CCC Discussion: The Knowledge of God according to the Church

[Stylteralmaldo]

Continuing the chapter on “Man’s Capacity for God”:

If anyone is interested in contributing to the previous topics, they can be found at the following links:

CCC Discussion: The Desire For God
CCC Discussion: Ways of Coming to Know God

The format for these discussions will be as follows:

(1) Indicate in the poll if you agree with the various paragraphs indicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Please note that your answers will be known to others in the forum.
(2) If you wish, express the reasons for your selection(s) (or lack thereof) in the thread.
(3) Discuss the issues in the thread with each other as desired (in a respectful manner ).

The purpose of this thread, and the others to come related to it is to dialogue with others to see if we can at the very least understand each others points of view more clearly, or perhaps come closer together as people learning to seek the truth about ourselves and/or God.​

**III. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH **
36 “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful. (Pius XII, Humani generis)

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”.

 

[TriuneUnity]

Continuing the chapter on “Man’s Capacity for God”:

If anyone is interested in contributing to the previous topics, they can be found at the following links:

CCC Discussion: The Desire For God
CCC Discussion: Ways of Coming to Know God

The format for these discussions will be as follows:

(1) Indicate in the poll if you agree with the various paragraphs indicated in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Please note that your answers will be known to others in the forum.
(2) If you wish, express the reasons for your selection(s) (or lack thereof) in the thread.
(3) Discuss the issues in the thread with each other as desired (in a respectful manner ).

The purpose of this thread, and the others to come related to it is to dialogue with others to see if we can at the very least understand each others points of view more clearly, or perhaps come closer together as people learning to seek the truth about ourselves and/or God.​

**III. THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD ACCORDING TO THE CHURCH **
36 “Our holy mother, the Church, holds and teaches that God, the first principle and last end of all things, can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.” Without this capacity, man would not be able to welcome God’s revelation. Man has this capacity because he is created “in the image of God”.

37 In the historical conditions in which he finds himself, however, man experiences many difficulties in coming to know God by the light of reason alone:

Though human reason is, strictly speaking, truly capable by its own natural power and light of attaining to a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, who watches over and controls the world by his providence, and of the natural law written in our hearts by the Creator; yet there are many obstacles which prevent reason from the effective and fruitful use of this inborn faculty. For the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things, and, if they are translated into human action and influence it, they call for self-surrender and abnegation. The human mind, in its turn, is hampered in the attaining of such truths, not only by the impact of the senses and the imagination, but also by disordered appetites which are the consequences of original sin. So it happens that men in such matters easily persuade themselves that what they would not like to be true is false or at least doubtful. (Pius XII, Humani generis)

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”.

I made a mistake in responding to the poll and didn’t click the last two. My bad. I agree with all three of these paragraphs.

If I were writing them, I may have added certain stresses to the reason why natural revelation is insufficient to save mankind or to reveal the nature of God. In sum, though, I believe all three to be accurate.

 

[Contarini]

I do not agree with this section. At least, I am very unsure as to whether it is true. I myself am not certain of God’s existence by reason, although I think there are good arguments for God’s existence. I do not exclude the possibility that such certainty might be possible, but I am highly dubious about the wisdom of making a claim about what can be known by reason into a doctrine of the Faith. I think this is a good example of the strain of rationalism in Western Catholic thought which Eastern Christians and many evangelical Protestants (particularly those of us from a Wesleyan or Pentecostal/charismatic tradition) have problems with.

Edwin

 

[TriuneUnity]

I do not agree with this section. At least, I am very unsure as to whether it is true. I myself am not certain of God’s existence by reason, although I think there are good arguments for God’s existence. I do not exclude the possibility that such certainty might be possible, but I am highly dubious about the wisdom of making a claim about what can be known by reason into a doctrine of the Faith. I think this is a good example of the strain of rationalism in Western Catholic thought which Eastern Christians and many evangelical Protestants (particularly those of us from a Wesleyan or Pentecostal/charismatic tradition) have problems with.

