"assent of faith" vs certainty

[guanophore]

Except when I was baptized I knew nothing about matters of faith, the Catholic faith or any religion. So I could not lose the Catholic faith you believe was infused into me that I knew nothing about until much later.

There is much “poured in” at baptism, but none of it is doctrine. We are transformed spiritually, so that we are opened and able to be taught “like newborn babes” we are to seek nourishment.

There are many such Catholics who were very poorly catechized (I was one) and cannot “lose” a faith you never acquired. When one does not build on the seal of baptism by growing in the faith, one can easily find oneself adrift.

Sure once I knew more, then I could have lost it. But I have not lost all Christian faith. Not by a long shot. And others actually come to faith be it in God or in Christ to begin with before they seek baptism.

Yes. I did not really begin to understand the meaning of my baptism until I left the CC and began going to Baptist Bible studies.

There are some that acquire the graces of baptism through a desire to be raised with Christ even though they don’t realize that they need to be physically baptized. Fortunately, God is not constrained by the sacraments He has provided for us.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Do you mean like Jesus truly present in the Eucharist? It’s true that we can’t see Him, hear Him, discern his presence. But HE SAID “Take this and eat. This is my body.” Now, in my present condition I can’t be CERTAIN, but I give my assent of faith because Jesus said that. It was a hard saying 2,000 years ago and it’s hard now. Still I choose to go with what Jesus said and the Church encourages me to to this because the Church is the body of Christ and can’t change the words even if it means more people could believe in the Church…

I mean like everything the Church teaches. Infallibility, for example. I could accept what I understand this teaching to be as a probably/possibly true teaching. I don’t feel the need to ardently deny the teaching. I am not particularly persuaded that it’s true either, so I’m not going to go around trying to convince everyone that they too should believe in the Church’s infallibility, but I can get past that easily because I don’t even feel the need to give it much thought because I don’t see it as a very important teaching in terms of the point of Christianity. So I could give an assent of faith of sorts…but I definitely can’t say for certain that it’s true.

If I don’t have to say that I have absolute certainty that the teachings of the Church are factually true in order to be Catholic…then I will start to consider more seriously the possibility that I can remain Catholic because I feel that there is a lot in Catholicism that I am drawn to, but I’m currently under the impression that I don’t quite fit in because I completely lack any sense of certainty regarding any of it. (Mainly the Resurrection, like has been discussed in previous threads of I’ve started recently.)

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

As Catholics, we must believe the authority of the Catholic Church.
…

So we are supposed to believe the Church as a whole. We may mot even know some of the teachings; we may not understand all those we do know, but we rely on the God-given authority of the Church that they are correct.

Okay, but can there be uncertainty regarding the idea that the Church has God-given authority?

In other words, can we say “I believe the Church is led by the Holy Spirit, but I can’t say for certain.” Does saying “I can’t say for certain” make it so that the “I believe” part is nullified? Does “believe” require “certainty”?

 

[guanophore]

I mean like everything the Church teaches. Infallibility, for example. I could accept what I understand this teaching to be as a probably/possibly true teaching. I don’t feel the need to ardently deny the teaching. I am not particularly persuaded that it’s true either, so I’m not going to go around trying to convince everyone that they too should believe in the Church’s infallibility, but I can get past that easily because I don’t even feel the need to give it much thought because I don’t see it as a very important teaching in terms of the point of Christianity. So I could give an assent of faith of sorts…but I definitely can’t say for certain that it’s true.

If I don’t have to say that I have absolute certainty that the teachings of the Church are factually true in order to be Catholic…then I will start to consider more seriously the possibility that I can remain Catholic because I feel that there is a lot in Catholicism that I am drawn to, but I’m currently under the impression that I don’t quite fit in because I completely lack any sense of certainty regarding any of it. (Mainly the Resurrection, like has been discussed in previous threads of I’ve started recently.)

The certainty that is spoken of is the Church’s attestation that it is true. We can rely on this because Jesus said “he who hears you, hears me”. Basically it is summed up by the bumper sticker I saw once. “God said it. I believe it. That settles it”.

