So, as a cradle Catholic, given to, as Pristinus Sapienter has remarked elsewhere, with justification I admit, given I say to mental wanderings all about the landscape, here is why one Catholic (myself) began the journey to belief.

This is not a chronological account but rather an attempt at a logical exposition.

First, as noted by someone else, the Church came first, then the New Testament.  (I have also heard it argued, that the People of God came before the Old testament.  This understanding is reasonable if one notes that Abraham came to faith before the account in Genesis was written down, and likely, even before it became current among the People.)

So, first we have the Church, the followers of Christ.  They gave us the New Testament, not immediately, but after a number of years had passed and the last human to have known Jesus in the flesh, had died.

Why beleive the NT is true?

Short answer, because the Church tells us so.  (Same answer for the OT.)  Now this testimony of the Church is not just to the truth of the NT but is also to its understanding.  This means that literal reading needs to be informed by the Church, and possibly will be found to be in error.

So why believe in the Church?

Yes, it is true that the Church calls us to belief in its inerrancy in matters of faith, and that results in a circular logical argument, even when invoking the infallibility of Peter as established by relevant NT passages.

So is this a logical reason to believe in the Church?

I say it isn't, but I do not say that there isn't anything of value to a rational view in this chain of reasoning.

But I set it aside for the moment.

Why believe the Church?

It is the testimony of the members of the Church, passed down from the days of Jesus' time on earth in which I believe.  Go back to those who walked with Jesus and note those who died rather than renounce the teaching.  Yes, I believe because the early teachers died for what they taught, most especially for teaching that Jesus rose from the dead.  Because I believe what they taught (because they died for their beliefs, 11 of the 12; Matthias replacing the Iscariot), I believe their testimony about the Resurrection.  Because I believe in the Resurrection, I believe Jesus is what He claimed to be, & so I believe in the Triune God, & I believe those who came after the first witnesses & who believed for the same reasons & who assembled the NT & passed it on to us, & whose heirs in the Spirit today help us to understand it.  How do I know they are protected from error by the Spirit.  I believe this because I believe that Jesus said this would be the case, & I believe that Jesus is God, because the witnesses to his Resurrection, by and large gave their lives for their beliefs, for what they taught, which they claimed as truth. 

As Charles Colson asked, How can it be reasonable to suppose that about a dozen illiterates (consisting of fishermen & contemporaries who didn't get along with them) in a subsistence society, could formulate, hatch, & carryout a deception of this scale, when three sophisticates of modern day couldn't cover up a burglary in which nothing was stolen?

Regards,

Old Sigma

To All: It is very curious and quite concerning to me to read that people's supposed "basis" for "Catholic belief" consists in reference to many things other than one's personal, passionate, ansd incorrigible faith experience! Why is that the case!

If u have been reading me on Kierkegaard you are accustomed to his argument ( which argument is sustained and developed over many texts! ),namely, that one's basis for belief/faith must be subjective, personal, non- rational etc. A basis for "being in the faith" as a Catholic - in genuine existential faith - must first be a personal appropriation affair. Testimony of others - martyrs, Church , Apostles - can not substitiute for this interiority wher I and God alone meet and converse. Many peoples have testifed to many things political, literary, and scientific throughout the ages. Testimony alone does not cause your belief in these numerous things. The early Church and legacy of the Church do not cause your moment of personal confrontation and passionate meeting with God.

What is wrong in answer to Pouliot's question in saying something of the form, " When it comes right down to it, the martyrs, the Church, fulfillment of Scripture by Jesus, Bible study, logical arguments that seek to prove God's existence, the Chuck Colson argument...all these are nice and somewhat important.

But, nothing trumps my feelings at Mass, or my praying alone before the Blessed Sacrament, or this everpresent voice I hear inside, or " Most times at Communion I feel....".  What about the incorrigibility of experience, life change, or simply "He is my life and my all!"...?????  WHY DO I NOT HEAR THESE, please tell me ?

Your last sentence is inappropriately hostile, off point entirely, and ad hominem in the worst sense.

Once again, if God and Church are not something of infinite passion for YOU, if the Holy Spirit is not for YOU, if the great I AM is not the Eternal God for YOU,  if the Trinity is not Trinity for YOU, if He has not revealed to YOU that He is Son of God in a mighty and powerful way, then your words are those of a parrot speaking truths about which you know nothing.  

lwall, must we first believe Kirkegaard's words before we believe Jesus Christ's? 

"Unless you are converted and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven." ~ Jesus

"The task must be made difficult, for only the difficult inspires the noble-hearted." ~ Kirkegaard

Hmm.

to all and especially lwall: my heartfelt apology for my last post. I often tell my children when they are called a name that if it is not true do not honor it with another thought and if it is true examine yourself if you are need of an adjustment.

I maintain that the faith I have is my own and no others. I pray always that my faith be increased.

I would remove my last post but would rather leave that to the discretion of the CE team.

RE: "It is very curious and quite concerning to me to read that people's supposed "basis" for "Catholic belief" consists in reference to many things other than one's personal, passionate, ansd incorrigible faith experience! Why is that the case!"

If you & I together were to encounter Jesus in the flesh, not as an apparition for us to experience together, & at the same time, but as an actual experience of our physical senses, mutually confirmable by the other, (& even by onlookers), perhaps I could then view an emotional response as rational given the evident supernatural character of the encounter.  However, given that so far no one alive today reports anything but a subjective experience of God, it seems to me to share too many aspects with mental instability to rely solely on subjective emotional response.