Edwin

I would say that there are certain aspects to God’s existence that are not revealed by the light of nature. For example, that God is Triune. However, according to the apostle Paul, there is no such thing as an atheist–there are only people who attempt to suppress the knowledge of God in unrighteousness and who deny what they know to be true. While an atheist may claim that they do not believe in God and while they may have suppressed the knowledge of God to the point that it is buried very deep within, nevertheless, God has revealed himself to all men and women in such a way that all men and women know that God exists and that he possesses certain divine attributes. Since God has made himself known, therefore all people are without excuse for failing to worship and serve the creator. But since the revelation of God in creation cannot lead people to a saving knowledge of God in Jesus Christ, God also graciously reveals himself in his word, not only in the historical record of his mighty acts in redemptive history, but also through the divinely inspired explanation of those saving acts, found in the pages of Holy Scripture (as the catechism rightly points to).

As Paul sees it, all men and women know that God exists and that because of human sinfulness, people attempt to suppress this truth in unrighteousness. Paul also describes how this suppressed knowledge of God often manifests itself in false religion and paganism.

There is a surprising amount of information in the Bible about our knowledge of God acquired through interaction with the creation and it is useful to summarize it.

(1) God exists (Ps. 19:1; Ro. 1:19) and is Himself uncreated (Acts 17:24).

(2) God is the creator (Acts 14:15), is all-wise (Ps. 104:24) and is good (Acts 14:17).

(3) God is the sustainer (Acts 14:16; 17:25), is righteous (Ro. 1:32) and has a sovereign will (Acts 17:26).

(4) God is the Lord of all men (Acts 17:24) and has absolute standards of right and wrong (Ro. 2:15).

(5) God is self-sufficient (Acts 17:25), immanent (Acts 17:26-27), eternal (Ps. 93:2) and should be worshiped (Acts 14:15, 17:23).

(6) God is great (Ps. 8:3-4), majestic (Ps. 29:4), all-powerful (Ps. 29:4; Ro. 1:20) and will judge all men (Ro. 2:15-26).

From this list of what can be known about God through that which God has made, it should be clear that general revelation fulfills the purpose for which God gives it, which is to leave men and women without excuse. After the fall of the human race into sin, general revelation is insufficient to lead us to a saving knowledge of God, because the book of nature does not disclose the person and work of Jesus Christ. General revelation was never intended to tell the whole story, only to give the story of redemption its proper context.

 

[Contarini]

I would say that there are certain aspects to God’s existence that are not revealed by the light of nature. For example, that God is Triune.

That’s the Thomist position reflected in the CCC.

However, according to the apostle Paul, there is no such thing as an atheist–

I see no such claim in Paul. Paul is not speaking about atheists in Romans 1–that doesn’t mean they don’t (or even that they didn’t) exist!

Edwin

 

[TriuneUnity]

That’s the Thomist position reflected in the CCC.

I see no such claim in Paul. Paul is not speaking about atheists in Romans 1–that doesn’t mean they don’t (or even that they didn’t) exist!

Edwin

What Paul means to say is that all men can perceive and, indeed, have perceived that God exists. Paul does not say that the information God has provided in nature has not gotten through to people and so they don’t recognize God in what has been made. He states they have recognized it. They may claim to be atheists, but their atheism is merely a denial of what God has revealed in nature. It is a suppression of the truth (or in the case of pagans, a twisting of the truth).

 

[chaunceygardner]

I did not check #36 because of the part that says:

God…can be known with certainty from the created world by the natural light of human reason.

I don’t think that human reason alone is enough to know God with “certainty”. There is a spiritual aspect which must be accounted for and is part of the equation to truly knowing and understanding God.

 

[I_Fortuna]

I did not check #36 because of the part that says:

I don’t think that human reason alone is enough to know God with “certainty”. There is a spiritual aspect which must be accounted for and is part of the equation to truly knowing and understanding God.

Chauncey, I don’t think it is wise to take the CCC out of context. If you believe in one paragraph then it follows that the otheres are true. Read them again and then explain. It says that human reason is not enough, Thank you.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

38 This is why man stands in need of being enlightened by God’s revelation, not only about those things that exceed his understanding, but also “about those religious and moral truths which of themselves are not beyond the grasp of human reason, so that even in the present condition of the human race, they can be known by all men with ease, with firm certainty and with no admixture of error”.

