What Makes Christianity True?

[mdcpensive1]

But who is Jesus Christ?

Not your notion, or the Church’s notion, or the traditional notions in various traditionally accepted writings, but who actually is He?
And don’t just repeat your statement of belief above - that is no more than what my previous sentence is describing.

He is the bridge between the natural and the supernatural. Nothing natural can rectify or correct the divide that was made of all of human existence with the sin of Adam. Therefore something had to be done to reconcile this difference if we were to become once again “in His image”.

Part of my explaination assumes that one has a fundamental belief in a “'God” and that once we were in a better relationship with Him but somehow fell out of His graces. I hope that you have these two items.

If this is so, then Deuteronomy 18:15-18 is a prophesy of someone (the prophet) to come to speak the truth. The question then is WHO fits all the requirements of the prophesies from the days gone by which include Isaiah 53 and parts of the Pslams. This to me is the question that needs an answer. Who fits all the predictions? For me it is Christ.

The other question is what proves the prophesies? What are the signs? The miracles and witnesses to me are the proofs of His being Who He says He is and especially since He rose from the dead as He predicted and corroaborated by hundreds of people.

Christ stated that He would protect the Church from error and be with it till the end of days. It is a miracle in itself that the Church still exists because it is run by humans. If Christ wasn’t the one guiding it, then it surely would have failed as all other institutions have. The Jews are part of the salvation story and they have a part to play in the Church also. Why have they survived all this time??? There are no other peoples from that time like Caananites, Jebusites, etc, yet they have existed throughout the centuries even without a country till 1947. This is amazing and a miracle in itself and only can be from God to be used in His plan. Nothing else makes sense to me.

God Bless and hope this makes some sense.

mdcpensive1

 

[AJTheMan]

Thanks for all of the posts. I’ll make sure to read them in time and ponder on them.

Thank you so much.

 

[anon5216]

John,

Thank you for your thoughtful posts.
I am reading them and will respond in kind, but may take a bit of time.

I apologize if in some spots my prior comments seem glib to you,
but I assure you, I am not insincere or shallow in my spiritual pursuits or my spiritual discussions.

 

[John_Hiner]

John,

Thank you for your thoughtful posts.
I am reading them and will respond in kind, but may take a bit of time.

I apologize if in some spots my prior comments seem glib to you,
but I assure you, I am not insincere or shallow in my spiritual pursuits or my spiritual discussions.

Laudetur Iesus Christus.

Dear “anon5216:”

Thank you. I look forward to your comments.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[MarcoPolo]

Regarding Judaism - Jesus was in direct contradiction to it.

He is the fulfillment of OT prophecies, and is why the Bereans were able to identify Him. And is one of the ways a person can identify Him as the Savior.

 

[anon5216]

Hello John,

Apologies for taking so long to respond …

Laudetur Iesus Christus.
…
You anticipate the distinction which I made soon after in my previous post. There is a great difference between the question, “What does it mean for a thing to be true and another thing to be false,” and the question, “How do you personally know a thing,” and the question, “How can any human being know this thing?” In your reply, you are mixing these questions. The truth of a thing does not depend on my or even mankind’s ability to know it is true. Hence the doctrines of the Church are true, whether any man can know that they are true. The truth of the matter is not dependent on whether I believe or you disbelieve. Neither human belief nor human doubt is the measure of truth.
I agree with you entirely that the truth of a thing does not depend on belief or popularity or mankind’s ability to know or understand.
I don’t see how you can jump to the “hence the doctrines of the Church are true” claim however.

I would simply go back to “something is true or false or a mixture regardless of how many people believe or disbelieve or how many years a group has more or less consistently held one or more beliefs”.

The question is, given the clouded and contingent nature of human means of investigation, what do we do to conform our actions and understanding to the truth.
Before jumping on the “conform to the truth” part, one must first know what the truth is, and to know that one must have the appropriate faculties to discern truth.

Again you mix the questions. My effort in this sentence was to clarify what body of doctrines to which my comments about truth apply. You are commenting on the separate question of whether those doctrines have been communicated through history – though important, to a limited extent, this question is premature as a comment on the limitation of the set of doctrines in question.
My comment was on the “truth” that we can’t know precisely what Jesus actually said and taught and meant.
This includes the alleged “promise of protection of the transmission of His teachings”.
To create the thousands upon thousands of pages of interpretation of Jesus’ alleged teachings that the Church has done based on a set of alleged teachings is what is entirely premature.

