•As against these views, it must be noted
that authority, even the authority of God,
cannot be the supreme criterion of certitude, and an act of faith cannot be the
primary form of knowledge. This authority, indeed, in order to be
a motive of assent, must be previously acknowledged as being certainly valid;
before we believe in a proposition as revealed by God, we must first know with
certitude that God exists, that He reveals such and such a proposition, and
that His teaching is worthy of assent, all of which questions can and must be
ultimately decided only by an act of intellectual assent based on objective
evidence. Thus, fideism not only denies
intellectual knowledge, but logically ruins faith itself.
23 comments:
Interesting assertion which seems to sound pretty rationalisticly.
But it seems to be denied by catholic church itself, because it in first Vatican council in fact banned its followers to call into question the legitimity of its authority. Compare.
Jakub,
You appear to have glossed over several key texts within the document you linked to. For instance:
"the assent of faith is by no means a blind movement of the mind"
or
"the faith [Catholics] profess rests on the firmest of foundations"
Now doubtless you focused instead on its next to last line: "those who have accepted the faith under the guidance of the church can never have any just cause for changing this faith or for calling it into question."
But note carefully. Your paraphrase has subtly changed its meaning, making it say something never intended. That line is not a condemnation of questioning, in and of itself, but rather a prediction that such questioning (of which the Church has historically approved) will not result in the questioner finding any "just cause" for changing the Faith.
In effect, the writer of this document is saying, "Go ahead, question all you want. We have full confidence that by doing so, you won't find anything that will cast doubt upon the teachings of the Church." So rather than a prohibition of questioning, it's more like a dare, made in confidence of the strength of one's convictions.
Jezu ufam tobie!
Bob:
We have full confidence that by doing so, you won't find anything that will cast doubt upon the teachings of the Church.
But I think there has to be added: "even if you´d subjectively found such 'anything', if you on the basis of this 'anything' wanted to call into question your staying in the catholic church, your behaving would be morally wrong"
Of course, I do not know the degree of obligation of mentioned paragraphs.
Jakub,
The "morally wrong" doesn't come into play until one chooses to believe a falsehood, knowing it to be false. People all too often forget (or have never learned) that the formal definition of heresy is to willingly choose falsehood over truth (and not "accidentally" - for instance, by being raised to believe a false teaching).
Luther fits the definition of heretic, because when he realized that his ideas did not match what was plainly written in certain books of The Bible, he solved that problem by simply removing those books he did not agree with. (the seven Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament, plus Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation in the New - later reformers reinserted the New Testament books that Luther rejected).
I stand by what I posted above. The document simply expresses the confidence that no amount of legitimate, honest questioning will ever result in cause to doubt the teachings of the Church. The only way that can happen is either for the questioner to err in his reasoning, or else to deliberately choose to not believe, because he doesn't want to.
Jezu ufam tobie!
Totally (and unapologetically) off topic, I just discovered a single-volume edition of C.S. Lewis's Space Trilogy (published by Scribner Press), containing the full text of Out of the Silent Planet, Perelandra, and That Hideous Strength - all under one cover. It has a printing date on the copyright page of 2011, so it's been around for a while; I just didn't know it existed.
Needless to say, I scarfed one up instantly. It's been a while since I've read these things straight through, and this summer sounds like a perfect time to do so once again - and I'll only need to carry one book around while doing it!
Reason precedes faith. One must have reason to believe and a motivation for belief.
That is Thomism 101.
I live and die by it.
The problem is the Gnu Atheist crowd has made it their own dogma that Faith is defined solely as blind belief without reason.
Bob:
People all too often forget (or have never learned) that the formal definition of heresy is to willingly choose falsehood over truth (and not "accidentally" - for instance, by being raised to believe a false teaching).
But if this was true then I think that many of so called heretics in history would not be heretics at all and maybe church should even publicly apologize to them. Again - I do not know the history, but it is hard to believe that ALL OF THEM willingly denied something from the church´s teaching knowing that church´s teaching was true and their own not. Your "knowing it to be false" from the church´s point of view means "knowing that church´s authority is always right" - if I am wrong, please correct me. So I think that the question of the authority and its extension the church claims to have is one of the most basic question, and I would even dare that in a sence more basic than the question of existence of God.
The document simply expresses the confidence that no amount of legitimate, honest questioning will ever result in cause to doubt the teachings of the Church.
The question is if such a confidence isn´t too bold and exaggerated.
"if I am wrong"
I can't put this any plainer - you are wrong. You write, "Your "knowing it to be false" from the church´s point of view means..." (emphasis added) The "your" in that sentence is totally out of place. The definition isn't "mine" - it's the Church's.
