The Catholic Faith is True?

[lampshade_on_my_soul]

I often hear Catholics state the Catholic faith is true, or it’s the truth. The word true to me means fact; fact meaning something that is consistent with objective reality, or that can be proven with evidence. In my mind, the usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability.

Yet, we are called to have faith. Faith in God as revealed by Jesus and faith in the teaching of the apostles (i.e. the Church).

Faith to me is trust or confidence in something being true. Faith is, while we don’t know for sure, we trust and have confidence the Catholic faith is the truth. In my opinion, if the God of Israel is the God of the universe, He has intentionally not given us all the information to claim our faith is fact. It’s as if God has given us enough to lead us to have faith but has also left room for doubt.

If the above is roughly correct, I wouldn’t call the Catholic faith true, or the truth. One could say, “I believe the Catholic faith is true” and give various reasons for that. But, IMO, none of the reasons given creates an air tight case it is true. However, I realize that will vary from person to person.

There is also the idea that God gives people faith, or the grace to have faith. This is almost like God saying, “I’ll meet you half way. Here’s some things that will you draw you to Me, and if you follow that as far as you can, I’ll do the rest for you.”

Or maybe I misunderstand what is meant when Catholics state their faith is true? Thoughts?

 

[Kullervo]

When is say my faith is true I mean by it that the things it claims really happened and are still happening. If something is true, it’s not important what people think about it, it’s just a fact. Faith isn’t (or shouldn’t be) blind.
Here’s a short video by bishop Barron on what faith is and what it’s not:

 

[jimXroberts]

The truth is what we believe. Facts are something different. In court, we pledge to tell the truth, but the factuality of our evidence depends on our understanding and observation.

When it comes to understanding God, we can’t hope to get our tiny hunter-gatherer brains around the subject to ascertain the facts. We can only know the truth as it has been explained to us. What the Catholic Church understands to be the truth is what has been taught to us by Jesus Christ as revealed in the Gospels and the traditions of the Church. Other people have their own truths.

 

[Dan_Defender]

It depends on what your standard for truth is. Descartes showed that by reason alone, EVERYTHING can be doubted, except one’s own existence. By that standard, only mere existence is true.
If your standard is broader, then test all that seems true and decide. This is what one would except of a God that allows free will.

 

[Renanbr]

Human reason shows us:

1 - There is one God, infinitely perfect;

2 - He created everything there is, and everything He created has in Him its ultimate end and must give Him glory - all creatures are bound to it;

3 - Men, unlike animals, have spiritual souls and are guided by reason; besides, knowing by reason that all created things are contingent and unnecessary, men can choose certain things over others in order to attain his ultimate end; in other words, unlike animals, which glorify God necessarily, men glorify God freely;

4 - Natural obligations arise from the previous conclusions; that is, men must follow the law printed by God in their very hearts, which is called natural law and basically tells them to do good and avoid evil. All of its principles (some of which are related to the worship we owe Him), from the most general to the most specific, can be discovered by human reason; men glorify God when they diligently follow them.

5 - Moreover, if God positively establishes and reveals another way through which men must glorify and worship Him, they are bound to adhere to it. He is the Supreme Legislator, and if He gives men other laws in addition to the natural one, they are bound to obey them: those are called divine positive laws. Therefore, if there is one religion instituted by God, men must join it and persevere in it.

(to be continued)

 

[Renanbr]

(second part of my post)

Well, we know He did so: He instituted His Church through His only Son, Jesus Christ. But, how do we say the Church of Jesus Christ is the one true religion? Allow me to quote “Immortale Dei”, an encyclical issued by the great Leo XIII:

“Now, it cannot be difficult to find out which is the true religion, if only it be sought with an earnest and unbiased mind; for proofs are abundant and striking. We have, for example, the fulfilment of prophecies, miracles in great numbers, the rapid spread of the faith in the midst of enemies and in face of overwhelming obstacles, the witness of the martyrs, and the like. From all these it is evident that the only true religion is the one established by Jesus Christ Himself, and which He committed to His Church to protect and to propagate.”