Where ever our emotions lead us, our intellect should act as a sober assessor of the validity of our response.  From the results of that assessment then, our will should be formed in accord with our intellect.  I do not believe God endowed humans with an intellect so that it could be ignored or its use abdicated.

This is partly the reason why the post I made at the beginning addresses "reasons" for my assent in faith.  In retrospect, perhaps I should have used "reasons" rather than "basis" in the subject.  I certainly ought to have been more explicit about the role of the intellect. 

Many, in another topic, have concentrated on the "faith experience" as a basis.  While it may be edifying to share these amongst ourselves, there can be little discussion about these various experiences by others.  They are after all generally and entirely subjective.  (You say "toe may toe" whilst I say "toe ma toe" & either [e-ther] or [i-ther] is correct.  The same impasse is reached when we speak of subjective responses to what may in fact be completely subjective experience.) 

Also, emotions can deceive.  What one chooses to consider as "agape" may in fact be "eros" concealed by our concupisence.  Because so many were advancing the subjective in that thread, I started this one to try to point out the important element of our being that is missing, the use of reason.

The concept of the Trinity is incomprehensible to humans & when advocated as actual (or real), can readily lead an observer to conclude that our reasoning abilities are impaired.  While Aquinas doesn't make the doctrine any more believable on empirical grounds, his discussion of the inner life of the Trinity does make the concept more appealing to our intellect.  In one sense, his discussion can convince an unbiased intellect that there could be logical reasons for the existence of the Triune God. 

RE: your post of 25 July as made around 5pm

However, if I may, it seems to me that when you use "discover" you mean it in other than an empirical sense; but I am not certain. 

Also, I was wondering if you were aware that at least some of your reasoning is very similar to Pascal's wager.  In particular the Buddhist speculation.

Also, I would be interested to read what you might write more about the alternatives to your introductory remark "Either there is a Creator...or..."

Regards,

Old Sigma (Cradle Catholic & generally inveterate amateur)

Pouliot: Good afternoon.

Your criticism of emotions is mounted against a straw man, I believe. When myself or Kierkegaard refer to inwardness, subjectivity, appropriation, and passion towards the infinite we are not advocating emotional-ism as a theory or criterion for truth as, for example, one encounters in philosophical ethical emotivism.

As pertaining to Christian faith the necessity of emotion, feeling, and passion is not for the sake of forgoing the intelelct, as if the intellect were not involved in what ultimately is that sate of being we call "faith".  But I mostly agree with your various criticisms of emotional-ism althoughneither I nor K. are talking about emotionalism. 

However the very worthy urgings of Kierkegaard concern (1) the impossibilty of grounding or accounting for faith by purely rational or empirical means, and (2) in the face of (1) the necessity of forgoing attempts at objective/rational groundings of faith for the sake of letting  go of "objectivity" so that one mifght make room for basking/standing within the only possible relationship that the human being can possibly enjoy when the object of attention is the Infinite and the Absurd Paradox. 

When the object of our fairh involves non-sensical and ir-rational posits and belief candidates - Incarnation, hypostatic union, Trinity, Resurrection - one has already de facto outstripped ordinary, sensical, rational language and concepts! One is embracing the absurd. So how does one justify to oneself and to others that, despite absurdity, nonetheless, I believe.

Now most people avert to " Church authority" which not only can not possibly serve as a grounds for or the production of faith in the individual, but reference to external authority is, as you know the argument all too well by now, is ultimately a question begging  project. 

It seems to me and to many other commentators that Kierkegaard is on to something very crucial for us.  You own your children, your spouse, your vocation - they are yours because you have appropriated them inwardly and not on the authorioty of The Truth of Parenting or The Manulal Attesting To Good Spousal Realations. Not at all.

You feel freely passionately about them, and you experience an incorrigible inwardness and intimacy towards children, vocation, and wife which is unrepeatedly yours. No external authority "makes" you feel this way. Such is what K. urges faith is all about.

P.S. I did mean exorcise not exercise, as if folks are responding to my posts as one would feel anxious about fleeing Satan.

RE: "As pertaining to Christian faith the necessity of emotion, feeling, and passion is not for the sake of forgoing the intellect, as if the intellect were not involved in what ultimately is that state of being we call "faith". "

(We needn't stumble on the issue of circularity; but we need to acknowledge that a "faith" grounded in empirical evidence is not "faith" per se.  The very word "faith" implies that the object cannot be proven.  So why even bother discussing this.  "However the very worthy urgings of Kierkegaard concern (1) the impossibilty of grounding or accounting for faith by purely rational or empirical means"  St Paul said it first, so why bring Kierkegaard into the picture?)

Regards,

Old Sigma (Cradle Catholic & generally inveterate amateur)

Pouliot: All experience is subjective. There is no intellible concept as non-subjective experience.The grounding of faith is to be had in one's personal appropriation of the objective reality of the Absolute Paradox. Faith is prmarily a relationship between an individusal and his relationship to the Infinite- in- time...the Incarnation. Faith is its own  ultimate court of appeal. One incorrigibly feels and knows that one's entire personality - which includes reason, emotions, intellect, will,et.al - has been grasped and transformed by the Infinite in a critical moment of laep and letting go.

 I have amply answered your concern of emotionalism which faith is not. A good book on this topic is Paul Tillich's, The Dynamics of Faith.