(bolded for emphasis)

I had to pause a moment before selecting paragraph 38. I had to contemplate whether God’s revelation can be known with ease in all cases. I agree that all mankind can through their faculties know God, but the ease at which that is possible appear at first glance to differ with each person. I think of the parable of the seeds spread across the various paths. Some of the seed landing on fertile ground and other seed in not so desirable ground. It appears that for some, there are more obstacles placed in front of them. Ultimately, I chose to select the option because what appears difficult for some is actually easy and what appears to be easy for some is actually difficult. The conclusion I came to is that ultimately, God makes His path to Him quite simple and we are the ones who make it difficult.

 

[chaunceygardner]

Chauncey, I don’t think it is wise to take the CCC out of context. If you believe in one paragraph then it follows that the otheres are true. Read them again and then explain. It says that human reason is not enough, Thank you.

That one may believe that statement “A” is true does not necessarily mean that he/she will believe statement “B” is also true. One does not have to follow from the other. A premise may be correct but the conclusion wrong, or vice versa. So a person can accept one paragraph of the CCC without totally agreeing with another. And I guess I was taking literally the instructions of the OP to vote and comment on the sections presented.

I did read these paragraphs again and it DOES say that human reason is enough, with a caveat. To me it would be wiser to say that human reason along with a spiritual aspect that is difficult to define is required. Actually, in the quote from Pius XII, Humani Generis, Par. 37 of the Catechism says this:

the truths that concern the relations between God and man wholly transcend the visible order of things.

Pius seems to be saying what I am: That a third component, the invisible Spirit that transcends the universe, is required. The CCC may actually say this in other paragraphs but it does not bring it together with “the physical world and the human person”, as “points of departure” for knowing God, as the Catechism says in Par. 31. So it is not that I am saying any paragraph is wrong, just that it is incomplete in its parts (although complete in the whole).

I also wonder whether reason is absolutely required? Can someone who cannot reason know God? What about an infant or young child, a person in a coma, or someone who has lost their reasoning faculties? Are they blocked from knowledge of God? Or is God in them and with them in Spirit, and can they sense God’s presence, no matter what?

 

[TriuneUnity]

I also wonder whether reason is absolutely required? Can someone who cannot reason know God? What about an infant or young child, a person in a coma, or someone who has lost their reasoning faculties? Are they blocked from knowledge of God? Or is God in them and with them in Spirit, and can they sense God’s presence, no matter what?

Reason would not be required for salvation. Since faith is a supernatural gift and not a natural faculty. Therefore, special revelation (in word and sacrament) is sufficient to transcend and go beyond the limitations of reason. They would only be limited in understanding God from the natural or general revelation.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…And I guess I was taking literally the instructions of the OP to vote and comment on the sections presented…

…I did read these paragraphs again and it DOES say that human reason is enough, with a caveat…

You are correct regarding my intent. Although the paragraph you indicated doesn’t expressly state that we use reason alone, you may read it as being such and disagree with the paragraph’s content even though a later paragraph expresses that we don’t use reason alone. Perhaps you see the paragraph as not being clear enough in it’s expression. Thanks for sharing your insights.

chaunceygardner:

I also wonder whether reason is absolutely required? Can someone who cannot reason know God? What about an infant or young child, a person in a coma, or someone who has lost their reasoning faculties? Are they blocked from knowledge of God? Or is God in them and with them in Spirit, and can they sense God’s presence, no matter what?

This is partly why I struggled a bit with paragraph 38 myself. How can someone with a significant brain injury (for example) know God through reason? Paragraph 38 says it’s easy for man to know God. Yet, perhaps it’s easier for persons with brain injuries to know God than for those without them. Our “more developed” reason seems to be more capable of being corrupted. The conclusion I have drawn is that God can make crooked lines straight (as the expression goes) and it truly is easy for man to know God even though that easy path is different for everyone depending on our (name removed by moderator)erfect dispositions.

 

[Izdaari]

Well, so far it seems I’m 100% Catholic… on #27-38 anyway.

 

[chaunceygardner]

You are correct regarding my intent. Although the paragraph you indicated doesn’t expressly state that we use reason alone, you may read it as being such and disagree with the paragraph’s content even though a later paragraph expresses that we don’t use reason alone. Perhaps you see the paragraph as not being clear enough in it’s expression. Thanks for sharing your insights.