The reason it is counterproductive to introduce this question prematurely turns on the content of Jesus’ teaching. If He is God as He claims and He and the Holy Spirit protect the transmission of His teachings in mother Church, as He claims, then the issue of transmission is contained in the question of the truth of His claims. On the other hand, if He is not God, then His promise to protect the transmission of His teachings is meaningless, and the questions of integrity of transmission which you raise become relevant. However, to raise these questions of transmission prematurely is to beg the fundamental question of truth.
Again, you are assuming the tradition of Jesus’ alleged teachings and claims are proven to be accurate.
We have only the assertions of fallible humans making claims on Jesus’ behalf.
The question of identity of Jesus and God is an entirely unrelated question to the one about whether Jesus’ alleged words and teachings are really “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth”,
or whether disciples and followers (contemporary or later) misinterpreted, misunderstood, misremembered, added, left out, imagined or even outright made false claims regarding Jesus’ actual words and teachings.

…
Continued . . .

 

[anon5216]

Continued . . .

I am not joking – so do not risk the credibility of your practical judgment by facetiously asserting that I must be. I do not agree with your assertion about the state of the ancient world. I am tempted to ask how you know this since no god has guaranteed the accuracy of the transmission of the accounts to which you vaguely refer, but that would divert us from a more important point.
I made that comment because the Pharaohs were considered gods by the Egyptians; Julius Caesars claimed to be a god and was acknowledged as such by the Roman state after his death;
and claims of godhood in general were rather fast and loose in those times.

Are you claiming that there were a number of persons in the ancient world who claimed to be both gods and men? I do not think a careful reading of the ancient authors will lead to this conclusion. It is my impression, rather, that in most ancient conceptions divine and human were specifically incompatible. Those men who claimed to be gods claimed to be gods instead of men. The tenacity of this understanding is partially responsible for the long and detailed debates about Christology throughout the history of the Church.
Considering those men who claimed to be gods also performed all the functions of men such as eating, sleeping, procreating, etc., and many times they were “made gods” after death - having led a human life, I don’t see how your argument here as any substance to it.

St. Paul writes, “There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1Timothy (RSV) 2:5; emphasis added.) It is this fact of His manhood which makes possible His mediation between the limited means of knowing, which cloud and frustrate human knowledge, and reality and truth.
You are assuming Paul correctly interpreted his spiritual experiences, wrote them down with perfect undistorted clarity and then the Church later interpreted his writings completely correctly.
That’s a huge stretch of the imagination for me.

If you are claiming that other ancients claimed to be both gods and men, then please give me the specific texts so that I can make an assessment of their import. Certainly I do not believe that such persons were as common as your comment above suggests.
The “both god and man” is a Christian myth layered on top of truth. The Romans had other myths they colored their understandings and claims with. The Egyptians others yet, as did the Hindus, the Scandinavians, the Chinese, the Australian Aborigines, the Celts, etc., etc.
You can’t seriously require other cultures and religions to describe their beliefs using exactly the same terms, and in exactly the same manner, as the members of a completely different religion or culture describe their beliefs.

I am not familiar with, “Adwaita Vedanta,” do you have a specific passage or group of citations which I should consider regarding consonance with, “Jesus’ claims?” (It would also be helpful if you could provide some information on the nature of the translations, if any, since the tendency of those whose “religious assumptions are . . . already Christian” to tendentiously translate ancient texts to parallel the truth of the gospel is both understandable and apparently of some concern to you in your considerations of these matters.)
Ancient writings would include the Mandukya Upanishad, a treatise on that Upanishad known as the “Gaudapadiya Karika” and a commentary on that treatise by Sankara.
Relatively recent sources would be the books “I Am That” by Nisargadatta Maharaj, “The Collected Works of Ramana Maharshi” by Arthur Osborne, “Sri Ramakrishna - The Great Master” by Swami Saradananda.
In general, the claim “I and God are one” has been very well known in Indian spirituality for thousands of years -
both in the context of an ordinary human achieving this oneness and in the context of God manifesting directly in human form as an Avatar.

Continued . . .

 

[anon5216]

Continued . . .

