I guess it’s not possible to convince someone you believe in something for a reason and not just an act of the will, if one is convinced that there can be no reason. Really the only way someone is convinced of something anyway is ultimately through their own experience and/or trust.
Let’s take a mundane example: belief in the existence of Antarctica. I’ve never been there, but I believe, I *know* it exists. Why? Because I have experience in those that claim to have been there are trustworthy. Explorers, scientists, I have no reason to doubt their claim, experience has taught me such people have no reason to lie in such a situation, so I trust that Antarctica is there, and through that trust, I *know* it’s there. Thus I can say with confidence, I believe Antarctica exists, when I really mean I *know* it exists, as a fact.
I would say that if a belief is real to one, then there can be no convincing otherwise. So for example, if my life is changed in some way because of something, then that something must be real, by definition. I think as a society we put way too much emphasis on the so-called “power of the mind” to transform us. Sure there’s a mental component to change in one’s life, but not the only one.
So if I am perceptibly changed, another can perceive a change in me, and I say “This change is because of God, because of this experience ‘x’”, who can deny that witness? Other than to call me a liar of course.
So this is about belief in God. Belief in Transubstantiation, Mary, etc, these are things that, if one’s intellect is so willing, can be easily believed, because again, a change in one’s life due to these factors, attributable to these factors, who could “explain” this change other than to suggest it’s “the power of the mind” or call me a liar?
I submit only the cynic would say something like that. Or someone convinced such changes come from the Devil (which makes no sense IMO if such changes are positive ones, changes that lead me to increase in holiness).
In other words, I don’t believe in something if there’s not a reason. I just don’t. And I really don’t think that’s the Christian proposal, that we believe in Jesus (or anything) as a “leap of faith” or “blind faith”. That’s not what the Church proposes anyway.
Hope that helps.
Isn’t what you just said the same as a leap of faith or divine intervention?
But once you decide you submit to Rome, the RC is not to objectively examine the Scriptures and evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching, but is to implicitly assent to infallible teaching with "assent of faith," and even those from the ordinary Magisterium cannot be disbelieved by a faithful RCs, but "a Catholic must maintain such beliefs as though they were true, granting them unadulterated intellectual assent." (http://www.academia.edu/1982786/Religious_Assent_in_Roman_Catholicism)
"He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason, like a lantern, at the door."
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children...to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." — (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]
St. Ignatius once said that should the Pope command him to undertake a voyage by sea in a ship without a mast, without oars or sails, he would blindly obey the precept. And when he was told that it would be imprudent to expose his life to danger, he answered that prudence is necessary in Superiors; but in subjects the perfection of prudence is to obey without prudence. - St. Alphonsus De Liguori, True Spouse of Christ, p. 68 http://wallmell.webs.com/LiguoriTrueSpouseChristVol1.pdf
Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, should be held as the supreme law; for, seeing that the same God is the author both of the Sacred Books and of the doctrine committed to the Church, it is clearly impossible that any teaching can by legitimate means be extracted from the former, which shall in any respect be at variance with the latter. Hence it follows that all interpretation is foolish and false which either makes the sacred writers disagree one with another, or is opposed to the doctrine of the Church.(Providentissimus Deus; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html)
“Still, fundamentalists ask, where is the proof from Scripture? Strictly, there is none. It was the Catholic Church that was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly. The mere fact that the Church teaches the doctrine of the Assumption as definitely true is a guarantee that it is true.” — Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1988), p. 275.
This seems cultic to us who find assurance based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation. The question is, did the church begin under the premise of the assured veracity of the magisterium that was the steward of Scripture, or on the basis of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and testifying to Scripture being the supreme transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God?
For as previously asked of you, it seems that the RC argument is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Does this fairly represent what you hold to or in what way does it differ??