An individual, though, can accept that Jesus has made a true/certain statement that we have not yet grasped or with which we are not yet persuaded. By an act of the will we can make an assent of faith (God said it, so it must be true) while at the same time recognizing that we have not yet arrived at certainty in ourselves.

The required attitude is “Lord, help my unbelief!”

Okay, but can there be uncertainty regarding the idea that the Church has God-given authority?

In other words, can we say “I believe the Church is led by the Holy Spirit, but I can’t say for certain.” Does saying “I can’t say for certain” make it so that the “I believe” part is nullified? Does “believe” require “certainty”?

The assent of faith would say “I believe that God gave authority to the Church”. Saying this is an act of the will - a choice to accept what God has revealed.

The one who did not have an internal sense of certainty would pray to come into that certainty.

One can choose something with the will that one has not yet reached with mental or soulful conviction.

It is similar to the difference between the wedding and the marriage. One says at the start “I do”, but after that, it is a lifetime of entering experientially into the “I do.”

 

[Sy_Noe]

Okay, but can there be uncertainty regarding the idea that the Church has God-given authority?

In other words, can we say “I believe the Church is led by the Holy Spirit, but I can’t say for certain.” Does saying “I can’t say for certain” make it so that the “I believe” part is nullified? Does “believe” require “certainty”?

All I know is Catholics say they hold the truth. And they seem to me to believe for certain that they do.

 

[Sy_Noe]

The certainty that is spoken of is the Church’s attestation that it is true. We can rely on this because Jesus said “he who hears you, hears me”. Basically it is summed up by the bumper sticker I saw once. “God said it. I believe it. That settles it”.

An individual, though, can accept that Jesus has made a true/certain statement that we have not yet grasped or with which we are not yet persuaded. By an act of the will we can make an assent of faith (God said it, so it must be true) while at the same time recognizing that we have not yet arrived at certainty in ourselves.

The required attitude is “Lord, help my unbelief!”

But what God said is interpreted in different ways by persons of various faiths and belief.

 

[Vico]

Except when I was baptized I knew nothing about matters of faith, the Catholic faith or any religion. So I could not lose the Catholic faith you believe was infused into me that I knew nothing about until much later. Sure once I knew more, then I could have lost it. But I have not lost all Christian faith. Not by a long shot. And others actually come to faith be it in God or in Christ to begin with before they seek baptism.

Of course, infants receive faith from the Holy Spirit without having the use of reason. From the time that the use of reason is obtained, the assent to the faith must be made. The faith is lost through mortal sin against the first commandment. The Catechism expresses it this way: 162 Faith is an entirely free gift that God makes to man. We can lose this priceless gift, as St. Paul indicated to St. Timothy: "Wage the good warfare, holding faith and a good conscience. By rejecting conscience, certain persons have made shipwreck of their faith."44 To live, grow and persevere in the faith until the end we must nourish it with the word of God; we must beg the Lord to increase our faith;45 it must be “working through charity,” abounding in hope, and rooted in the faith of the Church.46

And the loss when the material sin is culpable, such as in these:
**2089 ***Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

 

[Sy_Noe]

[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

Of course, infants receive faith from the Holy Spirit without having the use of reason. From the time that the use of reason is obtained, the assent to the faith must be made. The faith is lost through mortal sin against the first commandment.

Yet once they reason, not everyone ends up sharing the Catholic faith’s beliefs on what it means to love God. Faithful Catholics believe if they miss one weekend Mass or designated holy day of obligation when they were able to attend, they are committing mortal sin and it means they have sinned against the first commandment and they merit eternal damnation if they don’t repent that one miss. But people of other beliefs don’t believe the same. I understand you’re speaking from the faithful Catholic’s perspective on how faith is lost though.

 

[St_Francis]

Okay, but can there be uncertainty regarding the idea that the Church has God-given authority?

In other words, can we say “I believe the Church is led by the Holy Spirit, but I can’t say for certain.” Does saying “I can’t say for certain” make it so that the “I believe” part is nullified? Does “believe” require “certainty”?

