What Makes It True?

[Mary+Immaculate<3]

I'm not sure what I'm going to say, and I'm sure I'll edit this a lot before posting. I just need to get this out and get feedback. Well, here goes.

 

It's been over two years since I really encountered God in a new way when I went to Confession and was relieved of terrible depression by God through the words of absolution. I flew sky high for awhile, and, while those feelings faded, my conviction about my experience never did. It left me with a determination to leave no stone unturned in terms of answers to the faith.

 

At first, after my reversion (for lack of a better word), if a question challenging my faith came up, I would think to myself "Well there has to be an answer," and be practically nervous until I found an answer that I could use as refuge. However, these were mostly apologetic-type questions: about Mary, the papacy, the existence of God, idolatry, etc. I came to the conclusion that protestantism, while containing much truth, simply is not the fullness of truth. I concluded that, if Catholicism were the truth, I had nothing to be ashamed of. If I have the truth, I'm safe.

 

Eventually, my studies became more rigorous. I started studying more about the philosophers like Socrates, Augustine, Aquinas, etc. (and some of their writings) I thought, "Is there some defining point that I can come to to prove that Catholicism is one-hundred percent the absolute truth?" The reason I asked this is, I suppose, because I'm somewhat of a Socratic thinker. I question the evidence, the sources, everything basically. Consequently, the quote "The difficulty of explaining 'why I am a Catholic' is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true." from G.K. Chesterton frustrates me more than reassures me. The question he was asked was simply "Why?" to which he responded "Because it's true." Well, why is it true? What makes it true?

 

I realize there are an untold number of reasons, but is there a determining one? Or is that determining factor simply the leap of faith? Is the determining answer subjective or objective? Is it what Joe Blow decides is determining, or what every person who has consciously chosen the Catholic faith determined?

 

One thing I do realize many of you will probably think of is the Eucharist. I myself have thought of this. My problem is that I almost have two planes of reality churning in my mind. On the one hand, the Eucharist has had billions of believers, is taught in the bible in a variety of ways, people have died in defense of the doctrine, and it has many officially approved miracles attributed to it. There are scientifically unexplainable cases of the Host changing to flesh, bleeding, not decaying even after centuries, etc.

 

So basically what my thoughts boiled down to were this: Either the Eucharist is true, and it deserves our everything, or it isn't true, and the Catholicism is absurd. But how can I be certain? If I know for a fact that Catholicism is true, I owe it everything. If I don't I'd better run as far from the Church as possible.

 

Now, on a personal level, I find the Eucharist undeniable. I think that there is simply too much evidence to disprove it. Which is why I feel I'm living on two planes of reality. In one, The Eucharist must be true, which means the Church must be true. But what is that one piece I feel I'm missing from the puzzle?

 

I had a conversation with one of my Catholic friends recently and he said he heard a quote that went something like "The best way to determine whether you're correct is by trying to prove your opponent's position. As of yet, I haven't read a lot of philosophers who oppose the faith. I like listening to Atheist-Catholic and Atheist-Christian debates, and things like that. But I'd like to hear all of you peep's feedback. I apologize if this is excessively long. If this is in the wrong section of PM I give dUSt permission to smite me.

 

God bless.

 

 

[Nihil Obstat]

I will not be able to answer your questions, but your thought process in many ways reminds me of my own. That being the case, my operating assumption is that maybe we think similarly, and maybe my own reactions to your post will be food for though for yourself.

So with that in mind,

 

What does certainty mean to you? Are we speaking about certainty in the sense of moral certainty, or - I think more likely for you - are we speaking of logical or scientific certainty?

If we are thinking along the lines of a kind of logical certainty, what does that mean when applied to faith?

Is there some magical combination of words (which for the last 3000+ years has eluded mankind) which forms a syllogism that proves beyond any possibility of doubt that God exists? Something as simple as the Barbara syllogism? Clearly not, I think, or we would have stumbled upon it by now.

So does it make sense to ask about logical certainty when speaking about faith?

[Credo in Deum]

 

 

 

Edit:  Something something about faith, something something. 

Edited July 30, 2014 by Credo in Deum

[dUSt]

Oops, I deleted your original. lol

[Nihil Obstat]

The thing about faith is that you cannot somehow obtain it for yourself. You can attain knowledge on your own; you pick up a book, read it, understand it, and you have that knowledge. Or you can go test things for yourself, and you gain that knowledge. Nobody has to give it to you.
Faith is different. As a theological virtue, it is given by God, and we cannot grasp it for ourselves.

(CCC)

1814 Faith is the theological virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us, and that Holy Church proposes for our belief, because he is truth itself. By faith "man freely commits his entire self to God."78 For this reason the believer seeks to know and do God's will. "The righteous shall live by faith." Living faith "work[s] through charity."79

1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it.80 But "faith apart from works is dead":81 when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body.

