Question about a Catholic dogma

[Ashleybird]

Thank you so much for this resource. I can’t believe I forgot about the ways. I feel more at ease about this dogma. I will have to think more critically on these proofs to be 100% confident (it’s 2AM where I live right now), but I think these arguments make sense.

 

[kapp19]

They are perfectly sound arguments (unless one wants to jettison all a posteriori knowledge… that seems to be the only alternative). Which would make sense of the dogma that creation is through the Word, Who is the Logos, the fundamental ordering principle of all creation. Intelligibility is imprinted on creation by being made through the Son. So the reliability of natural theology to point to the mere existence of a Creator is the upshot - we are required to be optimistic about the use of natural reason in relation to the created world with respect to the Creator. We see the effect, we know there must be an “ungrounded” or uncaused principle which causes that effect that is unable to account for itself.

I’m happy to talk more by personal message…

God bless you,
-K

 

[TominAdelaide]

Fr Ludwig Ott in “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” provides proofs from “Scripture” and “Tradition” that God “can be known with certainty, by the natural light of reason from created beings”:

Proof from Scripture:

According to the testimony of Sacred Scripture, the existence of God can be known:

a) From Nature: Wis. 13:1-9. Wis. 13:5: “For from the greatness and beauty of created things, their original author, by analogy, may be seen.” Rom 1:20: “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power and His divinity also: so that they are inexcusable.” The knowledge of God witnessed to in these two passages is a natural certain, immediate and easily achieved knowledge.

b) From Conscience: Rom. 2:14-15: “For when the Gentiles, who know not the (Mosaic) law do by nature these things that are of the law; these having not the law, are a law to themselves. They show that the works of the law are written in their hearts.” The pagans know naturally, without supernatural revelation, the essential content of the Old Testament law. In their hearts a law has been written whose binding power indicates a Supreme Lawgiver.

c) From History: Acts 14:14-16; 17:26-29. St. Paul, in his discourses at Lystra and at the Areopagus in Athens, shows that God reveals Himself in beneficent works also to the pagan peoples, and that it is easy to find Him, as He is near to each of us: “For in Him we live, and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28).

Proof from Tradition:

The Greek Fathers preferred the cosmological proofs of God which proceed from external experience; the Latin Fathers preferred the psychological proofs which proceed from inner experience. Cf. Theophilus of Antioch. Adv. Autol. I 4-5: “God has called everything into existence from nothing, so that His greatness might be known and understood through His works. Just as the soul in man is not seen, as it is invisible, but is known through the movement of the body, so God cannot be seen with human eyes; but He is observed and known through providence and His works. Just as one, at the sight of a well-equipped ship which sweeps over the sea and steers towards a harbour, becomes aware that there is a helmsman on her, who directs her, so also one must be aware that God is the director of everything, even though He is not seen with bodily eyes, as He cannot be apprehended by them.” Cf. St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. II 9,1; St John Chrysostom, In ep. ad Rom. hom. 3, 2 (on Rom. 1:19).

Fr Ott then asks the question whether humans can have an “innate idea of God?” He answers that the “Fathers teach that we must win [this] knowledge of God from contemplation of nature” and quotes St Thomas Aquinas to support his argument, In Boethium De Trinitate, q. 1a. 3 ad 6: “the knowledge of Him is said to be innate in us in so far as we can easily know the existence of God by means of principles which are innate in us.”

continued….

 

[TominAdelaide]

Fr Ott then explains that the existence of God can also be proved by means of causality. He cites various arguments, including from Church Fathers and other theologians who have put forward proofs of the existence of God from causality: Cf. Aristides, Apol. 1, 1-3; Theophilus of Antioch, Adv. Autol. I 5; Minucius Felix, Octavius 17, 4ff; 18, 4; St Augustine, De vera religione 30-32; Conf. X 6; XI 4; St John Damascene, De fide orth. I 3; St Thomas Aquinas, S. th. I 2, 3; S.c.G. I 13.

Fr Ott then addresses the errors of atheism:

Negative atheism is inculpable ignorance regarding the existence of God. Positive atheism (materialism, pantheism) directly denies the existence of a supernatural, personal divine being. It was condemned by the First Vatican Council (DH 3021ff.)

As far as the possibility of atheism is concerned, it cannot be denied that there are atheistic doctrinal systems (materialism, pantheism) and practical atheists, that is, people who live as if there were no God. The possibility that there are also subjectively convinced theoretical atheists, is founded in the spiritual and moral weakness of man, and on the fact that the proofs of God are not immediately but only indirectly evident. But as the knowledge of God can easily be gained from contemplation of nature and the life of the soul, it will not be possible to adhere permanently to an honest and positive conviction of the nonexistence of God. An inculpable and invincible ignorance regarding the existence of God is not possible for a long time in a normal grown-up person, in view of the facility of the natural knowledge of God attested in Sacred Scripture and in Tradition. (Rom. 1:20: “there is no excuse for them.”) Cf. Vatican II, Gaudium et spes 19-21.

 

[Montrose]

Just curious. Do Denzinger and Ott carry Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat?

 

[Niblo]

Yes.

12356

 

[Vico]

Just curious. Do Denzinger and Ott carry Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat?

Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott
Nihil Obstat: Jeremiah J. O’Sullivan, D.O., Censor Deputatus.
Imprimatur: Cornelius, Ep. Corgagiensis et Ap. Adm. Rossensis.
Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, 7 October, 1954.

Enchiridion Symbolorum, definitionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum Henry Denzinger
13th edition, 1957, Translated by Roy J. Deferrari
Nihil Obstat: Dominic Hughes, O.P., Censor Deputatus .
Imprimatur: Patrick A. O’Boyle, Archbishop of Washington .
Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, 25 April, 1955

 

[Niblo]

Excellent.

 

[jochoa]

Here are a few more ideas to help reconcile your questions:

1. The dogma is sharing with us how one can know God with certainty, not that knowing God with certainty is necessary for salvation. We are saved by faith, and our faith will inspire works.
2. Since knowing God with certainty requires significant reasoning and consideration of concepts unknowable to humanity, though they are knowable to divinity, incomplete analysis often results, hence different faiths, including lack thereof.
3. The rational argument that led me to know God, Our Creator and Lord, with certainty is:
   (1) Assumption: God is the Creator of Everything.
   (2) Assumption: You are the person who creates everything.
   (3) Question A: What is logically your greatest creation possible?
   (4) Question B: What is the logical means to create said creation?
   (5) My Personal Resolution A: Since in the moment prior to creating anything, I am the only thing to exist, I am also the greatest thing to exist. Therefore, the greatest creation possible is more things that are equal in capability and morality to myself.
   (6) My Personal Resolution B: This is where it gets complicated, and here is currently my best attempt at sharing one of the simplest points that helps one connect that the God of Catholicism, aka the Holy Trinity, is True.
   Since the goal is to create other persons equal in morality to you, you will need a means to determine whether or not the others remain eternally good, so you are the All-Knowing Judge.
   Since the goal is to create other persons equal in capability to you, yet it would be impossible to create them as the Creator of everything because they can’t create you, you provide a means of equality by eternally generating yourself into a second person, so you now exist as both All-knowing Judge and Only-Begotten Son.
   Since your capability includes free-will, giving free-willed persons the ability to reconcile mistaken ways, you personally redeem them through an eternal spirating procession through the Son and the Father, so you now co-exist as three different persons: the Father (All-knowing Judge), Begotten (Son), and Redeemer (Holy Spirit).

Would you consider sharing your personal resolutions to the questions?

 

[kapp19]

The Father did not create the Son or the Holy Spirit. If that’s what you are suggesting… well, it’s pretty problematic and is called Arianism. The processions are from eternity…

 

[jochoa]

The Father did not create the Son or the Holy Spirit. If that’s what you are suggesting… well, it’s pretty problematic and is called Arianism. The processions are from eternity…

That is not my suggestion. Yes, eternal processions: eternal generation and eternal spiration.

When I was jotting this reasoning down, I could see the potential for misinterpretation as well. I will pray for greater clarity.

Thank you for you for taking the time to consider and offer critiques, and thanks be to God!

 

[ThomasMT]

I’m not an Ott fan and I don’t accept many of his contentions, sorry.

Having pointed to the relevant Catechism section, I will take my leave then.

Before you do… I recently picked up his above-mentioned book. I’m curious as to why you would feel this way?? Feel free to PM me, if you are worried about getting dragged down a hole in this the thread )

 

[Gorgias]

Ok, so the way I was interpreting it as first was “there exists a proof of God’s existence”. But if I’m understanding correctly, what it’s actually saying is “there exists reasonable evidence of God’s existence”. Am I correct?

Yes and no.

Whenever we look at Church documents – especially councils! – it’s important to remember that they didn’t just drop from the sky. It wasn’t as if a bunch of bishops got together and said, “hey! let’s write something about ‘natural reason’!!!”. Rather, councils are called as a response to an existing kerfuffle: someone, somewhere expresses something that makes Catholics go “hmm… is that right? Sounds a little off to me…”, and then, if the hue and cry is great enough, it might warrant a formal discussion.

In the time of the First Vatican Council, one of the debates going on in the world was over the notions of “fideism” and “rationalism.” They were at odds with each other: fideists asserted that the only way we could know God was through faith, and rationalists asserted that it was only reason.

In the Council, a middle ground was asserted: it’s not that it’s “faith only”, but rather, that God gave us rationality and we can use it to great effect. However, not to go too far, the Church also denied a pure rationalism as the source of all knowledge. So, in your quote from Vatican I, we see the council saying, “no, it’s not the case that ‘faith’ is the only way to know the truth of God; if you say that, then you are in error.”

Hope that helps…