Why is the Catholic Religion the truth?

[guanophore]

For information:

In the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, paragraph 16, the Vatican II Council Fathers wrote: "Those who have not yet received the gospel are related to the People of God in various ways.

There is, first, that people to which the covenants and promises were made, and from which Christ was born according to the flesh (cf. Romans 9:4-5): In view of the divine choice, they are a people most dear for the sake of the fathers, for the gifts of God are without repentance (cf. Romans 11:28-29).
"But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems: These profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.
"Nor is God remote from those who in shadows and images seek the unknown God, since he gives to all men life and breath and all things (cf. Acts 17:25-28), and since the Saviour wills all men to be saved (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4).
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through dictates of their conscience—those too, may achieve eternal salvation.
“Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary for salvation to those who, without any fault of theirs, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, and who, not without grace, strive to lead a good life.”
So the Fathers of the Council do not exclude anyone acting in good faith from the possibility of salvation.
They do go on, however, to speak of the Church’s mission from Christ to bring the gospel to all people, for Christ is the source of salvation for the whole world.

Thanks, Nerf, I was going to ask that Robert post the material he was reading, since he seems to have interpreted it in an anti-Catholic manner. This section, however, does not apply to a case like Richard’s, because it cannot be said that he is ignorant through no fault of his own. He was raised a Catholic (though it appears to have been largely ineffective in his case) and is actively rejecting and resisting the teaching of the Church in favor of his own personal interpretation that is more pleasing to him. For that reason, he would not be considered to be one who does not know the Gospel.

 

[slowly]

…
This quest of yours to “find the true religion” seems pretty tedious and unnecesary to me.

I agree it is tedious, but unecessary? There are 10000 Religions out there. How do I find the one True Religion? I think this is a question that more people should be asking, considering how clearly absurd it appears from the outside. Try see it from my point of view: 10000 Religions and yet the followers of each of those 10000 Religions claim theirs is the only (fully) True Religion. Unless you are saying that it is not necessary at all to find the True Religion I do not see why you find this unnecessary.

You seem to think you will find “truth” in some sort of historical exploration.

Quite the contrary. If you have read more of my posts you may have noticed that I am trying to get away from historical/scriptural arguments. Those appear to always be open to interpretation. This leads to endless debates as for example between Catholics and Protestants as seen on this forum. These arguments seem to lead nowhere.

I am looking for another way.

Whereas, Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life”. It seems to me that you could save yourself a lot of time and effort going to the Person, rather than trying to “prove” by way of tenents what is the “right” religion.

What do you mean “going to the Person”? Does this mean just accept that Christianity is the truth and follow Jesus? Or does this mean I must ask Jesus? Or both? Or something else?

Just to be clear, I am trying to establish whether a Religion is true before actually following it. With 10000 Religions around I don’t think it is really practical to sincerely follow all 10000 Religions for some time in order to establish whether it is the True Religion. I am not aware of anyone that has done this either.

 

[guanophore]

I agree it is tedious, but unecessary? There are 10000 Religions out there. How do I find the one True Religion? I think this is a question that more people should be asking, considering how clearly absurd it appears from the outside. Try see it from my point of view: 10000 Religions and yet the followers of each of those 10000 Religions claim theirs is the only (fully) True Religion. Unless you are saying that it is not necessary at all to find the True Religion I do not see why you find this unnecessary.

Well, why worry about “true” since all of them probably have some truth to one degree or another? Can’t you just stick with the one that is most attractive, interesting, and comfortable, and let it go at that?

Quite the contrary. If you have read more of my posts you may have noticed that I am trying to get away from historical/scriptural arguments. Those appear to always be open to interpretation. This leads to endless debates as for example between Catholics and Protestants as seen on this forum. These arguments seem to lead nowhere.

Bringing me again to wonder how you happen to be searching here for your answers! It seems like, if what you want is a personal experience of the divine, it might be quicker to go to a sweat lodge and take Peyote (that is popular around here where I live) or take some kind of experiential seminar (the New Age folks have a lot of these). What about just going to a fortune teller, and asking where you need to end up?

I am looking for another way.

Other than petty bickering (theological debate), you are looking for a way that is different how? What have you tried already? There are some very good astrologers that can readily tell you what the stars have determined about you already.

What do you mean “going to the Person”? Does this mean just accept that Christianity is the truth and follow Jesus? Or does this mean I must ask Jesus? Or both? Or something else?