The ideas seem to be disconnected at times; one paragraph does not necessarily flow from another. It is almost as if they were written by different people and then joined together, without much consideration of how they fit. Perhaps this is the result of something written by committee and of translating material from Latin and other languages into English.

And there are sentences or parts of sentences that are confusing. Here is an example from par. 29 (which you discussed in a related thread), about how we can lose our bond with God. Note the words I underlined and consider it in context with the whole sentence:

Such attitudes can have different causes: revolt against evil in the world; religious ignorance or indifference; the cares and riches of this world; the scandal of bad example on the part of believers; currents of thought hostile to religion; finally, that attitude of sinful man which makes him hide from God out of fear and flee his call.

All the other causes of how we can lose our bond with God are negative, which they should be. But “revolt against evil in the world” seems like a positive to me. Revolt means to overthrow, to renouce, to turn away from. And renouncing or turning away from evil is a positive thing and should increase our bond with God. So I scratch my head over this, thinking that the writer of this paragraph didn’t say it quite right, or it was garbled in translation. Or I am not understanding.

Stylteralmaldo:

This is partly why I struggled a bit with paragraph 38 myself. How can someone with a significant brain injury (for example) know God through reason? Paragraph 38 says it’s easy for man to know God. Yet, perhaps it’s easier for persons with brain injuries to know God than for those without them. Our “more developed” reason seems to be more capable of being corrupted. The conclusion I have drawn is that God can make crooked lines straight (as the expression goes) and it truly is easy for man to know God even though that easy path is different for everyone depending on our (name removed by moderator)erfect dispositions.

I would agree with you. There are several instances in the Gospels where Jesus talks about approaching God in simple faith, and with the heart and mind of a child, such as in Matthew 11 & 19. Here is what Jesus says in Luke 10:

although you have hidden these things from the wise and the learned you have revealed them to the childlike.

A highly developed intellect could be a hindrance to seeing and understanding God. Rather than emphasizing reason, I think the emphasis should be equally (if not more) on approaching God with simple faith, with childlike trust and acceptance. Isn’t that what Jesus says?

I wonder if the Church wrote about knowing God via reasoning, through rational proofs, and through the use of human faculties as a response to those philosophers who say that the non-existence of God is shown by reason? In other words, to counter the ideas of the “Enlightenment” that the use of reason could prove that there was no God. The Church needed to respond to that position, but perhaps in doing so downplayed the need for spiritual faith (which enlightened and existential philosophers would have scorned).

I personally can’t prove God exists using rational arguments, but I can feel God’s presence, and can “know” God through what I “sense” within me and around me. Nothing that I can prove on paper or through physical evidence; only what has been revealed to me when I have approached God with childlike simplicity and spirit.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

All the other causes of how we can lose our bond with God are negative, which they should be. But “revolt against evil in the world” seems like a positive to me. Revolt means to overthrow, to renouce, to turn away from. And renouncing or turning away from evil is a positive thing and should increase our bond with God…

God doesn’t want us to overthrow the evil in this world. He came to transform this evil world. I believe this is why certain followers of Jesus were disappointed when they realized that He didn’t come to overthrow the Roman empire and the evil excesses it possessed. Change comes from within, not from without.

I wonder if the Church wrote about knowing God via reasoning, through rational proofs, and through the use of human faculties as a response to those philosophers who say that the non-existence of God is shown by reason? In other words, to counter the ideas of the “Enlightenment” that the use of reason could prove that there was no God. The Church needed to respond to that position, but perhaps in doing so downplayed the need for spiritual faith (which enlightened and existential philosophers would have scorned).

I think the “reasoned” response comes earlier than the Enlightenment era. It goes back to St. Paul when he confronted the philosophers of the Greek world.

 

[TriuneUnity]

God doesn’t want us to overthrow the evil in this world. He came to transform this evil world. I believe this is why certain followers of Jesus were disappointed when they realized that He didn’t come to overthrow the Roman empire and the evil excesses it possessed. Change comes from within, not from without.

Excellent observation.

 

[chaunceygardner]

God doesn’t want us to overthrow the evil in this world. He came to transform this evil world. I believe this is why certain followers of Jesus were disappointed when they realized that He didn’t come to overthrow the Roman empire and the evil excesses it possessed. Change comes from within, not from without.

I wasn’t discussing what God wants regarding “overthrowing” evil, I was pointing out the apparent “error” in those words and that they did not fit with the rest of the sentence. You seemed to have missed my point. This paragraph (29) of the Catechism IS talking about change from within, and about attitudes of people that lead to a lessening of their bond with God. When you read the whole paragraph that one phrase stands out as not belonging there.

God certainly wants us to “turn away from”, “reject” and “renounce” evil. Here is what we are asked in the renewal of Baptismal Promises:

Do you reject Satan?

And all his works?

And all his empty promises?

So to say in Par. 29 of the Catechism that renouncing evil or turning away from sin harms our bond with God is nonsensical; we promise at Baptism and in the creeds to do just that! My point is that there is a problem in the wording of that phrase caused by a mis-translation or poor proof-reading or something which makes it contradict the clear teaching of the Church and the beliefs of all Christians about resisting evil.

Somebody goofed.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…So to say in Par. 29 of the Catechism that renouncing evil or turning away from sin harms our bond with God is nonsensical; we promise at Baptism and in the creeds to do just that! My point is that there is a problem in the wording of that phrase caused by a mis-translation or poor proof-reading or something which makes it contradict the clear teaching of the Church and the beliefs of all Christians about resisting evil.

Somebody goofed.

But paragraph 29 doesn’t say what you say it says. (I hope that didn’t sound too confusing LOL). The catechism says overthrow, not renounce.

Perhaps the goof you are referring to is that it isn’t clear enough? I can see where someone can misconstrue what was being said. When I read it, I believed they were referring to our misplaced revolt against evil. Perhaps the goof is that the catechism ought to have expressed in more descriptive terms what they meant by the dangers of overthrowing evil for the wrong reasons - a misplaced fervor so to speak.

 

[chaunceygardner]

But paragraph 29 doesn’t say what you say it says. (I hope that didn’t sound too confusing LOL). The catechism says overthrow, not renounce.

Depends on how we define the word “revolt” as used in this paragraph, as it can refer to a group action (overthrowing a government) or an individual action (rejecting an oppressive law). Since the other items in the list were all clearly negative and involved mostly personal actions and attitudes, I took the word to have the sense of “renounce” or “reject” (as it is used in the Baptismal Promises). When I did that it seemed clearly to have the opposite intent of the other items.

What if this paragraph of the Catechism is referring to “overthrowing” evil, as is suggested? Does attempting to do so indicate a person who is moving away from God? If I started a movement to eliminate as much evil as possible from my part of the world (or all of it, if that was possible) then would others attempt to stop me because it was not the will of God? Does this mean that those who are trying to stop the evil of abortion are lessening their bond with God? That God does not want them to “revolt” against this evil? Isn’t one role of most religions providing an oasis of moral righteousness in a world of secular immorality?

Now I am really getting confused.

Perhaps the goof you are referring to is that it isn’t clear enough? I can see where someone can misconstrue what was being said. When I read it, I believed they were referring to our misplaced revolt against evil. Perhaps the goof is that the catechism ought to have expressed in more descriptive terms what they meant by the dangers of overthrowing evil for the wrong reasons - a misplaced fervor so to speak.

I think the goof is that the phrase was written totally opposite of what was intended. If the words “revolt against” were removed, it would make sense. If the phrase was changed to “supporting evil in the world” or “allowing evil in the world”, or “to revolt against moral good in the world”, it would make sense with the rest of the sentence. But not as it reads now.

And what could be “misplaced” about revolting against evil? What wrong reasons could there be? The only ones I can think of is if one evil was replaced with an equal or greater evil, or if the actions that were used to fight the evil were themselves morally wrong and broke God’s commandments. Is that what the Catechism is talking about here, in a veiled sort of way?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

Now I am really getting confused.

You bring up some good points that I’d like to address.

Since we’re dealing more with paragraph 29, I’ll respond in that thread which can be found here:

CCC Discussion: The Desire For God