And, as everything contrary to the truth is necessarily false, we can say that every other religion is false, for all of them have something contrary to the Faith of His Church.

But, how do we say the Catholic Church is the only Church of Jesus Christ, instead of the numerous societies or sects founded by men and which call themselves christian?

We affirm it based on the four marks of His Church: Unity, Holiness, Catholicity and Apostolicity. It is only in the Catholic Church that they are simultaneously present. This is why the Catholic Church is the one true religion.

 

[Renanbr]

(third and last part of my post)

Moreover, when Jesus Christ said: “Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit” (John 3:5); and: “Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned” (Mark 16:16), He meant Faith and Baptism are necessary for the attainment of our supernatural end (our eternal salvation), and, therefore, His Church, the Catholic Church, is also necessary for our eternal salvation, for it is through the aforementioned sacrament that men enter the Church as through a door.

Now, let us speak of the words “I believe”, which are used, for instance, in the Creed. I quoted the following text from the Roman Catechism:

“The word believe does not here mean to think, to suppose, to be of opinion; but, as the Sacred Scriptures teach, it expresses the deepest conviction, by which the mind gives a firm and unhesitating assent to God revealing His mysterious truths.”

So, when we say, for example, we believe in the mistery of the Holy Trinity, there is no doubt at all, not even the slightest. Although this truth can’t be attained by human reason, there is no chance we are wrong when we profess it, because we believe in it relying on the authority of God Himself who revealed it, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.

It’s indeed very opportune to give you here the true definition of Faith:

“Faith is a supernatural virtue, which God infuses into our souls, and by which, relying on the authority of God Himself, we believe everything which He has revealed and which through His Church He proposes for our belief.” (Catechism of St. Pius X)

If you’d like to see the full development of the arguments I’ve just used, you could read:

1 - Réginald Garrigou-Lagrage’s “De Revelatione per Ecclesiam Catholicam proposita”;
2 - Vizmanos and Riudor’s “Teología fundamental para seglares”;
3 - The Roman Catechism or Catechism of the Council of Trent;
4 - The documents issued by the Council of Trent, some of which were translated to english and can be seen in Denzinger’s “The Sources of Catholic Dogma”;
5 - Leo XIII’s encyclical letters “Immortale Dei” and “Libertas Praestantissimum”, as well as Gregory XVI’s “Mirari Vos” and Pius IX’s “Quanta Cura”, followed by its “Syllabus”.

God bless.

 

[Wesrock]

If a truth falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, is it still true?

Wait that’s not right…

Comments-that-sound-witty-only-to-me aside, the question “If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it, does it make a sound” does come to mind. The question I’m getting at is “Is a thing still true and factual even if no one knows it?” I would conclude yes, it remains true. And it would be the case for things only partially or mostly known or reasonably known (in contrast to having immutable absolute knowledge). If somebody can have sufficient, reasonable certainty on an issue, I see no issue with them proclaiming it true.

 

[Gorgias]

The word true to me means fact; fact meaning something that is consistent with objective reality, or that can be proven with evidence. In my mind, the usual test for a statement of fact is verifiability.

By this definition, only things of the material world can be facts. What you’ve just done is, a priori, is to preclude anything transcendent or spiritual to be defined as ‘true’. Is that what you intended? (I mean, it’s an effective – if somewhat intellectually dishonest – approach: “I refuse to see the gorilla in front of me, so therefore, it doesn’t exist!” )

I don’t think that faith is something that can be defined simply as “something I don’t know for sure”; that’s a different category altogether!

So… your original question remains, though: can we “call the Catholic faith true, or the truth”? If you pre-emptively define terms such that it cannot, then you can’t reasonably ask the question, right? On the other hand, you can say “I believe it to be true”. Here’s my suggestion for you: read Newman’s An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent. It speaks to the sorts of questions you’re asking here. Newman invites us to consider what it means to hold something to be true, in the various contexts in which we might do so, and what approaches are appropriate to each. Perhaps you’ll find that there’s more reliability and certainty in the matter than you might be inclined to believe at the present moment…