1816 The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it: "All however must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persecutions which the Church never lacks."82 Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation: "So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."83
 

[Benedictus]

Quick reactions: I'd say embrace the doubt as much as the certainty, there's nothing wrong with feeling like that. I would say to try and hold them both in creative tension. God gave you the rational mind (choices, direction, will) and a capacity for the sense of the 'other' through faith, experience, love, intuition, awe, wonder and experiences. Don't try to expect yourself to think or feel a certain way, as it can get frustrating when you can't muster it at that time I would say to simply be open to him in the moment, the all that is present to us. Those series of moments can lead on a path towards him if we stay engaged as best we can. But we can only do our best, even if some think we should be faster or better.

Atheist vrs christian debate shows and the alike have there place. But I think they work at a certain consciousness or way of thinking. It can end up seeming to be all shadow fighting with straw men and such like. These debates, although important, can block a person from moving on and it can become a mental trap. In terms of the split thought processes: some would say the psyche is the place where the spiritual battles begin, not so much in the material world. It's a challenge but you've got a whole communion of saints and a church with you :)

[mortify ii]

I think there is a tendency to reduce everything to discursive learning in the Catholic West. There is a brand of knowledge that is simply intuitive and the approach to acquiring is quite different. Instead of reading philosophers philosophize maybe consider turning inward and delving into mental prayer. There is a lot of misconception and misunderstanding of this form of prayer, but it is the highest form of prayer. I think by practicing this you will gain a more experiential understanding of the faith. 

[Credo in Deum]

I would recommend reading "Life of Christ" by Fulton J Sheen. After reading it I firmly believe that the entire world anticipated the coming of Christ because He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that the world now awaits His second coming again for the same reason.

Truth is a Person.

[Mary+Immaculate<3]

I will not be able to answer your questions, but your thought process in many ways reminds me of my own. That being the case, my operating assumption is that maybe we think similarly, and maybe my own reactions to your post will be food for though for yourself.So with that in mind, What does certainty mean to you? Are we speaking about certainty in the sense of moral certainty, or - I think more likely for you - are we speaking of logical or scientific certainty?If we are thinking along the lines of a kind of logical certainty, what does that mean when applied to faith?Is there some magical combination of words (which for the last 3000+ years has eluded mankind) which forms a syllogism that proves beyond any possibility of doubt that God exists? Something as simple as the Barbara syllogism? Clearly not, I think, or we would have stumbled upon it by now.So does it make sense to ask about logical certainty when speaking about faith?

  

Yes, I do think you and I think similarly in this regard. I'm speaking of an intellectual certainty. What I thank you and some of the other people on here for addressing is there is faith involved. I did mention the "leap of faith" in my initial post. It just came to me after reading some of your responses was that I'm viewing Catholicism in the wrong light. It seems I am trying to reduce it to a complete rational, philosophical system. Certainly it contains rational, reasonable philosophy. But it is also a belief system. And yes, I am aware that faith and reason go hand in hand. I suppose what I'm most questioning is whether complete intellectual certainly is possible prior to faith. It seems, however, that they do go hand in hand. Please inform me if you think otherwise, I'd be curious to know why.

And no, I'm not searching for a perfect, irrefutable syllogism for God's existence. My questio is not as much a deistic question as a philosophical one.

Quick reactions: I'd say embrace the doubt as much as the certainty, there's nothing wrong with feeling like that. I would say to try and hold them both in creative tension. God gave you the rational mind (choices, direction, will) and a capacity for the sense of the 'other' through faith, experience, love, intuition, awe, wonder and experiences. Don't try to expect yourself to think or feel a certain way, as it can get frustrating when you can't muster it at that time I would say to simply be open to him in the moment, the all that is present to us. Those series of moments can lead on a path towards him if we stay engaged as best we can. But we can only do our best, even if some think we should be faster or better.Atheist vrs christian debate shows and the alike have there place. But I think they work at a certain consciousness or way of thinking. It can end up seeming to be all shadow fighting with straw men and such like. These debates, although important, can block a person from moving on and it can become a mental trap. In terms of the split thought processes: some would say the psyche is the place where the spiritual battles begin, not so much in the material world. It's a challenge but you've got a whole communion of saints and a church with you :)

 

I'm not having a crisis of feelings, but an intellectual one. Fortunately, I'm trying to figure these questions out when I'm young so I'll have a firm foundation no matter what happens to me in life. Well, I should have expounded more, but I don't generally get very swayed in these debates. I'm more listening them to gain knowledge of the opposite's views, thought process, so that I understand atheists, Protestants, Muslims, etc. Knowledge of another's views is, after all, one of the main tactics of rhetoric. In addition, I find it sad when people are afraid to listen to another's views because they might shake their faith. Often I find the arguments petty, trivial, and without depth.