Christ specifically endorsed Moses’ impression that he spoke to God. Certainly Christ, God, and Moses, as well as all in heaven know this. Your assertion that “no one knows” seems unacceptably limited in a conversation where you know that we do not share your assumptions about the limits of knowledge.
Christian tradition alleges that the Christ specifically made such an endorsement. Further than that is just faith - no one actually “knows” this - no matter how fervently they may believe it.

I agree that Mohammed was most likely mistaken. This very difficulty in, “vetting,” his encounter with a preternatural being is precisely the point which I am making. The limitations of human means to know limit the reliability of Mohammed’s understanding of what happened.
Moses was in no better position.

With regard to Jesus you are incorrect. We have His assurance that those who transmit His teachings will remember them all and preserve them accurately. This is what we have. You speculate that it may not be what Jesus said, but again, that begs the question, since if it is what Jesus said then we have a firm basis for believing it, the worry that it is not what Jesus said has only human suspicions and insecurity to recommend it. These are not equally balanced considerations. A universally taught and uniform doctrine present in all apostolic Churches is not balanced or outweighed by the human capacity to doubt or feel insecure.
We don’t have Jesus’ assurance at all. What we have is second hand assurances by others that Jesus’ allegedly gave this assurance.
“Universally taught and uniform doctrine” is in theory only - not so supportable a claim in actual practice.
If you were to go to a few hundred Catholic Churches around the world you would find plenty of exceptions - as many people on this forum frequently complain about.

Again, this touches on the basis of our difficulty in this discussion.

Continued . . .

 

[anon5216]

Continued . . .

In response to, “1),” please show me.
Jesus’ claim of identity with God is precisely the teaching of Adwaita Vedanta - see the sources I mentioned earlier.

In response to, “2),” thank you for your editing advice, but I did not have Mr. Lewis in mind when I made this argument. I was making the argument independently, as one offers a logical demonstration, not as an appeal to authority or celebrity. In fact, I had in mind the presentation made by Mr. Raymond de Souza, of St. Gabriel Communications International, on EWTN. The series was called, “Jesus Christ: True God and True Man.” However, I suspect that neither Mr. Lewis nor Mr. De Souza were the first to present this argument.
Perhaps, but the line “Jesus had to be insane, lying, or telling the truth” out of “Mere Christianity” has taken on the character of an urban legend to my mind - in the sense of being repeated so many times by so many people that everyone just assumes it is true without actually vetting the claim in depth.

In response to, “3),” I do not see your argument. Those do seem like the only possibilities. Consider it this way: Either Christ’s claims conform to reality or they do not. If they do not and He thought they did, then He was insane. If they do not and He knew that they did not, but said they did anyway, then He is a liar. So, two possibilities, claims true, claims false, and two states of mind, Christ knew, Christ did not know. Logically, there are only four possibilities. But since the fourth, that the claims were true but Christ did not know it, though He said it anyway, is eliminated by the nature of the claim itself, that He is God, we are left with only the three possibilities named: insane, liar, or true God.
To start with, there is no proof that Christ’s claims were accurately transcribed by his disciples and followers.
Beyond the issue of quotes is then the issue of interpretation of the ramifications of said alleged quote.

Let’s say “I and the Father are One” is an accurate quote. What does that actually mean anyway?
That all depends on a person’s mythology about who or what God is, which introduces the error of personal and cultural myth to the equation.
I mean, someone these days could just as easily interpret the claim to mean Jesus was a biological clone of some advanced and powerful extraterrestrial and was artificially inseminated into the womb of an ordinary young woman.
Don’t get me wrong - I’m not claiming this interpretation myself, just saying that modern mythology can also come up with a consistent interpretation/explanation.

It seems to me that all other possible characterizations are mere variations on these three – He was a good liar, He was a, “functioning madman,” and therefore did not look crazy, etc. However, these do not amount to additional possibilities, merely comments on the difficulty of the practical judgment of which of the three possibilities is credible.

What other possibilities are you asserting?
I am asserting that the interpretations of what Jesus’ (alleged) words mean and what the ramifications of those words are, belong to the fallible humans making those interpretations - not to Jesus.
I’m asserting that to start with the interpretations of people raised in a mythology that had Jesus executed for the crimes of heresy and blasphemy against that mythology are inherently questionable.
Especially in light of the fact that those alleged claims are very consistent with an entirely different mythology - namely Indian.
Considering that Buddhist missionaries were in Egypt a hundred years before the time of Jesus, and that Adwaita Vedanta is far older than Buddhism, I’d say those concepts were accessible to Jesus.
Therefore to interpret Jesus only in light of Jewish mythology is a huge mistake.