I mean what I wrote you the PM. Christianity is not so much about “religion” (although it is that) as it is about relationship.

I am looking for a few good reasons why Catholics believe that their Religion is true.

I am looking for those two or three key aspects that make the Catholic Church stand out clearly as the only true Religion.

Just to be clear, I am trying to establish whether a Religion is true before actually following it. With 10000 Religions around I don’t think it is really practical to sincerely follow all 10000 Religions for some time in order to establish whether it is the True Religion. I am not aware of anyone that has done this either.

You have said two important things: 1) I want to follow the true religion and 2) I want to ascertain that it is true before I begin to follow it.

How will you know these things when you find them? what are the criteria for determining “true”. How will you establish the “true” on so you can follow it? when you read Acts chapter 9, how do you think Paul found out what was “true”?

 

[nerfherder]

Why is the Catholic Religion the truth?

Is Catholicism a religion, or a denomination of Christianity? Perhaps look at Christianity, then Catholicism within that context.

**della **Only 3 major faiths make that claim: Judaism (from which Catholicism came), Catholicism, and Islam.

Three faiths: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

**Malcolm Mclean **When we move to Christian religions, the Catholic church has the only credible claim to being the one true article. Protestant claims…are simply implausible to anyone with historical knowledge.

Thought this a great answer until you got into anti-Catholic, anti-reformed church ground. Then you slipped out of objective mode.

**maryj **The Eucharist is Christ, it is not a symbol of Him. He is truly present, body, soul and divinity….

Maryj, maybe this is a bit heavy for slowly. I think that Vincent Serpa’s concise definition is best for starters: it is a sacramental mystery, involving the Real Presence of Christ, which is difficult for most Catholics or would-be Catholics to comprehend. And perhaps we can say yes you have a body – and that is your appearance as maryj, just as the bread looks like bread. And yes, you have a soul/spirit – and that is your substance as maryj, which is not knowable to us. Appearance is easy; substance is unknowable except by faith.

**slowly **Maybe if you are surrounded with this kind of language for a long time it may make sense to you but at the moment I find this just utterly confusing. I have no idea how to respond to this. I just know that this is not the kind of language I was hoping to have to deal with in trying to establish whether Catholicism is true.

Hold tight slowly, don’t give up. There are 1.6 billion Catholics in the world and we do not all have the same concepts, although we have been given the same doctrines. Sometimes there is sorting out to do. And perhaps there is no correct objective answer anyway.

**Robert902 **Slowly is searching for the true church, as am I.

He is not looking for the true church. He has said

What I am looking for is some piece of doctrine or belief or sign that clearly points to Catholicism as the one true Religion amongst all 10 000 Religions.

At the moment slowly is a non-religious person, apparently without a grounding in faith of any kind. Maybe we need to ask (1) is it possible for Catholics to answer his question about Catholicism – that is can we be objective enough to give an answer not based on devoted faith alone? and (2) is it actually possible for anyone to answer the question? Is there likely to be a proof that lies outside individual faith?

**guanophore **Christianity is not about a “religion”, it is about a relationship. …This quest of yours to “find the true religion” seems pretty tedious and unnecesary to me.

I sympathise with his quest. Whatever the outcome, he will have made a spiritual journey of merit.

**guanophore **You seem to think you will find “truth” in some sort of historical exploration. Whereas, Jesus said “I am the way, the truth, and the life”. It seems to me that you could save yourself a lot of time and effort going to the Person, rather than trying to “prove” by way of tenets what is the “right” religion.

In some ways this is true: many of us would advise prayer and meditation, and intimate conversation with our Christian God who makes himself accessible to those who make themselves accessible to Him. If there is communication, if there develops a sense of intimacy between you and our Christian God, if you find that the tenets of the (Catholic) Christian faith suit your spirit – and your quest for life everlasting – then you may have found your goal. On the other hand, you may have to spend a lifetime reading, thinking, visiting, and understanding not 10,000 faiths, but at least the world’s major belief systems. I have been a Christian for a long time. I have learned about other faiths as much as I could. There is no proof anywhere: there is only individual faith. Being a Catholic Christian is what I chose – by faith.

Jabulani

 

[SKE]

I have explained in previous posts why even this procedure for finding the truth does not appear to be particularly reliable to me.

In relation to finding the truth, are you saying that you have tried to pray to find the truth and have not as yet been successfull? Or, that many people say they have prayed and have say they have received different answers so this has stopped you from praying for the truth?

