B
Blue_Horizon
Guest
I have been reading Aquinas, Newman and one J.R. Lamont wrt the relationship of intellect and will in the assent of faith.
I understand that the certitude of faith does not derive from any intellectual grasp of the articles of faith (primarily God’s existence and redemptive concern and then the usual content of revelation) even if that were possible (and may be for some people wrt some truths of faith that may be known by right reason e.g. God’s existence).
I understand that Catholic faith must have some form of rational “suitability” otherwise it is blind fideism. Also, faith and reason both pertain to “truth” and therefore cannot (if correct) contradict one another.
I understand that the rational nature/component of Christian faith is usually addressed in discussions of “the motives of credibility (MOC).” Such intellectual “convictions” (a mass of probabilities in favour of christian faith as Newman would put it) certainly help the leap of faith and may even assist present faith in times of difficulties - but they do not constitute the actual assent of faith.
I understand this assent of faith is an infused gift of abiding grace directly from God. Thus the MOC, at the most, enables a “leap into light” (rather than a more heroic “leap into darkness”). Of course God could still allow a responsive soul to find faith even when MOC were lacking (or strongly against faith) and their reason was screaming “this is irrational”. This is exactly the leap into darkness that Abraham took and was highly praised for it.
I understand that the assent of faith is primarily targeted not at the content of faith (articles of revelation etc) but at (and because of) the recognition of the One who testifies to this content, God Himself, in the very act of the believer hearing the content 'spoken." (It doesn’t really matter if its by means of a vision, an apostle, reading the Bible or listening to a homily or remembering Sunday school from 40 yrs ago). Thus faith is by hearing (in a sense the status of the Person “discovered” is more important than the revelations this Person “says”). It would seem, in terms of the “content” of faith, God’s very existence is the first certitude of faith as it is intrinsic to such Divine testimony.
But the difficulty I have, which does not seem to be addressed by Aquinas (as Lamont also notes) is this. What part does the intellect play in reasonably helping us decide that it is truly God (via the priest or elder or Scripture) that has actually spoken these revelations to us?
In medieval times it was simply assumed by theologians that the Church was indisputably the voice of God, passing on his authority, an uncorrupted message and the accurately recorded miraculous doings of Jesus from Apostolic times (see Aquinas De Veritate, q.11,o.6). End of story.
It is exactly this - the certainty wrt the divine nature of the one who speaks (rather than the certainty that God speaks truly about what he reveals eg Incarnation, Transubstantiation, Resurrection) - that is perhaps the main source of doubt in our age? If we are to uphold some place for reason (so we do not fall into gullible fideism) surely this must apply to scrutiny of the “intermediary testator” as well (few of us hear from God directly)?
Do we call such enquiry into the credibility of the “person” who testifies “motives of credibility” as well? I do not think so. This is a different problem. Can we be subjectively mistaken in giving full assent to such a person’s testimony (i.e. they were not speaking on God’s behalf afterall)?
Let me try and ground all the above in a practical “thought experiment” that, to the as yet uncommitted, would be quite acceptable…
If the bones of Jesus were discovered tomorrow (and reasonably judged to be so) would that destroy the certainty of the christian faith? (Such an assertion was actually made some years ago - it turned out to be a media exaggeration of course).
Many “theologians” would say it would make no difference to their faith. Personally I tend to be in the camp of Balthazar and Kasper who maintain a more traditional understanding of the Resurrection. Thus my faith (which is certain) necessarily tells me that such will never happen because Jesus’s earthly body is glorified and risen (I have no idea what that means but I do know it means the tomb isn’t empty 'cos the body was hidden). However, truth is one. Reason tells me that if the bones were found I must accept that my faith, though subjectively certain now, has been objectively false (cf. Jonestown).It would shake but not destroy my faith in God’s saving plan active in concrete history, I would probably become a Jew I suppose.
However I understand other traditional christian’s might respond differently. They may well deny the truth of the claims that Jesus’s bone’s had been found and would take the matter no further. That is an understandable reaction, however it does not seem to respect the role of human reason and does suggest blind, scared, circularly justified fideism. If course it is very hard to find certainty even wrt “scientific truth” - so much of it is held in “faith” also.
The problem is, for me, while I feel certain of my faith, I am also humbly open, in theory, to the possibility I could be completely mistaken through no fault of my own. I get the feeling this is not the kind of certainty I am meant to possess as a true believer in the Catholic Church!
Perhaps someone out there, if you have read and understood the issue thus far, is able to offer further insight/affirmation/denial to me on this matter?