Continued . . .

 

[anon5216]

Continued . . .

There is no denial that the Faith is faith. It is the credit and fidelity given to the man Jesus Christ by believing and relying upon His teachings and in obeying, therefore, His commands. It is also credit and fidelity given to His Holy Catholic Church, which He promised to guide, guarantee, and protect.
Well, the CC claims that Jesus guaranteed it would never err in its teachings.
Personally I don’t buy it.

Now we may come to the root of our difficulty:

I am unsure what you think a, “fact,” is. The root of the word means, “something made.” Certainly any scientist, lawyer, or reporter appreciates how difficult and sophisticated a job it is to, “make,” or, “establish,” as we usually say, “a fact.” The connections between what we think and what is, “actual,” is so tenuous for human beings that we must sometimes act on the thinnest threads of deduction – which we usually call, “induction.”
How about we use the simple modern definition of “a thing that is indisputably the case”?

In the Faith, all of this human struggle to know things is founded on Christ’s assurance, as the one man who could see over the wall which blocks and limits the vision and ability to know of all other men. This is the sense in which Faith is another avenue of knowledge, in addition to our native human ability to perceive and deduce.

We know the things beyond the wall of human capacities to discover, because we have faith in the One who has the means to look beyond that wall and the reports He gave us of what is there. This is superior to but not wholly different from the way in which we know the things that are below the level of our ability to see with our eyes (or our personal microscopes), by relying on those who have the means to investigate more minutely and trust the reports that they make of what they discern there. It is true that we must trust the ability of the one looking and his goodwill in reporting what he sees. It is also true that we must trust the effectiveness of the systems and institutions established to preserve these reports and to convey them to us in a way that accurately and reliably conveys to our minds what that privileged seer saw, but which we cannot see.
Christ being “the one man who could see over the wall …” is not “a thing that is indisputably the case”.
There are plenty of examples of such men in the various spiritual traditions of this planet.

Continued . . .

 

[anon5216]

Continued . . .

However, though the Faith and science have some parallels, they are distinct. Science, in the modern English sense, limits itself to those things which can, at least in theory, be repeated by other observers. This is a peculiar privilege of science, which is not shared by most other ways of knowing. Consider a news reporter or other witness to an event or crime. Often what such witnesses see are unique events in the flow of time. Unlike the narrow range of things that science’s privilege limits it to, a witness cannot be, “checked,” by repeating the event to verify the witness’s account. One can look at the traces and consequence of the event, to see if they are consistent or at odds with the witness’s account, but one cannot, “scientifically,” repeat the event to verify the account.
But spiritual experience can be verified scientifically, in the sense that other individuals can repeat the process of spiritual awakening and evolution and “look over the wall”.

Nevertheless, an eye witness whose account is consistent with the consequences in time of an event, whose claim that a victim was stabbed comports with the finding of a knife wound in the corpse and blood spattered on the walls, can take us to a high degree of confidence in our knowledge of this unrepeatable event. In fact it can take us, “beyond a reasonable doubt,” though as prosecuting lawyers are fond of noting, it cannot take us, “beyond all possible or conceivable doubt.”
In religious discussion “beyond a reasonable doubt” really must be appended with “given the mythological religious background of the witness or juror in question”.

Now the very root of our difficulty. On what do we base our confidence that science and eyewitness accounts confirmed by forensic evidence give us any idea of reality in any case? Some say that it cannot. David Hume, the English philosopher and writer, argued that materialistic views of reality can rely on nothing more than sentiment and habits of feeling confident to predict the consequences of any given event or state of things. Hence, he argues, we do not know anything except how we feel and we can have no confidence in our future feelings, because they have no basis for resisting random changes in whatever the world might do, since it is on these unknowable happenings in the unknowable world which are habits and feelings are ultimately based.

The Faith tells us, and the First Vatican Council defined it as a dogma of faith, that God has guaranteed for us the accuracy of our knowing through reason and its ability to say true things about the things other than our feelings which actually and really exist. Hume was mistaken. It is for this reason that science and the testimony of witnesses can be believed as true, and we can morally act on the information which they give us.