For me, what others have said they have or have not done is not as important to what I have done in relation to God. God is the source of truth and inspiration. You will not find it anywhere else. If God does live, which I know he does, and he loves us, which I also know he does, he will help you find the truth if you sincerely search for it through earnest prayer.

 

[slowly]

Well, why worry about “true” since all of them probably have some truth to one degree or another? Can’t you just stick with the one that is most attractive, interesting, and comfortable, and let it go at that?

This depends. If you are concerned about your destiny in the afterlife (I assume you are) and you take all other Religions and their teachings seriously in the sense that there is a logical possibility that any of those 10000 Religions may be the True Religion, then the reality is that according to the teachings of many of these Religions you will not achieve “Salvation” unless you follow their teachings.

If, on the other hand you believe as you say that “all of them probably have some truth”, this contradicts many Religions that claim exclusive acess to the truth. Even in this case it seems to be important to know for sure if your “inclusive” viewpoint is the truth or perhaps one of the other exclusive Religions. Because if God suddenly pitches out of the blue (so to speak) and tells us that Religion X happens to be the only true Religion and that only followers of Religion X will achieve salvation, the rest of us are screwed, no matter how sure we are of our inclusive beliefs.

Bringing me again to wonder how you happen to be searching here for your answers! It seems like, if what you want is a personal experience of the divine, it might be quicker to go to a sweat lodge and take Peyote (that is popular around here where I live) or take some kind of experiential seminar (the New Age folks have a lot of these). What about just going to a fortune teller, and asking where you need to end up?

Please read my posts again (carefully this time ). I am not looking per se for an experience of God exactly for the reasons that you are pointing out, namely that it seems you can have an experience of God in just about every Religion. In fact I would be surprised if a Religion would be able to exist for very long if its followers were not able to experience God in some sense. An experience of God will not lead me to the One True Religion it seems.

Other than petty bickering (theological debate), you are looking for a way that is different how? What have you tried already? There are some very good astrologers that can readily tell you what the stars have determined about you already.

You appear pretty glib about this topic and I am not sure why. Except perhaps that you don’t seem to think that it is really important what anyone believes. If you don’t have any reason to believe what you believe that is OK with me. I cannot force myself to believe anything if I do not have sufficient reason to believe it. I cannot force myself to believe in the existence of unicorns (appologies for this utterly cliched example).

I mean what I wrote you the PM. Christianity is not so much about “religion” (although it is that) as it is about relationship.

If you are so sure about this how is it you have come to believe this, i.e. what are your reasons? There must be something somewhere that you can point to? Or have you just woken up one day and decided that it seems like a good idea?

You have said two important things: 1) I want to follow the true religion and 2) I want to ascertain that it is true before I begin to follow it.

How will you know these things when you find them? what are the criteria for determining “true”. How will you establish the “true” on so you can follow it? when you read Acts chapter 9, how do you think Paul found out what was “true”?

As I said in an earlier post, I am not really sure what I am looking for and hopefully I will recognize it when I see it. I just figured that if there is a One True Religion out there, shouldn’t it be possible to recognize it from the outside as the One True Religion? If there is no distinguishing feature from the outside how can we know that such a thing really exists? How else can we find it then?

I realize that I may never get a clear answer in following this approach. Yet, for myself I cannot think of a better way.

 

[nerfherder]

Slowly, I am working my way through this slowly because there is so much good food for thought in the thread.

pax 7 The guarantor is Jesus Christ. Everything really depends on him.

I like this formulation very much. I think though that it should speak further to his mission on Earth – to the example Christ set for our lives, and to the possibility of life everlasting.

slowly 8 What I am trying to say is that I understand this argument to be entirely based on assumptions of historical authenticity. If the historical evidence is in doubt (hypothetically) then the entire argument would be groundless. Is this correct? What I am trying to say is that I understand this argument to be entirely based on assumptions of historical authenticity. If the historical evidence is in doubt (hypothetically) then the entire argument would be groundless. Is this correct?

No, it is not the Bible as history that provides your guarantee. In Catholic Christianity, it is the nature and mission of a man called Jesus of Nazareth, who – it has been believed for 2000 years – became the divine Christ. Go back and have a look at Pax 7.

slowly 8 So what I am saying is that if have to choose between for example Mormonism and Catholicism, I have to compare the historical evidence of Mormonism with the historical evidence of the Catholic Church. This does not appear to be so simple.

Nothing is simple, especially with regard to belief and faith. It is not the historical evidence you should be looking at.