What guanophone said about the will is very important.

What I wonder is what you mean by certainty, and why you don’t have it (not saying it’s necessary but more to find out where you are), and what you mean by belief, and why you have that.

 

[St_Francis]

I’m not sure it’s healthy to force people to keep silent and not be able to be open and honest and truthful. I know for me my mind would explode if I practiced a faith in which I had to keep quiet and couldn’t be open about matters of faith and belief without repercussions. It’s actually something that pushes me away and is a draw for me towards other traditions. I suppose I’m just not one that needs everything spelled out in black and white for me though. I like some uncertainty with regard to matters of faith.

I would say that it is necessary for people to be able to express doubts and lacks of understanding, because how else would they learn?

However, there can be problems from two sides: the “teachers” may react badly, and the questioners may question badly. Either can happen first.

A questioner can ask a normal question in a respectful way, or ask in a disrespectful way, or simply state something and not ask at all, altho this is actually his way of asking.

A “teacher” may overreact to the fact a question is being asked at all, or not understand why or how the question is being asked and respond dismissively, or any number of ways. Sometimes a questioner might have a really hard time grasping an answer and the teacher becomes (wrongly) exasperated.

Sometimes it’s hard to remember that we are all *children *of God, even tho we look so grown-up!

So I can understand why people have trouble in this area.

You seem to have a number of questions yourself; some of them would make good threads on their own.

 

[JRKH]

Okay, but can there be uncertainty regarding the idea that the Church has God-given authority?

In other words, can we say “I believe the Church is led by the Holy Spirit, but I can’t say for certain.” Does saying “I can’t say for certain” make it so that the “I believe” part is nullified? Does “believe” require “certainty”?

This whole thing is a problem which becomes very complicated very quickly if we let it…

I think everyone has some of this problem in their faith journey.

As I read through the replies (and I admit I did not read them all) I kept thinking about how one defines “certainty”. A certainty must be based on something. That something can be personal experience like a hot stove will burn your hand, or that certainty can be based on something that is not personal experience. Someone mentioned the case of you believing that the Russian Revolution occurred because a teacher told you it did.

To me, our “certainty” lies in where we place our trust. We are certain of something because we trust the source of it. In the case of the hot stove, we trust our own experience of it. In the case of things we are taught, it is because we trust the things we were told or that we have read.
Trust is a very large component of faith. In fact, trust (IMHO) is what separates “faith” from “belief”.

Now tying this into your question above…
If you sincerely say, “I believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit”, then you need to be saying it because you are certain. Your certainty may be based on “faith” rather than some rational, or philosophical, or scientific basis - yet you ARE certain. Others may not accept the foundation of your certainty - but you remain certain.

Certainly in matters of faith is something rather different than certainty in other fields.

I hope the above helps a little…

Peace
James

 

[Vico]

Yet once they reason, not everyone ends up sharing the Catholic faith’s beliefs on what it means to love God. Faithful Catholics believe if they miss one weekend Mass or designated holy day of obligation when they were able to attend, they are committing mortal sin and it means they have sinned against the first commandment and they merit eternal damnation if they don’t repent that one miss. But people of other beliefs don’t believe the same. I understand you’re speaking from the faithful Catholic’s perspective on how faith is lost though.

Yes, and that first moment of culpable departure is when sanctifying grace is lost. If the person is not culpable then it is not lost. Culpability is based on sin from one of three sources: ignorance, passion, or malice. Ignorance can be culpable it there is intentional neglect to learn the truth where it is attainable. It is possible through pride to dissent from the revealed truth taught by the Church with preference to one’s own or others ideas. This can occur by not avoiding the near occasions of sin in various practices and sources.

 

[3DOCTORS]

I’m not sure it’s healthy to force people to keep silent and not be able to be open and honest and truthful. I know for me my mind would explode if I practiced a faith in which I had to keep quiet and couldn’t be open about matters of faith and belief without repercussions. It’s actually something that pushes me away and is a draw for me towards other traditions. I suppose I’m just not one that needs everything spelled out in black and white for me though. I like some uncertainty with regard to matters of faith.