However, this connection is fully based on the fidelity and credit given to the testimony of Jesus Christ. It is only accepted by those whose, “assumptions are . . . already Christian.” The ancient pagans did not have this confidence in what they saw. Neither do the modern heathens.
You are still mixing the testimony of Jesus Christ with the interpretation and commentary of ordinary humans.

Do you propose any other basis for believing in a connection between what we see, feel, or think and what is real or true?

This is a root question for our discussion, because all of your doubts and challenges to the reliability of the Church’s tradition or the accuracy of the reports of ancient beliefs or teachings turns on this link between human perception and reality or actuality. Hence, it seems to me that all of your objections, if they are to have any force, rely precisely on Christ’s testimony. Hence, they cannot succeed, logically, because to succeed, they must be invalid. (Admittedly this does not say they must be false, but only invalid, that is lacking in all persuasive and rational force.) On the other hand, if Christ is who He said He is, then your objections are valid, but wrong.
No, my challenges turn on the distinction between statements made by a person who had realized oneness with God vs. interpretations and commentary made by persons with no such realizations.
The only people who can truly understand the statements of a “God-realized” person are another “God-realized” person. (btw, I’m not claiming to be such a one by any stretch).

My challenges aside, I do believe it is possible to achieve the spiritual perfection Jesus demanded, within the context of the CC and its mythology.
I also believe it is possible within the context of other religious mythologies - and even none.

I do not believe that loyalty to a particular system of belief is a guarantee of such spiritual perfection -
any more than loyalty to a particular sports team (or athletic coach for that matter) is any guarantee of being even remotely competent at actually playing said sport.

Thank you for your stimulating comments. I look forward to your replies to my several enquiries.

Pax Christi nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[anon5216]

He is the bridge between the natural and the supernatural. Nothing natural can rectify or correct the divide that was made of all of human existence with the sin of Adam. Therefore something had to be done to reconcile this difference if we were to become once again “in His image”.

Part of my explaination assumes that one has a fundamental belief in a “'God” and that once we were in a better relationship with Him but somehow fell out of His graces. I hope that you have these two items.

If this is so, then Deuteronomy 18:15-18 is a prophesy of someone (the prophet) to come to speak the truth. The question then is WHO fits all the requirements of the prophesies from the days gone by which include Isaiah 53 and parts of the Pslams. This to me is the question that needs an answer. Who fits all the predictions? For me it is Christ.

The other question is what proves the prophesies? What are the signs? The miracles and witnesses to me are the proofs of His being Who He says He is and especially since He rose from the dead as He predicted and corroaborated by hundreds of people.

Christ stated that He would protect the Church from error and be with it till the end of days. It is a miracle in itself that the Church still exists because it is run by humans. If Christ wasn’t the one guiding it, then it surely would have failed as all other institutions have. The Jews are part of the salvation story and they have a part to play in the Church also. Why have they survived all this time??? There are no other peoples from that time like Caananites, Jebusites, etc, yet they have existed throughout the centuries even without a country till 1947. This is amazing and a miracle in itself and only can be from God to be used in His plan. Nothing else makes sense to me.

God Bless and hope this makes some sense.

mdcpensive1

But you’re just giving me ideas, beliefs and traditional notions and traditionally accepted writings again. These are just words.

To actually know who Jesus is would require first that you know who you are, and from that awareness have direct awareness of Jesus.

Even quoting the words used by another person that did achieve this qualification would not mean you really knew Jesus.
Spiritual Truth is only known directly - words can only hint at the possibility.

 

[anon5216]

He is the fulfillment of OT prophecies, and is why the Bereans were able to identify Him. And is one of the ways a person can identify Him as the Savior.

One way you can tell Jesus was in contradiction with Judaism is that the Jews had him executed for heresy and blasphemy against their religion.

 

[John_Hiner]

Laudetur Iesus Christus.

Dear “anon5216:”

Thank you for your comments. I have reviewed them quickly and found them helpful and stimulating. If God grants it, I will respond to them at length within the next few days.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[mdcpensive1]

But you’re just giving me ideas, beliefs and traditional notions and traditionally accepted writings again. These are just words.

To actually know who Jesus is would require first that you know who you are, and from that awareness have direct awareness of Jesus.