Religion of any kind is a system of values and beliefs of ancient peoples that have been synthesized, collected, into a code of faith, usually with a hierarchy (or a formal structure) associated with it. In the case of Catholicism, the core is the Vatican and the Papacy, the cardinals, the bishops, the priests and formations. The Mormons have another kind of structure which I forget now. The reformed Christian churches have their own structures – some very large, some very small – but the principal denominations are members of the World Council of Churches. The Church of Rome has for over forty years been in negotiation (through a Joint Working Group) with the WCC (see oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-programmes/church-and-ecumenical-relations/non-member-churches-ecumenical-organizations/joint-working-group/18-11-05-challenges-facing-the-roman-catholic-church-wcc-collaboration.html ) in the interests of ecumenism.

Back to the future. The beliefs and values of the ancient Semitic and other peoples in the eastern Mediterranean region have played out through their religion, including principally the concept of an eternal, omnipresent, omniscient and intimate God, and the mission to man of his son, Jesus of Nazareth. What is important is not necessarily the history of these peoples, but what they believe. And I would add to that, not what they believe about life everlasting – one of your concerns – but what they believe about living this life as it has been handed down by God, by the prophets of the religion like Moses, and by Jesus and his disciples. This belief system has subsequently spread across the globe: people find there is something in it that is true for them, something of sublime integrity, something that helps them get through a life that is otherwise pretty difficult. Values are the core of Catholicism, not the doctrines that enshrine them, or the rituals that remind us of them, or the multitude of codes, regulations and mysteries that are appended to the Church.

All major religions and their sects or denominations are founded on a core principle that we should do unto others as you would have them do unto you. From Judaism, we have* What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. This is the entire law: all the rest is commentary *(Talmud Shabbat 3 id). That assumes a certain way of living, ne?

If by learning about the beliefs of the Catholic Church – how our daily life should be organized and what constitutes integrity and lovingkindness toward others (Google it – it is all there on the Internet, at least the facts are) you feel comfortable in this belief system, with the authority of the Church, and with the core doctrines of the Church (especially with regard to God and Jesus Christ), then it may be the place for you.

But you will have no proof that it is the One True Faith; you will ‘only’ have your faith that God and Christ are present in your life, loving, guiding and supporting you.

 

[nerfherder]

John Henry Cardinal Newman (covert from Anglicanism) said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be protestant.”

And it took him years of spirit-busting anguish to arrive at this conclusion. His was not an easy journey to the Church remember.

 

[nerfherder]

33 I suggest you direct those comments to God but ask him not why is it so difficult for Him to answer but why is it so difficult for you to hear?​

As a side note, the Catholic Church does not assert that it is the one true religion. We do say we have the fullness of truth. The difference being that we recognize that there are some truths, which we call mysteries, that we as finite beings are not able to understand. It is also to say that most other religions hold some degree of the truth.

You seems a thoughtful open-minded individual and you are taking your search seriously. I will keep yo in my prayers.

I think this is a lovely, truthful and sensitive reply! Thank you - it helps me at least.

Jabulani

 

[nerfherder]

It **is **a historical argument. If you’re looking for more historical arguments, here’s one that is very recent:

Fatima & Miracle of the Sun

and here’s some that are spread throughout Christian history:

Eucharistic Miracles

These are private revelations, not general revelations according to Catholic theology, they do not of themselves add to the deposit of faith.

I suppose a person could be really anti-historical and only accept arguments from logic alone, but why? We don’t do this elsewhere. Not in science, not in law or any other search for truth. Most people are rightly unopposed to data points that are not soley dependent on mathematical logic. All truth is God’s truth.

There is no witness of martyrs of a supernatural event to guarantee that Mohammed was a prophet instead of a liar, lunatic, or just plain mistaken.

Go ahead and study. Mormonism can be refuted in about 2 seconds. It was established in 1830. There’s no way it can be the Church established by Christ. Well, I could elaborate, but as I said before… do research. Not all religious persons have good reasons for what they believe. Some may just have inherited assumptions from parents.

I can see you’d like to avoid some research, which is understandable, but I think as you do research, you’ll quickly find that you don’t have to read all there is about a religion before you realize you have a dead end.

For example, certain eastern philosophies that propose that there is no objective truth can immediately be dismissed, since such an idea is self-refuting. If the thesis “there is no truth” is correct, then that thesis itself cannot be true.

