted.

To me, the one certain part of scripture that will determine whether or not any denomination has the whole truth and is guided by the Holy Spirit is whether or not they believe with their whole heart, mind, and soul the words of Christ in John chapter 6, the Bread of Life discourse. Literally. This is what sets the Catholic Church apart from the rat of the thousands of Christian denominations.

The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

I know Jesus’ Words are True. I know He is fully present in the Eucharist.

If you don’t hold John chapter 6 as literal you don’t have a leg to stand on.

48 I am the bread of life.

49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;

50 this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.

51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”

52 The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?”

53 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.

54 Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.

55 For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink.

56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.

57 Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.

58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”

 

[PRmerger]

Tha But, can we really make a sound decision about which religion to follow, based solely on logic or intellect?

Imagine if your spouse used solely logic and his intellect in order to determine whether he would propose to you!

No, that’s not how we would want to be pursued.

We want someone who’s taking a leap of faith towards us, no?

Again, with the best Catholic answer, we say: both/and. We use faith AND reason to decide whether to marry someone. We use faith AND reason to decide whether to be Catholic.

 

[PRmerger]

I am not a fideist in that we should just believe without reflection or deeper thinking deeper into things, but neither am I rationalist or someone insists on being rational in everything. If our faith required a reasonable justification I suspect Christ would not have said “blessed is he who has not seen and has believed”. I however while I came to faith based on simply hearing, later I had challenges to that faith and my views have changed over time and I also believe my faith to also be reasonable. Few people believe in illogicality or think their beliefs are true despite what they think they know.

Well, this is very Catholic.

Faith Alone = heresy.
Reason Alone = unreasonable

Faith AND Reason = The Catholic way.

 

[Telstar]

This is the part of your post that makes me go “Hmmm.”

If you say that only TCC has the Holy Eucharist, and TCC say that others like the Eastern Orthodox have the Holy Eucharist, who should I believe?

You’re right. The EO does have a valid Holy Eucharist. But, a Roman Catholic still cannot receive communion in an EO church. We’re very close in so many ways, but it’s still complicated. I certainly mean no disrespect to any of our EO friends, but it’s my personal opinion that the true Church goes all the way back to Peter, and follows his successors down to the present day. I also realize that for a lot of people, the authority of the Pope can be a real obstacle. All I can say to them is keep digging deeper, and keep an open heart.

 

[Reuben_J]

I’m not going to read all 20 odd pages of this thread, so forgive me if this has already been posted.

To me, the one certain part of scripture that will determine whether or not any denomination has the whole truth and is guided by the Holy Spirit is whether or not they believe with their whole heart, mind, and soul the words of Christ in John chapter 6, the Bread of Life discourse. Literally. This is what sets the Catholic Church apart from the rat of the thousands of Christian denominations.

The Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Christ.

I know Jesus’ Words are True. I know He is fully present in the Eucharist.

If you don’t hold John chapter 6 as literal you don’t have a leg to stand on.

Agreed, though the correlation of Eucharist and Jn 6 can be quite complicated, you nevertheless brought up a good point. The Catholic Church interpreted it (Jn 6) as literal, while other churches don’t. They cannot be all right and someone has to be wrong. In view of the need for the succession of apostles (Acts 1:15-26) and Jesus’ prayer that they should be one in unity (Jn 17:11-19), it was obvious that there should be only one Church. Jesus indeed had left this one Church behind and she still exists today, the Catholic Church.

There are many accusations against her; one such accusation is that what she is today is not what she was before. There were accusations too that because of bad Popes, the Church was therefore a failure and therefore new churches are needed. And yet the new churches today cannot really say that they agree with each other. And the scripture that they want to hold true is indeed the one that they want to play with - its word and interpretation. But like Jn 6 or Mt 16, there actually not much that we can do to play with or differ in their interpretation. They are what they are. But ultimately with the many different interpretations, one must be right and rest must be wrong.

Another topic that can be associated with the different interpretations of the word was why the new churches were formed? That would be interesting as they all have their human founders and the reasons for their splitting away from the Catholic Church.

God bless.

Reuben

 

[Peter_J]

You’re right. **The EO does have a valid Holy Eucharist. **But, a Roman Catholic still cannot receive communion in an EO church. We’re very close in so many ways, but it’s still complicated. I certainly mean no disrespect to any of our EO friends, but it’s my personal opinion that the true Church goes all the way back to Peter, and follows his successors down to the present day. I also realize that for a lot of people, the authority of the Pope can be a real obstacle. All I can say to them is keep digging deeper, and keep an open heart.

Doesn’t that contradict your assertion

it’s the only place on earth to find the greatest sign of God’s eternal love for us in this world, or in the next, in the Holy Eucharist.

?

 

[benhur]

Let’s take this back a step, ben.

Are you ceding that the Church is indeed right on the canon of the NT?

Are you conceding that it’s true, as has been the position of most of us Catholics here, that the ONLY way you know what books are theopneustos is because you defer to the authority of the CC?

Yes? Or no?

Sorry, that is not one of the reformation’s “only”. It is “only” faith, grace, Christ, scripture, and for His glory.

Most reformers were Catholic, and did not protest but cherished how God gave the Church the bible.

 

[PRmerger]

Sorry, that is not one of the reformation’s “only”. It is “only” faith, grace, Christ, scripture, and for His glory.

Most reformers were Catholic, and did not protest but cherished how God gave the Church the bible.

Fair enough.

So the only way that the Reformers, and by extension, YOU, knew that the Gospel of Mark is inspired is because the Catholic Church got it right, yes?

 

[Telstar]

Doesn’t that contradict your assertion

?

Technically, I suppose you could see it that way, unless you consider the fact that for Roman Catholics, there is only one Holy Eucharist that is valid for us to receive. So, from that perspective, there is only one place to find that Eucharist on earth, which is in one of the Catholic Churches that are in full Communion with the Holy See, in Rome. And, it is still the greatest sign of God’s eternal love for mankind.

Others are free to disagree, but that’s my own personal belief on the subject. I could be wrong. If someone can show me where the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching is different from anything I said, then I would certainly defer to the teaching of the Church, and apologize for my ignorance.