I have read the reply of yours to John Hiner and I find it amazing that you have the time it takes to give all that is there careful thought. I was hoping that I gave you more than just mere words but a situational experience of what has happened to make it real (at least for me). If I were to say that it will rain and it happens, then I have prophesied the truth. What was done was something that an human could do with the best science or best guesses. This in itself is not of consequence untill it happens many times in a row. Now, reason tends to ask why so many times in a row being correct and if there is more than just human action going on since humans are prone to errors. Possibilities open up because there are more choices now to the possible outcomes.

An examination of what is happening can lead to the possibility that something other than human intuition or human science is being presented. We may ask “why” and “how can this be”? Knowing the reason why is difficult because of lack of apriori knowledge. We can just know that it is. How can this be is more of a question of what information do we have that explains the phenomenon.

If the phenomenon has been predicted then we have more of a basis for knowledge. If we see that the phenomenon is beyond human means then we have knowledge or an indication that it is extra-human or above the natural. This is the field of miracles that can only be explained by direct involvement by the creator to give testimony of His presence and feelings for us. The creator can be known by prior writings that are supposed to testify to future events that will take place. If they take place they give credence to the facts about them. We can determine by apriori information just what creators or gods fit the prophesies since they have writings and eye witnesses. Eye witnesses are important as coobarative.

Hope this helps, mdcpensive1, Perry Mason and Sherlock Holmes

 

[anon5216]

I have read the reply of yours to John Hiner and I find it amazing that you have the time it takes to give all that is there careful thought. I was hoping that I gave you more than just mere words but a situational experience of what has happened to make it real (at least for me). If I were to say that it will rain and it happens, then I have prophesied the truth. What was done was something that an human could do with the best science or best guesses. This in itself is not of consequence untill it happens many times in a row. Now, reason tends to ask why so many times in a row being correct and if there is more than just human action going on since humans are prone to errors. Possibilities open up because there are more choices now to the possible outcomes.

An examination of what is happening can lead to the possibility that something other than human intuition or human science is being presented. We may ask “why” and “how can this be”? Knowing the reason why is difficult because of lack of apriori knowledge. We can just know that it is. How can this be is more of a question of what information do we have that explains the phenomenon.

If the phenomenon has been predicted then we have more of a basis for knowledge. If we see that the phenomenon is beyond human means then we have knowledge or an indication that it is extra-human or above the natural. This is the field of miracles that can only be explained by direct involvement by the creator to give testimony of His presence and feelings for us. The creator can be known by prior writings that are supposed to testify to future events that will take place. If they take place they give credence to the facts about them. We can determine by apriori information just what creators or gods fit the prophesies since they have writings and eye witnesses. Eye witnesses are important as coobarative.

Hope this helps, mdcpensive1, Perry Mason and Sherlock Holmes

I hope I didn’t offend you in a personal manner with my “mere words” comments.
I was quite fascinated with spiritual “words” for quite a few years before realizing the difference between that type of knowledge and direct experience.

There are real problems with prophecies and miracles as proofs.
Taking prophecies as proofs assumes that God is the only being that exists and/or perceives outside of time “as we know it”.
Similarly, taking miracles as proofs assumes that next to God, humans have the most advanced possible capabilities regarding manipulating space/matter “as we know it”.

I don’t believe anyone as ever proven either of those assumptions and so neither of these assumptions can really be used to “prove” anything further.
Is time and space “as we know it” even really an accurate understanding of time and space?
After all, our minds only interpret electrical impulses coming from our sensory organs - and those organs only gather indirect evidence of external reality themselves.

Now, regarding the saints: I think we could safely conclude that many people (the saints in question) have experienced something spiritual and far beyond the ordinary.
Also that there is something of consistency in their experience.
I entirely agree with your reasoning as it would be applied to the frequent and fairly large numbers of people reproducing the path to sainthood.
Although I would add that includes ‘saints’ of other religions and spiritual traditions as well as Catholicism.

“Mere words” can certainly provide indirect evidence of these saint’s experience of reality and would hopefully inspire others to strive to emulate one or more of these saints.
They aren’t, however, the actual experience of spiritual reality in and of themselves - no matter how perfectly memorized and glorified.

To be satisfied with knowing these words and belonging to an organization that reveres these words is at best being a fan and member of a fan club.
To take these words and act on them in the sense of reproducing in yourself the direct experience(s) that the words only indirectly describe is another matter entirely.
Now you are on the path to becoming an athlete or an artist or - in the case of this discussion - a saint.