I'm wondering. Why do you look to texts to discover whether Catholics can question their faith instead of just asking real, live Catholics? I am sure that you'd find people scratching their heads at your idea that we don't or can't question things. Heck, Catholics practically invented questioning one's faith. It has a long tradition going back to the Early Church Fathers. Augustine and Jerome both vigorously contested various points of doctrine at times. Thomas Aquinas question absolutely everything - his entire Summa is built around calling every last point of Church doctrine into question. That's even how it's organized.
But forget our ancestors! Just ask your average Catholic off the street, and see how far you'll get with your idea that they can't question anything. They'll find the notion laughable.
"The question is if such a confidence isn´t too bold and exaggerated."
Can't speak for "exaggerated", but yes, the statement is indeed bold. It's bold like St. Peter was bold when he spoke to the crowds in Jerusalem on Pentecost. It's bold like St. Paul at Lystra. "They stoned Paul and dragged him out of the city, supposing that he was dead. But when the disciples gathered about him, he rose up and went back into the city." (Acts 14:19-20) Now, how's that for boldness? You're stoned nearly to death, and instead of fleeing the scene, you walk right back into it!
Yeah, the Church is bold.
Jezu ufam tobie!
The definition isn't "mine" - it's the Church's.
Could be but for me it doesn´t change things.
I'm wondering. Why do you look to texts to discover whether Catholics can question their faith instead of just asking real, live Catholics?
Well, partly (or mostly?) because of traditionalist-FSSPX influence - I was a traditionalist and still partly am, although I am moving slowly away from it - and traditionalists, as you surely know, say that you cannot rely on today´s church and catholics because they have been led astray from the true faith path by modernism (which has occupied Rome), second Vatican council etc. so from their point of view you have to turn away from contemporary modernist catholics and catholic books/documents and turn to pre-second-Vatican documents, catechisms etc. Traditionalists love and stress the authority of church and especially the first Vatican council dogmas. I was heavily influenced by them and also this my asking is the trace of their influence (although it has also other influences)
forget our ancestors!
That´s exactly what traditionalists would deeply warn me from :-)
Yes but Thomas in Summa writes for example also this:
"Ex parte quidem disputantis est consideranda intentio. Si enim disputet tanquam de fide dubitans, et veritatem fidei pro certo non supponens, sed argumentis experiri intendens, procul dubio peccat, tanquam dubius in fide et infidelis. Si autem disputet aliquis de fide ad confutandum errores, vel etiam ad exercitium, laudabile est." (STh II-II q. 10 a. 7 co.)
(I do not know whether you understand latin but I do not have english translation)
I would really like to have my reason as the ultimate judge even of revealed truths (and definetely the legitimity and credibility od church´s authority) but I think it would from church´s point of view be called "devilish subjectivist rationalism" or something similar.
Oh. I had no idea that you were under the influence of the "Rad Trad" (radical traditionalist) movement. Forgive my bluntness, but those guys are straight up nuts. They try to have it both ways - the Church is infallible, but it has been in error since Vatican II. How they can wrap their minds around such a glaring contradiction I cannot fathom.
As to your quotation from Thomas, I think the first clause says it all: "Ex parte quidem disputantis est consideranda intentio" which basically asserts that the intention of the disputer is critical in judging whether any specific instance of doubt is either sinful or praiseworthy, and not the questioning itself.
Jezu ufam tobie!
They try to have it both ways - the Church is infallible, but it has been in error since Vatican II. How they can wrap their minds around such a glaring contradiction I cannot fathom.
Well, I think I know how, but that would be another debate, suitable for another place than this blog :-)
"suitable for another place than this blog"
You're probably right.
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE traditional devotions. As you might know, I try to pray in Latin whenever possible (when in private). I carry a Rosary with me everywhere I go, and even use it every now and again. About 5 months ago, I was introduced to the Divine Mercy Chaplet, and now pray that (almost) daily.
But all this about defying the authority of the current popes, and declaring that the Church has been in apostasy since 1963, that's just crazy talk!
Anyway, big christian teachers and intellectuals, as far as I know, seriously asked whether pope could be a formal heretic and similar questions about papal and church´s authority. For example Robert Bellarmine?
Pardon me for interrupting the conversation, but some points.
No, the traditionalists are not totally composed - or even largely composed - of sedevacantists. The SSPX's main claim is that the tridentine mass cannot be suppressed. Yes, there's talk about negative influence in the Vatican, but no one can really deny that - it's a question of what kind of influence, and what degree. I'll also note that it's just so amusing to hear on the one hand that Catholics can think whatever they damn well please (they can't), but if the traditionalists believe whatever they please they're nuts and that's not Catholicism.
