Does Anyone Really Know?

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1292817240' post='2193552']
Yes, we can know God with certainty, and know the Catholic faith is the one true faith, revealed by God, our creator, with certainty, as fact. This starts with out knowledge of God through the natural world, culminating in his self revelation in words and deeds through our history. Outside of the Catholic Church there is no salvation.
[/quote]



This.

[Ed Normile]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1292024114' post='2192039']
Different religions teach many contradictory things, and logically cannot all simultaneously be true. (For instance, Christ cannot both be God as Catholicism teaches, and not be God, as the Muslims believe).

Sounds like your spiritual director is teaching religious indifferentism (belief that all religions are true), an error which has been condemned by the Church.

The Catholic Faith is the only religion which is God's revealed truth, though people can reach truths (such as that a God created the universe) through natural reason.
[/quote]


Amen Socrates.
I beleive there are truths in any religion that beleives there is One God and that he is a Triune God, that narrows it down a bit. I also beleive that the protestant religions in their own way validate the catholic Church, even though they have their own personal spin on many of their teachings they accept the basic tenents of the catholic faith, they even acknowledge most of the Holy Bible, so in a way they can and have been a conduit through which many have or may find the truth. I also beleive there is no salvation outside the catholic Church.

ed

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Ed Normile' timestamp='1292823810' post='2193572']
I also beleive there is no salvation outside the [s]catholic Church.[/s] [i]Christianity [/i]
Note:- by Christian I mean people who live in a Christ like manner, not ones who voice Christianity but don't actually understand or live it .

[/quote]

I wonder how non Catholic members at Phatmass feel about your comment. I'm altering your comment, because it is much easier to do that than go through scripture making amendments. For example the parable of the good Samaritan. The priest, predecessor to Catholic, didn't seem to please Jesus as much as the Samaritan who were considered not Jews and despised. Jesus seemed to be concerned about the 'neighbour' lying on the side of the road. Was he a Catholic? While we are on the subject of neighbours, was the law makers answer on how he could attain eternal life incomplete. Maybe Jesus wasn't paying close attention and when he said "Do this and you will live." He omitted to add provided you have become a Catholic. I wonder, had the thief on the cross just come from confession before he was arrested?
Merry Christmas to you and blessings for the new year.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[Wikitiki]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1292874228' post='2193660']
I wonder how non Catholic members at Phatmass feel about your comment. I'm altering your comment, because it is much easier to do that than go through scripture making amendments. For example the parable of the good Samaritan. The priest, predecessor to Catholic, didn't seem to please Jesus as much as the Samaritan who were considered not Jews and despised. Jesus seemed to be concerned about the 'neighbour' lying on the side of the road. Was he a Catholic? While we are on the subject of neighbours, was the law makers answer on how he could attain eternal life incomplete. Maybe Jesus wasn't paying close attention and when he said "Do this and you will live." He omitted to add provided you have become a Catholic. I wonder, had the thief on the cross just come from confession before he was arrested?
Merry Christmas to you and blessings for the new year.
[/quote]
Er . . . I think by not capitalizing "catholic," Ed just meant the universal Church. I could be wrong, but . . . yeah.

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1292874228' post='2193660']
I wonder how non Catholic members at Phatmass feel about your comment. I'm altering your comment, because it is much easier to do that than go through scripture making amendments. For example the parable of the good Samaritan. The priest, predecessor to Catholic, didn't seem to please Jesus as much as the Samaritan who were considered not Jews and despised. Jesus seemed to be concerned about the 'neighbour' lying on the side of the road. Was he a Catholic? While we are on the subject of neighbours, was the law makers answer on how he could attain eternal life incomplete. Maybe Jesus wasn't paying close attention and when he said "Do this and you will live." He omitted to add provided you have become a Catholic. I wonder, had the thief on the cross just come from confession before he was arrested?
Merry Christmas to you and blessings for the new year.
[/quote]

Sounds like it is time to start with some basic theology. I do not know anyone, Protestant or Catholic, who holds to those biblical views, except perhaps some fringe fundamentalists. I would recommend starting with A Father Who Keeps His Promises by Scott Hahn. The parable of the Samaritan validates the fact that there is no salvation outside the Church, rather than invalidate it. The doctrine that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church has never meant that all of those who are not a visible member of a Catholic parish go to hell. That type of simplification is absurd. To suggest that we are saved by being good people flies right in the face of the covanental family bond Christ established through His Church and all he taught.