Even the saints themselves frequently lament the low standard of their spiritual transformation as if God were asking far more from them.
They seem to be suggesting that their spiritual states are just the bare beginnings of the path.

 

[John_Hiner]

Laudetur Iesus Christus.

I have delayed overlong in replying to the several chains of thought which were raised in this thread. My reluctance comes from the sense that the clear logic of the issues is obscured by the murkiness of epistemological habits of thought.

The difficulty with the equation between those who have said, “I and god are one,” and the claims of Christ has to do with the proper noun, “god.” Jesus is not proclaimed to be merely, “god,” but the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the very God of Israel the Creator of everything from nothing as described in Genesis and Maccabees. This is a very different claim than the ubiquitous claim described in the Upanishads and elsewhere.

The identity between man and god which happens when, “god,” is thought to be unconscious of, “itself,” is very different from the claim that Christ is both man and the God of Israel. One suspects a sort of begging of the question when, “god,” is generalized to a generic idea so that an equivalence between the concept of, “deity,” and the living God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob could be conceived.

An illustration of this problem can be seen in the old saw about the elephant and the blind men. In this scenario, the blind men are said to feel their way around different parts of the elephant and to declare variously: it is like a rope, a fan, a tree trunk, a snake, etc. The idea is then suggested that because they cannot see the whole, their individual and seemingly contradictory proclamations are all true, but none are complete. This, it is suggested, is similar to man’s, “experience of god.”

However, this scenario contains an unacceptable premise, that God is no more concerned with our understanding Him than a brute beast is about blind strangers. If one tries to picture this scenario with blindfolded children feeling their way around their loving Father, it is untenable. A loving Father can speak. He would assist His children, speak to them, correct them when their declarations were mistaken, and even take off their blindfolds when they were ready and had played the game enough. The Father understands the children, can overcome their limitations, and wants them to know Him.

So, objection that the succession from the Apostles is unreliable begs the question. If the Church is Christ’s Body acting in the world, then the question is not whether man can transmit information reliably, but rather whether God can speak through His incarnate presence in His Church. With man it is impossible, but with God all things are possible. It makes a big difference which case is being examined: action with man alone or action with God.

To assert that it is impossible or unreliable etc. is merely to assert that it is not with God. This is an assertion not an argument.

The insistence on epistemological reasoning is precisely the assumption of agnosticism which begs the question of God’s truth by suppressing intellect; it is also a form of slavery to sentiment which corrupts the search for truth, as St. Pius X warned.*

So, if this matter is to be made clear, one needs more than a epistemological way of thinking. One has to consider what is and what could be, before one can see clearly how man’s limited ways of knowing by his own resources can and do interact with reality.

Unless one is willing to undertake this dual program, one is crippled in trying to discern even what constitutes a relevant argument.

Does this tease out the matter in a helpful way?

Pax Christi nobiscum; and, may the joy of Easter lift us up.

John Hiner

• “For let us return for a moment, Venerable Brethren, to that most disastrous doctrine of agnosticism. By it every avenue that leads the intellect to God is barred, but the Modernists would seek to open others available for sentiment and action. Vain efforts! For, after all, what is sentiment but the reaction of the soul on the action of the intelligence or the senses. Take away the intelligence, and man, already inclined to follow the senses, becomes their slave. Vain, too, from another point of view, for all these fantasias on the religious sentiment will never be able to destroy common sense, and common sense tells us that emotion and everything that leads the heart captive proves a hindrance instead of a help to the discovery of truth. We speak, of course, of truth in itself - as for that other purely subjective truth, the fruit of sentiment and action, if it serves its purpose for the jugglery of words, it is of no use to the man who wants to know above all things whether outside himself there is a God into whose hands he is one day to fall. True, the Modernists do call in experience to eke out their system, but what does this experience add to sentiment? Absolutely nothing beyond a certain intensity and a proportionate deepening of the conviction of the reality of the object. But these two will never make sentiment into anything but sentiment, nor deprive it of its characteristic which is to cause deception when the intelligence is not there to guide it; on the contrary, they but confirm and aggravate this characteristic, for the more intense sentiment is the more it is sentimental.” (Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 39, (1907).)