I would say that if you have a suspicion that a certain point of view is correct, it makes sense to give a proportionally greater amount of study to its arguments. Similarly, if you know that a religion is fundamentally wrong, it doesn’t make sense to devote much time to their arguements.

I would love to believe that we are not looking at a church qua church, that is at the formal structure of a church, all its dangly bits, but that we are looking at the values and beliefs of a church, where they came from, how they help us, where they take us. The word ‘church’ is only a symbol of a pattern for living.

 

[nerfherder]

The Church must be historical, have apostolic doctrine, and apostolic authority.
Historical…The Catholic Church is proved by historical books to have existed since the time of Christ. No protestant churches existed prior to 1517ad.
Apostolic doctrines…The early Church fathers tell us what the first Christians believed. If you study these writings you can see they taught Catholic doctrines.
Apostolic Authority…The Bible and Sacred tradition show that hrist left a Church that would be governed by an episcopate hierarchy of bishops, presbyters and deacons. Only the Catholic Church can trace back their authority in unbroken sucession to the giving of the Church to St Peter by our Lord Jesus Christ.
Christ only founded one Church. All others were founded by men. Their followers may be faithful Christians but only the Catholic Church stands out as founded by Christ.
Study and pray, Slowly. If you open yourself to the teaching of the Church you will be moved as we were by the Holy Spirit.

All arguments like this one are based on the assumption that the Judaeo-Christian God and his son Jesus Christ are the sine qua non of all religions, that there is no other God before Him. While this may be true for us, because we believe it to be true, and because we have the faith to believe it to be true, it is not the truth for billions of others in the world. Any argument thus based does not answer the original question and request for proof.

Jabulani

 

[nerfherder]

Some Protestants claimed that we worship saints and Mary. We Catholics say we don’t. We honor and venerate them.

We Catholics believed in the Real Presence. While the majority of Protestants say Jesus is symbolic in the bread.

Protestants say there is no Biblical proof of Purgatory. Yet, we Catholics has show verses that support it exist.

So yes, Protestants do say that we distort the Bible. It’s not their fault, and they do not acknowledge our faith as both Biblical and consistent with the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I know there are good Protestants who respect our belief and try to understand Catholicism, but those who say we got it wrong are sadly mistaken.

I think that there is far more in common that you think, but the details are not for here. What clearly hurts is when we attack each other’s creeds: and we must note that the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed are common to the major Christian Churches, including the Church of Rome. My experience in both camps is that the reformed churches have tried to strip down some of the more arcane devices of the Roman Church, in order to concentrate not on everlasting life and the ritual to get there, but on practical daily living. It is a difference in perspective, but not of historical scholarship.

In our present global political and economic climate, the kind of offensive-defensive debate we see between the two principal forms of the Christian Church can only do great damage to the strength of the universal - that is the catholic (note lower case c) - church of Christ.

 

[nerfherder]

slowly 12 I was hoping there would be some simple and self -evident characteristic about the Catholic Church that I could use.

Use for what? These words sound like something a student would say about doing an assignment. Please assure us that we are not turning ourselves inside out to help you with an assignment or some other educational study. Please, please.

slowly 17 I don’t know how long I still have to live, do you?

It does not matter. If a person is struggling to understand, to make progress in one’s beliefs, to climb out of a hole of ignorance, then the God that many faiths (not just Christian) adhere to will be compassionate. I have no doubt that there are many questers in whatever we believe heaven to be – perhaps even more questers than those who thought themselves true believers.

slowly 22 When one considers the truth value of Hinduism I believe that the historical accuracy/validity of these claims are indeed relevant. If it can be clearly shown that these historical claims are untrue then it would indeed say something about the Religion’s status as the truth, not?

Hinduism is historical. Its roots are ancient, far older than those of Judaism. Its creation myths (Vedas) are so old that many of them are difficult to understand. The religion that grew out of the ancient beliefs worships thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands of divinities (and that is why we must define the word divine at some point on this Forum). The record of the belief system is set out in works like the Ramayana and the Bhagavad Gita, the commentaries of Vinova Bhave and others in the very recent past, and of course personified by people like Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore. What is important here, and I stress this again, is what Hindus believe about living their daily life, their relationships with others, and their understanding of cause and effect in their lives. This is a religion with a very limited hierarchy, and belief is very much left up to each individual, with or without spiritual guidance, and very much within geographical and cultural contexts.