[dairygirl4u2c]

to say that the catholic church is true, and that it's a fact, is ridiculous. it might be true, and it's a fact... but it's completley unjustifiable to state it so unequivically. the first few responses in this thread were at least refreshingly honest.... that it does take personal interprtation etc to say that the catholic church is true. and, is it so hard to comprehend, or is is so unlike what must brainwash some people... that it actually is more aout 'faith' than 'fact', even if faith and reason go together so well, argualy, with the catholic church?
if it's a matter of faith, it's ridiculous to say it's a fact.
the people with the really high IQ stuff who come to different conclussions.... remember those arguments catholics make in other threads? those hold that it's a matter of judgment at the most fundamntal level but that most catholics here like the certaity provided by the CC (and arguable consistency). that many of the same catholics would come to the 'it's a fact' conclusions here only shows their inconsistency- they respond in robotic ways that apologetical learning and approaches would expect someone to say, brainwashed, or at least inconsistent for some reason.

and it's permissible, even to good catholics, to saay there's different roads to God, as long as it's understood properly. we all have natural reasons, and naturla law to guide us. perhaps not all will come to the nowledge of whatever it is is the truth, if that's the catholic church, but they still make it to God. stop trying to be contentious and try to see the truth in what others say. how about 'clarifying'.... 'oh well if what you say is true, then you must mean it by XYZ'. if you are uncapale of doing so, it makes you look brainwashed and/or simpleminded. just being blunt.

Edited December 22, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Mark of the Cross]

[quote name='Wikitiki' timestamp='1292875693' post='2193663']
Er . . . I think by not capitalizing "catholic," Ed just meant the universal Church. I could be wrong, but . . . yeah.
[/quote]
Yes, maybe he did, in which case he is technically correct.

[quote name='Brother Adam' timestamp='1292899184' post='2193714']
Sounds like it is time to start with some basic theology. I do not know anyone, Protestant or Catholic, who holds to those biblical views, except perhaps some fringe fundamentalists. I would recommend starting with A Father Who Keeps His Promises by Scott Hahn. The parable of the Samaritan validates the fact that there is no salvation outside the Church, rather than invalidate it. The doctrine that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church [b]has never meant that all of those who are not a visible member of a Catholic parish go to hell[/b]. That type of simplification is absurd. To suggest that we are [b]saved by being good people[/b] flies right in the face of the covanental family bond Christ established through His Church and all he taught.
[/quote]
I don't think anyone has mentioned the fate of those not salvaged. Those sort of additional comments are just erroneous additions to reinforce your argument. Here's the problem. The idea that salvation is only possible through the Catholic Church is a logic based on the fact that the church was created by God, as Wikitiki has pointed out. There is no salvation except through Christ, so when someone has Christ they also must have the church. But you have omitted to apply the same logic to the second bold statement. If you are an angelic person of high moral and ethical calibre then you must have Jesus in your soul, because where else can this come from, but from God. God is the only one who can defeat the devil. More about that some other time. I don't like such statements because they are more often than not misconstrued even by Priests.
[quote]Does the Church mean—as Protestants and (I suspect) many Catholics believe—that only members of the Catholic Church can be saved?

That is what a priest in Boston, Fr. Leonard Feeney, S.J., began teaching in the 1940s. His bishop and the Vatican tried to convince him that his interpretation of the Church's teaching was wrong. He so persisted in his error that he was finally excommunicated, but by God's mercy, he was reconciled to the Church before he died in 1978.[/quote]
This
[quote]People who have never had an opportunity to hear of Christ and his Church—and those Christians whose minds have been closed to the truth of the Church by their conditioning—are not necessarily cut off from God's mercy. Vatican II phrases the doctrine in these terms: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 the dictates of their consciences—those too may achieve eternal salvation (LG 16).
[/quote]
Sources - Catholic answers.