Not at all times, that wasn’t what I meant. I meant in certain situations where we discern that we are in a state of doubt, it’s more prudent not to lead others to doubt. An analogy might be if you knew some things about flying an airplane, but weren’t sure about some, and were a flight instructor. You wouldn’t want to make your student uncertain about which lever or button or whatever to push and cause her later to crash a plane she’s flying. :nope: Does that help clarify a bit?

The certainty that is spoken of is the Church’s attestation that it is true. We can rely on this because Jesus said “he who hears you, hears me”. Basically it is summed up by the bumper sticker I saw once. “God said it. I believe it. That settles it”.

An individual, though, can accept that Jesus has made a true/certain statement that we have not yet grasped or with which we are not yet persuaded. **By an act of the will we can make an assent of faith (God said it, so it must be true) while at the same time recognizing that we have not yet arrived at certainty in ourselves.

The required attitude is “Lord, help my unbelief!”**

The assent of faith would say “I believe that God gave authority to the Church”. Saying this is an act of the will - a choice to accept what God has revealed.

The one who did not have an internal sense of certainty would pray to come into that certainty.

One can choose something with the will that one has not yet reached with mental or soulful conviction.
**
It is similar to the difference between the wedding and the marriage. One says at the start “I do”, but after that, it is a lifetime of entering experientially into the “I do.”**

Very nicely stated. We live in a society where each individual is conditioned to want a high degree of certainty and control over the variables - often an impossible degree - before committing. That’s why we look for a good-looking spouse with financial stability, want to plan each baby (and are tempted to abort “less than perfect” ones), and so on. Yet all the while, even if you have that “perfect American dream” it can be shattered in one instant - an automobile accident, a cancer diagnosis, a stock market crash, whatever. If we all - myself included - spent more time working on being able to surrender to God’s providence, we’d be stronger and more able to ride through life’s inevitable uncertainties.

This also brings up infant baptism. Many in our control-freak society are appalled at the idea of choosing a child’s religion for him or her. But we choose (even if by default) where they will grow up, what language they will speak, their clothing and medical care and schools, and many other things.

If we don’t believe in our faith or at least be willing to be willing to believe in it, how can we give future generations anything but confusion as a legacy and as tools for their own spiritual journeys?

 

[Aquinas21]

If I don’t have to say that I have absolute certainty that the teachings of the Church are factually true in order to be Catholic…then I will start to consider more seriously the possibility that I can remain Catholic because I feel that there is a lot in Catholicism that I am drawn to [emphasis added by Aquinas21], but I’m currently under the impression that I don’t quite fit in because I completely lack any sense of certainty regarding any of it. (Mainly the Resurrection, like has been discussed in previous threads of I’ve started recently.)

Serious Comment: Even though I’m not under Roman jurisdiction (to use a slightly old-fashioned term), I can relate positively to the emphasized statement in the quotation. Perhaps Doubtfire (and maybe other posters) would like to mention some examples of good attractive aspects of Catholicism. These might be general aspects (for example: art, architecture, music, theology, spirituality, liturgical style) and maybe also parish-level aspects (for example: snacks and fellowship in the church hall after Mass on Doughnut Sunday, lol).

Funny Comment: Once upon a time, everything was okay in Doubtfire’s intellectual perspective. He was even able to carry an intellectual tune quite well. Then one day on the Internet (not on Catholic Answers), he encountered some negative ideas from agnostics and atheists. :nope: :frighten: He was possibly somehow hypnotized :hypno: by their juggling of ideas. :juggle: He wondered if he had been sleeping through some intellectual problems previously. Doubtfire returned to Catholic Answers Forum with new questions. :jrbirdman: As we see in the following picture (clickable attachment), Doubtfire eventually decided that the best pathway for him would be to go seminary or theology school (at least as a visitor).