Billions of people have worshipped and lived within the paradigm of this value and belief system, and continue to do so. It is perhaps the largest religion on Earth. We cannot set it aside; it is worthy of respect. It is kind of like Chinese traditional medicine: Westerners are coming to know something quite strange that the Chinese have known for thousands of years, and to recognize that it has merit in some of its aspects.

slowly 31 Come on, all I need is a name, the name of the one true Religion. Is that so difficult for God to answer? The rest of the knowledge (truth) can follow once I know which Religion is the truth.

Surely you have recognized by now that (1) there are a number of different manifestations of the godhead, and you will not get the same answer from all; (2) you will only gradually get an answer if you honestly meditate, pray and contemplate, and know something about the values of the adherents you are studying (eg your Reborn Christians – whoever they may be – and Catholic Christians, or Anglican Christians or United Church Christians, or Baptist Christians, or Hindus, Moslems. (The only place you can get values without a God is of course Buddhism, and there you make up your own mind.); and (3) your wish that there is one true religion that can guarantee you everlasting life is inherently flawed. We Cannot know what is out there – we can only know what is here each day, and trust there is something out there.

Jabulani

 

[nerfherder]

ltravis 48

Could you give us some concrete examples of a non-Catholic argument based on historical evidence? I have a hard time understanding how anyone can get around the historical evidence for Catholicism. I am not saying there isn’t, but if there is it would be most helpful to see the arguments up front so we can address them. I think that would really help us all.

I think that the series of books written by Karen Armstrong gives an excellent insight into the relationships between the three great Axial religions and others, their growth, their personalities. (I know this will not excite Catholics because she is a former nun, now apparently agnostic, but nevertheless a huge scholar.) Did Buddha actually live? How can we understand Islam except through the fact that it has always been bound to its geo-political core – as opposed to Christianity? And so forth – I think you get the idea. There is lots of historical evidence for all the world’s major belief systems, written by their own scholars as well – Indians in particular.

ltravis 48 No other ancient writings have manuscripts available today that were written at a time as close to the originals as scripture. That, and the corroboration of other non-scriptural historical knowledge, gives the bible a firm foundation as being historical and accurate. Catholics use that historical authenticity (and not just faith) to support scriptural basis for the infallibility and authority of the Church, and with that authority, the Church claims the bible is truly inspired - on historical grounds.

However worthy the scholar who wrote this, I think it does a disservice to other faiths/religions/beliefs and their scholarship. I think it is perhaps a gross generalization. Our Bible is old, we are constantly finding new chapters, scrolls, we differ on which should be included in our Bible (as between Jewish, Catholic Christian/reformed Christian, and Muslim – who also include what we would recognize as biblical writing in the Q’uran). But the Vedic tradition and scholarship are far older – beween 1000-2000 years BCE.

slowly 223 I cannot force myself to believe anything if I do not have sufficient reason to believe it. I cannot force myself to believe in the existence of unicorns (appologies for this utterly cliched example).

That’s OK: I am in deeper difficulty. I cannot bring myself (yet?) to believe in miracles any more than I can believe in Santa or fairies. Big problem?

slowly 223 Or have you just woken up one day and decided that it seems like a good idea?

This reminds me of the issue of epiphanies. There are cradle Catholics (I am not one, but perhaps it would have been easier if I had been) who slip easily into their faith in the truth because they live with it daily. In our (Catholic) Church, children are brought into church from the time they are born, and at an early age start an 11 year mandatory induction (catechism) into the doctrines of the Church. The faith that results is often rock-solid, binding and perhaps somewhat blinkered – like students who have memorized their lessons, as opposed to those who have struggled and analysed and questioned and hoped they would come up with a good solution to a problem. This is not true of all cradle Catholics, nor is it true that most converts are better Catholics because they have had to go through the fires of analytical hell and doctrinal intricacies to get to faith on the other side. But the generalization is often made.

And for those who struggle – whether cradle Catholics or converts – the idea of an epiphany is critical. That is when a whole bunch of ideas, concepts, advice and subliminal maunderings suddenly coalesce into an awesome revelation that we can often trust absolutely. This just seems right. And that is often what faith requires: that we search, wherever, and hope that one day an understanding – perhaps divinely inspired, perhaps the result of an epiphany (which may or may not be divinely inspired) will hit us on the head like a falling piano. Such delight. I have found that, somehow, epiphanies have a solid ring of absolute truth for me. My first, age 24, was that ‘life has no meaning save the fact of life itself’. I only had one life to live, and I had better get on with it. I have lived in the memory of that epiphany, and have had a richly textured life as a result. And it has now sent me on this spiritual journey, also as a result. Look for epiphanies all the time, and that will require meditation and contemplation.