Re: the point of Victor's OP - the Catholic Church does not endorse some idea of objectivity-free, fact-free 'faith' supported by nothing at all. They demonstrably believe that that's nonsense. They believe in arguments, evidence, rationality and intellectual persuasion. The sub-issue being discussed here, which needs to be highlighted, is that the Church also teaches that their teachings are binding - if you're a Catholic, if you accept the Church and its truth, then you're also caught up with accepting their final say on a variety of matters. Not 'all matters' - there's numerous questions open to dispute, and outside of infallibility. But yes, accepting that the Church was established by Christ and teaches the truth also means that their teaching is binding for Catholics - you don't get to vote on it.
That said, you aren't forced to get down on your knees and accept Church teaching. You can simply walk, and some do. Others convert in. Such is life.
But the idea that Christianity in general, or the Church in particular, operates outside the realm of the rational is false by their own teachings, and in some of the strongest senses. Really, probably senses even stronger than various Cultists of Gnu could accept - I recall Myers blubbering once about how 'emotion' needs to be considered greatly when it comes to what we do and regard as right and wrong, as opposed to reason.
if you're a Catholic, if you accept the Church and its truth, then you're also caught up with accepting their final say on a variety of matters.
IN my point of view, this results in one argument against baptism of little children because they do not have a freedom of choice whether they become catholics or not. Of course, there are also arguments FOR such a baptism, although only a theological.
Jakub,
Baptism does not make one a Catholic - Confirmation does. And that happens only after a person has reached an age at which he can consciously and actively consent. In fact, the Church will not confirm a person who does not wish to be.
IN my point of view, this results in one argument against baptism of little children because they do not have a freedom of choice whether they become catholics or not.
No one demands that babies believe in infallibility either.
Jakub, do you believe in God?
Yes I do
BOb:
Baptism does not make one a Catholic - Confirmation does. And that happens only after a person has reached an age at which he can consciously and actively consent.
But before second Vatican council children were confirmed at the age of 7. I do not think that at such age can a child give really thought-up, arguments knowing consent.
"before second Vatican council"
Jakub,
You seem intent on finding some reason to be upset over something or other. Now you're just grasping at ancient history, as though you expect me (or somebody else) to defend whatever went on 50 years ago. Why concern yourself with how things were done pre Vatican II? What matters is what's going on now. Right?
Is there some hidden agenda behind your concerns? Excuse me for saying this, but they all seem to be about issues not particularly relevant to anything. Why is this important to you?
Jezu ufam tobie!
I do not think that at such age can a child give really thought-up, arguments knowing consent.
It's not a question of thought-up arguments. You think someone should only be able to be Catholic if they can give a spirited, deep intellectual defense of all points after a lifetime of study?
Crude,
You bring up a point that I have been struggling to put into words, but haven't manages to. One of the glories of Catholicism is that one does not have to be a master theologian, or even a deep thinker, to belong. After all, such "hobbies" (which is often what they really are) are luxuries, which only people with the time and/or intellect can indulge in. The Gospel is a message for All of Humanity, not just the Deep Thinkers and the idle wannabe philosophers. It's for the harried housewife, the uneducated peasant, the working stiff with two jobs... you get my point.
So sometimes "popular piety" is precisely what's needed. In my own church, there's a homeless guy (Eddie) who comes in for daily mass. He prays the Rosary before it starts, and then sticks around afterwards for the free sandwiches and coffee. He wouldn't recognize Aquinas if he fell over him. But you know what? He's probably got more faith than many who could quote from the Summa in Latin.
Slightly different subject, but that's one of the reasons I really hate modern church architecture, with its uber-plain simplicity and bare walls. The traditional parish church, with its stained glass windows depicting scenes from the life of Christ, its statues of saints in various corners, its tucked away shrines to the Virgin, its Stations of the Cross around the perimeter, its elaborate altar presenting a very image of Heaven... all of that was food for the soul of a parishioner who did not have the time or ability to study these things. Here, he could just (figuratively) swim in them and take in their meaning. But nowadays, what does he see? Some abstract art here and there, a bare table for an altar, and (if you're lucky) a crucifix or two.
Jezu ufam tobie!
Bob
Is there some hidden agenda behind your concerns? Excuse me for saying this, but they all seem to be about issues not particularly relevant to anything. Why is this important to you?
Once more: the strong influence of, as you called them, "rad trads" (if I should simplify. Together with my personal problems with some issues of christianty/catholicism which I don´t conceal I have and which I´d like to solve somehow.
Post a Comment