Indeed, I think that simply because of who I am, almost all my battles are mental. I overthink things often, have existential crises sometimes, worry about my own and the world's future, the list goes on. God has given me a questioning mind so I can learn more about Him; it's a gift and a burden. Perhaps he's telling me something...I need to trust Him more.


 

I think there is a tendency to reduce everything to discursive learning in the Catholic West. There is a brand of knowledge that is simply intuitive and the approach to acquiring is quite different. Instead of reading philosophers philosophize maybe consider turning inward and delving into mental prayer. There is a lot of misconception and misunderstanding of this form of prayer, but it is the highest form of prayer. I think by practicing this you will gain a more experiential understanding of the faith.

 

Well, I've been saying a daily rosary (vocal prayer, I know), and occasionally I'll do a meditation or read scripture. And when I'm at Mass, Adoration, etc. (in the presence of the Eucharist ), I feel peace. My mind focuses better, I can meditate, prays easily flow. When I'm at home, it's harder, but still possible, to pray.

 

I would recommend reading "Life of Christ" by Fulton J Sheen. After reading it I firmly believe that the entire world anticipated the coming of Christ because He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and that the world now awaits His second coming again for the same reason. Truth is a Person.

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll add it to my ever growing, long list of reading goals ;)

Thank you all for your response. Let me know any other thoughts you have.

[mortify ii]

  
Well, I've been saying a daily rosary (vocal prayer, I know), and occasionally I'll do a meditation or read scripture. And when I'm at Mass, Adoration, etc. (in the presence of the Eucharist ), I feel peace. My mind focuses better, I can meditate, prays easily flow. When I'm at home, it's harder, but still possible, to pray.

 

Those are very good but mental prayer is key. See Difficulties in Mental Prayer by M. Eugene Boylan, OCR

[Nihil Obstat]

  

Yes, I do think you and I think similarly in this regard. I'm speaking of an intellectual certainty. What I thank you and some of the other people on here for addressing is there is faith involved. I did mention the "leap of faith" in my initial post. It just came to me after reading some of your responses was that I'm viewing Catholicism in the wrong light. It seems I am trying to reduce it to a complete rational, philosophical system. Certainly it contains rational, reasonable philosophy. But it is also a belief system. And yes, I am aware that faith and reason go hand in hand. I suppose what I'm most questioning is whether complete intellectual certainly is possible prior to faith. It seems, however, that they do go hand in hand. Please inform me if you think otherwise, I'd be curious to know why.

And no, I'm not searching for a perfect, irrefutable syllogism for God's existence. My questio is not as much a deistic question as a philosophical one.

 
 

Whether complete intellectual certainty is possible prior to faith... I do not think so. In fact, I am inclined to say that intellectual certainty in this sense would even make faith impossible. 

As you know, the Church does teach that we can know of God through the light of reason. We can know something about God, something about our creation and our ultimate end, something of the moral order of creation. There are limited things we can come to know through reason. I am not sure we could know these with perfect logical certainty like a math equation or the Barbara syllogism, but certainly I think we can know these things with moral certainty.

But much of God's revelation is precisely that - revelation. It comes to us supernaturally. Supernatural in the fullest sense, being above our nature. Inasmuch as it is above our nature, I do not think that logical proofs and scientific research can tell us very much. We can evaluate revelation with the light of reason and find that it is reasonable, but my instinct tells me that revelation is salvific for us precisely because it goes beyond what pure natural intellect and intellect alone can tell us. I feel that if we could grasp faith with logical certainty, it would mean that this 'faith' we are grasping is itself nothing more than natural law, and therefore not supernatural, and not truly faith.

Basically, if we want logical, intellectual certainty, in the sense of irrefutable proof, I think we will always fall short of discovering Faith. Our reason and intellect can allow us to grasp that which is natural, but only that which is natural. To grasp the supernatural we need more than intellect; we need supernatural assistance.

By analogy, a panning tray can hold pebbles and rocks, but not water. The water will flow out. If we want to capture the water as well, we need a different sort of container.

[Not The Philosopher]

I think what Nihil said is pretty spot on.

 

Looking from another angle:Catholicism is not just a set of beliefs that you intellectually affirm, but something that has brought you into a supernatural relationship with the Trinity, which you live out in your life. In our own human relationships with loved ones, we typically don't look for "proofs" that they love us, even though we often can see the fruits of that love, and can think that we have good reason to believe that they love us. It would be (echoing Nihil) reducing that love to something lesser than it is. I think it is similarly with the love of God.