Jabulani

 

[slowly]

…
All major religions and their sects or denominations are founded on a core principle that we should do unto others as you would have them do unto you. From Judaism, we have* What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. This is the entire law: all the rest is commentary *(Talmud Shabbat 3 id). That assumes a certain way of living, ne?

Different Religions exist because of the differences in doctrine and beliefs and not because of the agreements. What I am saying is that even though you seem to downplay the differences (and personally I would like to agree with you), those differences were important enough to the adherents to have started a new Religion or denomination. It is important for me to know whether they are right, i.e. whether those differences are significant.

If by learning about the beliefs of the Catholic Church – how our daily life should be organized and what constitutes integrity and lovingkindness toward others (Google it – it is all there on the Internet, at least the facts are) you feel comfortable in this belief system, with the authority of the Church, and with the core doctrines of the Church (especially with regard to God and Jesus Christ), then it may be the place for you.
…
QUOTE]

For me it is less important whether I am comfortable with a Religion, more important to know whether it is true.

 

[slowly]

Use for what? These words sound like something a student would say about doing an assignment. Please assure us that we are not turning ourselves inside out to help you with an assignment or some other educational study. Please, please.

No, I am not doing this as part of any academic study or course work? I have stated before in this thread that what I am ultimately after is the One True Religion. Of course I realize that I may not find exactly what I am looking for but I hope nevertheless that I may learn something from this process.

To answer your question “Use for what?”, I am looking for possible criteria that I can use to establish which Religion is the One True Religion. So I just meant that I want to use these criteria in a wider context of all Religions.

But even if this was part of some academic study would that be so bad. As long as an answer is honestly sought. The question is still valid and Catholic people here don’t seem to mind to offer their views. The point is, ultimately we will all benefit if I could find a clear answer to this question. It would have been great if this was part of a thesis of some sort. Just imagine the time and resources I would have access to.

…
(2) you will only gradually get an answer if you honestly meditate, pray and contemplate, and know something about the values of the adherents you are studying (eg your Reborn Christians – whoever they may be – and Catholic Christians, or Anglican Christians or United Church Christians, or Baptist Christians, or Hindus, Moslems. (The only place you can get values without a God is of course Buddhism, and there you make up your own mind.); and

What kind of an answer will I get? Not a very specific one I gather? It is not clear to me what you think I will achieve in meditating, prayer and contemplation.

(3) your wish that there is one true religion that can guarantee you everlasting life is inherently flawed. We Cannot know what is out there – we can only know what is here each day, and trust there is something out there.

I have a lot of sympathy for this position, but the fact is (and I am sure you know this) that many people (including many Catholics) disagree with you about this.
Why are you so sure that there is not only one True Religion and that this idea is flawed? Surely this is possible in principle? Why are you so sure that we cannot know what is out there? There are billions of believers from all over the world that would strongly disagree with you here. I can agree with you that it seems to be very difficult to find the True Religion, but that by itself does not prove that it is impossible.

 

[slowly]

…
And for those who struggle – whether cradle Catholics or converts – the idea of an epiphany is critical. That is when a whole bunch of ideas, concepts, advice and subliminal maunderings suddenly coalesce into an awesome revelation that we can often trust absolutely. This just seems right. And that is often what faith requires: that we search, wherever, and hope that one day an understanding – perhaps divinely inspired, perhaps the result of an epiphany (which may or may not be divinely inspired) will hit us on the head like a falling piano. Such delight. I have found that, somehow, epiphanies have a solid ring of absolute truth for me. My first, age 24, was that ‘life has no meaning save the fact of life itself’. I only had one life to live, and I had better get on with it. I have lived in the memory of that epiphany, and have had a richly textured life as a result. And it has now sent me on this spiritual journey, also as a result. Look for epiphanies all the time, and that will require meditation and contemplation.

What you refer to as an “epiphany” as far as I understand you is also called a “transformational experience” or an “enlightment experience” (in Buddhism). Whereas I do not doubt the realness and profoundness of such experiences, I would not go so far as to equate such experiences as truth except in a very personal sense. Personal does not help my search.

 

[nerfherder]

No, I am not doing this as part of any academic study or course work? I have stated before in this thread that what I am ultimately after is the One True Religion. Of course I realize that I may not find exactly what I am looking for but I hope nevertheless that I may learn something from this process.