I understand that the certitude of faith does not derive from any intellectual grasp of the articles of faith (primarily God’s existence and redemptive concern and then the usual content of revelation) even if that were possible (and may be for some people wrt some truths of faith that may be known by right reason e.g. God’s existence).
I understand that Catholic faith must have some form of rational “suitability” otherwise it is blind fideism. Also, faith and reason both pertain to “truth” and therefore cannot (if correct) contradict one another.
I understand that the rational nature/component of Christian faith is usually addressed in discussions of “the motives of credibility (MOC).” Such intellectual “convictions” (a mass of probabilities in favour of christian faith as Newman would put it) certainly help the leap of faith and may even assist present faith in times of difficulties - but they do not constitute the actual assent of faith.
I understand this assent of faith is an infused gift of abiding grace directly from God. Thus the MOC, at the most, enables a “leap into light” (rather than a more heroic “leap into darkness”). Of course God could still allow a responsive soul to find faith even when MOC were lacking (or strongly against faith) and their reason was screaming “this is irrational”. This is exactly the leap into darkness that Abraham took and was highly praised for it.
I understand that the assent of faith is primarily targeted not at the content of faith (articles of revelation etc) but at (and because of) the recognition of the One who testifies to this content, God Himself, in the very act of the believer hearing the content 'spoken." (It doesn’t really matter if its by means of a vision, an apostle, reading the Bible or listening to a homily or remembering Sunday school from 40 yrs ago). Thus faith is by hearing (in a sense the status of the Person “discovered” is more important than the revelations this Person “says”). It would seem, in terms of the “content” of faith, God’s very existence is the first certitude of faith as it is intrinsic to such Divine testimony.
But the difficulty I have, which does not seem to be addressed by Aquinas (as Lamont also notes) is this. What part does the intellect play in reasonably helping us decide that it is truly God (via the priest or elder or Scripture) that has actually spoken these revelations to us?
In medieval times it was simply assumed by theologians that the Church was indisputably the voice of God, passing on his authority, an uncorrupted message and the accurately recorded miraculous doings of Jesus from Apostolic times (see Aquinas De Veritate, q.11,o.6). End of story.
It is exactly this - the certainty wrt the divine nature of the one who speaks (rather than the certainty that God speaks truly about what he reveals eg Incarnation, Transubstantiation, Resurrection) - that is perhaps the main source of doubt in our age? If we are to uphold some place for reason (so we do not fall into gullible fideism) surely this must apply to scrutiny of the “intermediary testator” as well (few of us hear from God directly)?
Do we call such enquiry into the credibility of the “person” who testifies “motives of credibility” as well? I do not think so. This is a different problem. Can we be subjectively mistaken in giving full assent to such a person’s testimony (i.e. they were not speaking on God’s behalf afterall)?
Let me try and ground all the above in a practical “thought experiment” that, to the as yet uncommitted, would be quite acceptable…
If the bones of Jesus were discovered tomorrow (and reasonably judged to be so) would that destroy the certainty of the christian faith? (Such an assertion was actually made some years ago - it turned out to be a media exaggeration of course).
Many “theologians” would say it would make no difference to their faith. Personally I tend to be in the camp of Balthazar and Kasper who maintain a more traditional understanding of the Resurrection. Thus my faith (which is certain) necessarily tells me that such will never happen because Jesus’s earthly body is glorified and risen (I have no idea what that means but I do know it means the tomb isn’t empty 'cos the body was hidden). However, truth is one. Reason tells me that if the bones were found I must accept that my faith, though subjectively certain now, has been objectively false (cf. Jonestown).It would shake but not destroy my faith in God’s saving plan active in concrete history, I would probably become a Jew I suppose.
However I understand other traditional christian’s might respond differently. They may well deny the truth of the claims that Jesus’s bone’s had been found and would take the matter no further. That is an understandable reaction, however it does not seem to respect the role of human reason and does suggest blind, scared, circularly justified fideism. If course it is very hard to find certainty even wrt “scientific truth” - so much of it is held in “faith” also.
The problem is, for me, while I feel certain of my faith, I am also humbly open, in theory, to the possibility I could be completely mistaken through no fault of my own. I get the feeling this is not the kind of certainty I am meant to possess as a true believer in the Catholic Church!
Perhaps someone out there, if you have read and understood the issue thus far, is able to offer further insight/affirmation/denial to me on this matter?
. You’re welcome to email me if you’d prefer private correspondence?