I like to work on the logic that if I always take the charitable approach and I am wrong then my error will be less than if I take the militant approach and I'm wrong.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the idea is flakey even for good catholics..... 'no salvation outside the catholic church' = 'catholic really means anyone who is traditionally catholic and those who through no fault of their own... etc etc'.
the reason it's flakey is because of the unequivacal nature of the popes who said 'no salvation outside..'.
the best argument for good catholics then, is the idea that they are just stating the rule as it is, much like stating a mortal sin rule. 'no salvation outside...' is like 'fornication deserves hell'.
there is indeed a difference between stating the general rule as just mentioned and trying to pull a 'catholic means a lot o things'. the later is like 'depends on what the definition of is is' as bill clinton tried to do. but if we take the approach of 'catholic means traditional catholoic given that's what the popes seem to have meant on the face..' then we can stop talking aout broadening the word 'catholic' and merely explaining an exceptioin based on the criteria of mortal sin, ie culpaility etc.

[Mark of the Cross]

Life's duties call. Merry Christmas and have a spiritual new year. Peace and blessings to all, and see you all in the new year.
Mark

.....Jesus found that I was short sighted , since I could not see beyond teh shortcomings of my brothers and sisters.

Edited December 22, 2010 by Mark of the Cross

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1292985518' post='2193899']
to say that the catholic church is true, and that it's a fact, is ridiculous.
[/quote]

That which is divinely revealed by God is not ridiculous.


[quote]it might be true, and it's a fact... but it's completley unjustifiable to state it so unequivically.[/quote]

Not at all.

[quote]that it does take personal interprtation etc to say that the catholic church is true.[/quote]

You mean a personal decision. Ontological truth is not in the eye of the beholder.

[quote]if it's a matter of faith, it's ridiculous to say it's a fact.[/quote]

Not at all, even if it takes faith to accept the fact.

[quote]the people with the really high IQ stuff who come to different conclussions[/quote]

People with really high IQs can be wrong.

[quote].... remember those arguments catholics make in other threads? those hold that it's a matter of judgment at the most fundamntal level but that most catholics here like the certaity provided by the CC (and arguable consistency). that many of the same catholics would come to the 'it's a fact' conclusions here only shows their inconsistency- they respond in robotic ways that apologetical learning and approaches would expect someone to say, brainwashed, or at least inconsistent for some reason. [/quote]

There is no dichotomy between accepting a fact by faith.

[quote]and it's permissible, even to good catholics, to saay there's different roads to God, as long as it's understood properly. we all have natural reasons, and naturla law to guide us. perhaps not all will come to the nowledge of whatever it is is the truth, if that's the catholic church, but they still make it to God.[/quote]

That reminds me of what the media just did to Pope Benedict. Aha! See, the pope said you can use condomns. Of course they completely missed the deeper meaning behind his words. Yes, some roads will eventually lead people to Jesus, but it would be a mistake to misunderstand those roads for the truth. Buddhism contains elements of the truth, but it is not a path to God. Only through Jesus can one find their way to the Father.

[quote]stop trying to be contentious and try to see the truth in what others say. how about 'clarifying'.... 'oh well if what you say is true, then you must mean it by XYZ'. if you are uncapale of doing so, it makes you look brainwashed and/or simpleminded. just being blunt.
[/quote]

Remember what they say about assuming? It makes a something or other out of you and me?

[Brother Adam]

[quote name='Mark of the Cross' timestamp='1293013238' post='2193930']
I don't think anyone has mentioned the fate of those not salvaged. Those sort of additional comments are just erroneous additions to reinforce your argument. Here's the problem. The idea that salvation is only possible through the Catholic Church is a logic based on the fact that the church was created by God, as Wikitiki has pointed out. There is no salvation except through Christ, so when someone has Christ they also must have the church. But you have omitted to apply the same logic to the second bold statement. If you are an angelic person of high moral and ethical calibre then you must have Jesus in your soul, because where else can this come from, but from God. God is the only one who can defeat the devil. More about that some other time. I don't like such statements because they are more often than not misconstrued even by Priests. [/quote]

There is no error in my logic. Pelagianism (I can go to heaven by being a good person, or because I did more good things than bad) was condemned was condemned by the Church. The only way to the Father is through the Son. You can have high moral and ethical caliber and still go to hell if you reject Christ. The invincible ignorance clause in the catechism is all too often blown out of context by heterodox theologians. For instance not all atheists are of the PZ Myers or Dawkins stripe. Many of them are exceptionally moral people, some even at the front lines of crusading against the abortion holocaust.

[dairygirl4u2c]

the issue is that one can say 'my faith is a fact'. but they can't act as if how they got there is a fact. usually these people act as if it's all demonstrateable no questions asked. to not qualify in these threads where we ask how people know things... is then ridiculous. perhaps people who say 'my faith is fact' in this thread are confusing themselves when they are not looking at how they got there?
it'd be like people who debate whether the dinosaurs were extinct by a meteor saying their theory is fact, merely cause they believe it. faith does involve a specital role, ontologically it makes sense to say 'my faith is a fact'. but when that faith involves the same sort of give and take and inductive approach (notice not sceintifically deductive) that other scientific theories involve, it's wrong to act as if it's all fact end of discussion.
'i believe as fact the dinosaurs were extinct by a meteor, but i have to admit my approach infolved weighing these arguments.' that's the mature approach.
*not* 'that the dinosaurs became extinct by a meteor is a fact' 'not only is it a fact,when you question how i got there-- asking if it involves a fundamental judgment call--- *leaps a lot in logic*- it's a fact.
if one is to truly respect truth, then one has to explain the judgment call involved.

it's laudable to state unequivically that 'XYZ is a fact' when it's based on faith,in many cases. but when the faith fundamentally innvolves a judgment call that even the best of minds dispute, then it's time to be a little less unequivical.

personal interpretation and personal decision. yes there is a distinction there. but it's not the distinction that most here make when they say 'yknow people with really high iqs and objective people disagree, but i think God would frame it like XYZ'-- that's a matter of interpretation, or at least a judgment call. this is why one can't act as if the faith is a fact unequivically.
-sure, not all who say 'yknow people with really high...' also try to claim 'my faith is a fact, even how i got there is a fact'.

at the end of the day... if it were demonstrataeble fact, there would not be people with really high IQs and objective people not agreeing on christian claims, etc etc. if one wants to throw around terms and concepts like 'ontological truth proves me right', then id say ontological proof here is what proves me right. this is objectively demonstrateable that it can't be put in as fact as any other fact can be. science proves me right, theology proves me right.... and so theological and ontological truth that's not feigning knowing something it doesn't (*in a way that couldn't be known*-- the issue is how it's known, not whether it's 'known'), proves me right.
notice how even those who claim its a fact, even here amonst 'good cathlolics' is in the smallest of minority. they are like those who tend to read stories of saints without questioning whether some of the stories of even those who are saints are just pius stories, nothing more. they take the stereotypes of what's expected in these regards, such as 'my faith is a fact' no qualification at all, and embarass themselves while also hurting the cause of that majority of even good catholics who know bettter.
as i said earlier with the dinosaur example. it's applicable here too. if one is to truly respect truth, then one has to explain has to qualify with the judgment call involved-- even with faith.

Edited December 24, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote name='ok_with_not_knowing' timestamp='1291848693' post='2191657']
Just wondering here:


Do you guys see the many religions out there as simply different beliefs, opinions really, on the matter of God?

Do you agree that NO ONE really knows the truth? That everyone has their opinion, but no one really knows for sure what the answer is?

Or do you see yourselves as having all the answers?


TLDR: Is your belief an opinion; your own personal interpretation, or actual fact?
[/quote]

this initial post was vague enough though. one could say 'my faith is a fact' based on this thread, without any worry about the 'how one gets there' process. but i think 'how one gets there' with a post like this is a necessary aspect to examine.

[MithLuin]

Perhaps you feel that way, but the person who started this thread hasn't come back to share their thoughts in any more detail.

[dairygirl4u2c]

a conversation worth thinking about
-i elieve XYZ? it's a fact.
-how do you know it? if it's a fact, as facts are usually demonstrateable.... can you demonstrate this?
-i can demonstrate a lot. the rest is based on faith.
-s your belief also faith?
-given the demonstrateable part isn't there as much as it is with other facts, i have to admit it's based significantly on faith. if you were to say it was 'fact, no ifs and or buts' even on the parts of whether demonstrateale...... then it wouldn't really even be faith, it'd be science anyways.


it wouldn't be faith-- it'd be science. a key point to think about too.