There are times when your postings sound academic, or from someone who knows quite a bit about belief and religion.

To answer your question “Use for what?”, I am looking for possible criteria that I can use to establish which Religion is the One True Religion. So I just meant that I want to use these criteria in a wider context of all Religions.

I think that someone asked you earlier what criteria you are using. I would agree that this is a matter for you to judge. You mentioned at one point that you had to have a guarantee of Life Everlasting. Albert Schweitzer (I think) said thas it was not possible to know, he would not worry about it, but concentrate on living. I have suggested that you need therefore to let go the hereafter, because you can be guaranteed of absolutely nothing, no matter what people say. Nothing. Read my lips.

But we can, on the other hand, establish a set of criteria for living this life, which is sacred, unique and miraculous for each one of us. You must establish a set of criteria for how you think it would be appropriate to live in this life (your value system), and then move to find the organisation, faith, religion, whatever that most effectively meets your needs. Then, you give yourself over to it.

I am clearly apostate for many Catholics in giving you this advice.

Ultimately we will all benefit if I could find a clear answer to this question.

True! But perhaps it is truer to say that we will all benefit by the discussion more.

What kind of an answer will I get? Not a very specific one I gather? It is not clear to me what you think I will achieve in meditating, prayer and contemplation.

You will get the answer you deserve. If you read the significant spiritual authors of our day, and if you meditate with a desire to be still and listen and hear, you will gain understanding. But perhaps you are too lazy to do that? You want others to figure it out for you in words? It does not work that way.

I have a lot of sympathy for this position [that there is not one true religion], but the fact is (and I am sure you know this) that many people (including many Catholics) disagree with you about this. Why are you so sure that there is not only one True Religion and that this idea is flawed? Surely this is possible in principle? Why are you so sure that we cannot know what is out there? There are billions of believers from all over the world that would strongly disagree with you here. I can agree with you that it seems to be very difficult to find the True Religion, but that by itself does not prove that it is impossible.

Because if there were only one true religion or belief system it would already have manifested itself. Because we have seen hundreds and thousands of religions/belief systems falter and fail within the history of mankind. Because communism in our own time - supposedly the ultimate machine of justice for all, the religion of the masses - utterly failed. Because the contexts in which human beings live lead them to different understandings of how to live, and whether or not there is a divine godhead. Because we do not know the real meaning of ‘the divine’, and have not been able to capture the essence of one true divinity (apologies to all Catholics here). Because deities abound, and many of us would prefer not to think in black and white and say ours is the only one, or the best one. Because the time has come for a degree of respect for other belief systems, of which there are many authoritative examples. Because you may feel intimately connected within some small community of Rouarians.

Let me emphasise again the idea that religions reflect values and beliefs of various communities, peoples, cultures, civilisations, within different contexts or paradigms. You must first figure out what value system you operate to/with/under, at least basically, and then move to the ‘religion’ that is most appropriate for how you want to live your life.

No one has engaged with my question about whether this question by slowly can be answered by Catholics, or whether the question can be answered at all. I would love to hear.

 

[nerfherder]

What you refer to as an “epiphany” as far as I understand you is also called a “transformational experience” or an “enlightment experience” (in Buddhism). Whereas I do not doubt the realness and profoundness of such experiences, I would not go so far as to equate such experiences as truth except in a very personal sense. Personal does not help my search.

If, as I have hypothesised, there is no one true religion, there is no one truth that fits every person, or that it cannot be proven that there is one true system of belief, then you are going to have to go personal and that is what I have been recommending. You are already going personal by asking the original question, and you have got some thoughts from Catholics and others which vary from conservative to way off the deep end, and perhaps you cannot expect more than that before you take a leap yourself.

One wise Christian on another thread wrote to me yesterday that “Belief is not a decision of the intellect, it is a decision of the will”. To me that would imply, in part, that if there is not one absolute truth, you are going to have to get on with understanding in general how you want to live find a home for your nascent values.

 

[Robert902]

You are contradicting yourself, Robert. If Holy Mother Church teaches that there are non-Catholic people in heaven, then how can there be no salvation outside the church?

Your assertion that everyone who does not accept Jesus is Lord being “damned to hell” is not Catholic.

Someone doctored that quote! The middle paragraphy is not mine!
Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, is Catholic theology. Whether you like it or not that’s what the Catholic Church is teaching it it’s church’s everywhere.

God Bless,
Robert
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Eph 5:20 ‘Test all thing, hold fast what is good’.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++