View attachment 20994
attribution and license

 

[Sy_Noe]

Serious Comment: Even though I’m not under Roman jurisdiction (to use a slightly old-fashioned term), I can relate positively to the emphasized statement in the quotation. Perhaps Doubtfire (and maybe other posters) would like to mention some examples of good attractive aspects of Catholicism. These might be general aspects (for example: art, architecture, music, theology, spirituality, liturgical style) and maybe also parish-level aspects (for example: snacks and fellowship in the church hall after Mass on Doughnut Sunday, lol).

I find an attractive aspect of Catholicism to be the many available times in which to worship. Many parishes I know of have a couple of vigils on Saturday. And at least 3 Masses on Sunday mornings and perhaps a noon one or even a Sunday evening Mass. I also have a tendency to like that Catholic Masses generally follow the same worship style. On the parish level my favorite is one about 5 miles from me but I know it’s not the usual Catholic church. But where the architecture and decor is simple and plain. No kneelers. Where worshipers come dressed in a variety of ways from suits and ties and dresses… to shorts and flip flops… and everything inbetween. And where no one seems to care what is on the outside of others. Where people aren’t afraid to get up from their seats to extend a hand of peace to show a sign of what is on the inside of their hearts. But I do find it to be the only such parish out of several in my area. The music there isn’t a favorite of mine. But if you find me at a Roman Catholic Mass though, that’s the parish you’ll more likely find me.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Okay, then to the heart of the matter, can both thought processes be applied to the very idea that the Magesterium is an authority on theology? In other words, is “I believe the Magesterium is an authority on theology, but I don’t know for certain” acceptable, or is only “I am certain that the Magesterium is an authority on theology” acceptable in order to be Catholic?

Let’s look at it from the other direction - not as a matter of belief, but as a matter of doubt.

A Catholic does not incur sin if s/he has honest doubts about any (or all) Church teaching. Such doubt is called a “crisis of faith” and even great Saints have experienced it. This includes even doubting the existence of God (by which we necessarily doubt everything the Church teaches).

We cannot compel ourselves to believe something. We don’t have free will in what we believe. I could never convince myself that unicorns are real, even if I wanted to believe they are real. Because doubt does not involve a free will choice, honest doubt is not sinful.

Ah, but there are strings attached to doubt being non-sinful. Three conditions must be met:

• We must realize that our doubt is a personal flaw which we should strive to correct. We must not suppose that we are right and the Church is wrong.
• We must make a sincere and ongoing effort to reform our doubt. We cannot allow ourselves to become complacent in our doubt. Coming here is one way we can address doubt.
• We must not teach our doubts to others as an alternative belief.

 

[guanophore]

Let’s look at it from the other direction - not as a matter of belief, but as a matter of doubt.

A Catholic does not incur sin if s/he has honest doubts about any (or all) Church teaching. Such doubt is called a “crisis of faith” and even great Saints have experienced it. This includes even doubting the existence of God (by which we necessarily doubt everything the Church teaches).

We cannot compel ourselves to believe something. We don’t have free will in what we believe. I could never convince myself that unicorns are real, even if I wanted to believe they are real. Because doubt does not involve a free will choice, honest doubt is not sinful.

Ah, but there are strings attached to doubt being non-sinful. Three conditions must be met:

• We must realize that our doubt is a personal flaw which we should strive to correct. We must not suppose that we are right and the Church is wrong.
• We must make a sincere and ongoing effort to reform our doubt. We cannot allow ourselves to become complacent in our doubt. Coming here is one way we can address doubt.
• We must not teach our doubts to others as an alternative belief.

Thanks for this post David. It may be the most valuable post of yours I have had the pleasure to read.

I found myself thinking about this notion of compelling oneself to believe. I agree with you to an extent, but I also think that placing one’s faith is an act of the will, as much as an act of conviction.

Peter stepped out on the water as an act of the will, not because he really believed he could walk on water. He chose to place his faith in Christ, and as soon as his intellect and convictions interfered, he began to sink.

So I think it is possible, and sometimes recommended, that a person act “as if” they believed, even if they are not intellectually persuaded.

I like your comments about our responsibility to become persuaded though. We need to pray that God will “help my unbelief” and study, and work to get there.

 

[3DOCTORS]

Yes, very nice post. :yup: