Resolve the apparent (but false) contradiction in these 2 teachings from Vatican I

[Birdmanman]

Hey there, I was wondering if anyone could help me try to resolve the apparent contradiction in my understanding of these 2 teachings from Vatican I; surely this is only an apparent contradiction and not a real contradiction, but any assistance would be appreciated!

So here are 2 teachings from Vatican I, labeled “5” and “6”:

1. If anyone says that
   the assent to christian faith is
   not free, but is
   necessarily produced by arguments of human reason; or that
   the grace of God is necessary only for living faith which works by charity:
   let him be anathema.

1. If anyone says that
   the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike, so that
   Catholics may have a just cause for calling in doubt, by suspending their assent, the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith:
   let him be anathema.

I will attempt to paraphrase the relevant portion of these 2 teachings as follows:
5. The assent to Christian (Catholic) Faith is not made necessary by arguments of human reason (that is, no once can say "here is miracle x, y, and z, now it is a necessity of reason that you assent to this explanation for miracle x, y, and z).
and
6. One who has assented to the Christian (Catholic) Faith must consider it immoral or unjustified to fail to give assent (suspend his assent) to the Christian (Catholic) Faith, even if they have not had the truth or credibility of the Faith demonstrated to them by philosophy or miracles or what-have-you, and even if a philosophical argument or “lack of evidence” tempt them to doubt their Faith.

Now:

1. If assent is something that is maintained, that is, continuously given, and
2. If it is an argument of human reason to say that “because a teaching of Vatican I is credible and true, I therefore will follow the teaching from Vatican I that says that a Catholic may not have just cause to call their Faith into doubt and suspend their assent”
   then
   **3. For a practicing Catholic who is considering whether or not to suspend his assent to the Catholic Faith, and who reads teaching 6 (above) from Vatican I that says he does not have just cause to suspend his assent to the Catholic Faith, an argument from human reason has therefore been made that necessarily produces his continued assent to the Catholic Faith.
3. Apparent Contradiction: an argument from human reason necessarily produces assent to the Christian (Catholic) Faith; but the Christian (Catholic) Faith teaches that the assent to the Faith is not produced as a necessity from arguments of human reason. **

Proposed Resolutions to the apparent contradiction above:
A. Assent, as it is used in that teaching from Vatican I (above), does not mean a continued act, but an initial and single act that has continuous repercussions. This means that an argument from human reason that necessarily causes a faithful Catholic to continue “giving their assent” is not the same as an argument from human reason that necessarily causes one to first assent to the Catholic Faith.

B. A line of reasoning that stems from a teaching of the Faith, a revealed truth, is not the same as an “argument of human reason”, as a line of reasoning that has a matter of Faith as one of its postulates or assumptions is not only human, but in some sense, also “Divine” reasoning, as humanity alone did not discern for itself without Divine help that it is unjust to suspend their assent to the Catholic Faith.

C. There is a non-explicit meaning in these two teachings of Vatican I, where what is meant by “arguments of human reason” or “assent” is unclear to me.

D. My paraphrasing of these 2 teachings is inadequate, and/or these 2 teachings are meant to be read in a very strict way; for example, teaching 5 may really say “One is only anathema if he says BOTH that the assent to the Christian Faith is not free AND that it is necessarily produced by arguments of human reason” (therefore such a person, to be anathematized, would also have to say that assent to arguments from human reason is not free either).

E. I have just totally missed the point.

F. Translation or copy issues

G. Something else

 

[Qoeleth]

Hey there, I was wondering if anyone could help me try to resolve the apparent contradiction in my understanding of these 2 teachings from Vatican I; surely this is only an apparent contradiction and not a real contradiction, but any assistance would be appreciated!

So here are 2 teachings from Vatican I, labeled “5” and “6”:

I will attempt to paraphrase the relevant portion of these 2 teachings as follows:
5. The assent to Christian (Catholic) Faith is not made necessary by arguments of human reason (that is, no once can say "here is miracle x, y, and z, now it is a necessity of reason that you assent to this explanation for miracle x, y, and z).
and
6. One who has assented to the Christian (Catholic) Faith must consider it immoral or unjustified to fail to give assent (suspend his assent) to the Christian (Catholic) Faith, even if they have not had the truth or credibility of the Faith demonstrated to them by philosophy or miracles or what-have-you, and even if a philosophical argument or “lack of evidence” tempt them to doubt their Faith.

Now:

1. If assent is something that is maintained, that is, continuously given, and
2. If it is an argument of human reason to say that “because a teaching of Vatican I is credible and true, I therefore will follow the teaching from Vatican I that says that a Catholic may not have just cause to call their Faith into doubt and suspend their assent”
   then
   **3. For a practicing Catholic who is considering whether or not to suspend his assent to the Catholic Faith, and who reads teaching 6 (above) from Vatican I that says he does not have just cause to suspend his assent to the Catholic Faith, an argument from human reason has therefore been made that necessarily produces his continued assent to the Catholic Faith.
3. Apparent Contradiction**: an argument from human reason necessarily produces assent to the Christian (Catholic) Faith; but the Christian (Catholic) Faith teaches that the assent to the Faith is not produced as a necessity from arguments of human reason.

Proposed Resolutions to the apparent contradiction above:
A. Assent, as it is used in that teaching from Vatican I (above), does not mean a continued act, but an initial and single act that has continuous repercussions. This means that an argument from human reason that necessarily causes a faithful Catholic to continue “giving their assent” is not the same as an argument from human reason that necessarily causes one to first assent to the Catholic Faith.

B. A line of reasoning that stems from a teaching of the Faith, a revealed truth, is not the same as an “argument of human reason”, as a line of reasoning that has a matter of Faith as one of its postulates or assumptions is not only human, but in some sense, also “Divine” reasoning, as humanity alone did not discern for itself without Divine help that it is unjust to suspend their assent to the Catholic Faith.

C. There is a non-explicit meaning in these two teachings of Vatican I, where what is meant by “arguments of human reason” or “assent” is unclear to me.

D. My paraphrasing of these 2 teachings is inadequate, and/or these 2 teachings are meant to be read in a very strict way; for example, teaching 5 may really say “One is only anathema if he says BOTH that the assent to the Christian Faith is not free AND that it is necessarily produced by arguments of human reason” (therefore such a person, to be anathematized, would also have to say that assent to arguments from human reason is not free either).

E. I have just totally missed the point.

F. Translation or copy issues

G. Something else

My attempt to resolve it. The point raised in 2 is incorrect, since acceptance of the Council teachings actually NOT an argument from reason. At best, it is an argumentum ad verecundum or ad fidem.

So, the faith remains “free”. If a person were to say, “I will not suspend my faith, because I have faith in the authority of a Church Council”- that is no argument at all (or an obviously non-reasonable one!). It is like saying “I will continue to believe person X, because person X tells me I should continue to believe him.” It is not, in fact, an argument from reason to believe person X.

 

[PaulToJesus]

Hey there, I was wondering if anyone could help me try to resolve the apparent contradiction in my understanding of these 2 teachings from Vatican I; surely this is only an apparent contradiction and not a real contradiction, but any assistance would be appreciated!

So here are 2 teachings from Vatican I, labeled “5” and “6”:

I will attempt to paraphrase the relevant portion of these 2 teachings as follows:
5. The assent to Christian (Catholic) Faith is not made necessary by arguments of human reason (that is, no once can say "here is miracle x, y, and z, now it is a necessity of reason that you assent to this explanation for miracle x, y, and z).
and
6. One who has assented to the Christian (Catholic) Faith must consider it immoral or unjustified to fail to give assent (suspend his assent) to the Christian (Catholic) Faith, even if they have not had the truth or credibility of the Faith demonstrated to them by philosophy or miracles or what-have-you, and even if a philosophical argument or “lack of evidence” tempt them to doubt their Faith.

Now:

1. If assent is something that is maintained, that is, continuously given, and
2. If it is an argument of human reason to say that “because a teaching of Vatican I is credible and true, I therefore will follow the teaching from Vatican I that says that a Catholic may not have just cause to call their Faith into doubt and suspend their assent”
   then
   **3. For a practicing Catholic who is considering whether or not to suspend his assent to the Catholic Faith, and who reads teaching 6 (above) from Vatican I that says he does not have just cause to suspend his assent to the Catholic Faith, an argument from human reason has therefore been made that necessarily produces his continued assent to the Catholic Faith.
3. Apparent Contradiction**: an argument from human reason necessarily produces assent to the Christian (Catholic) Faith; but the Christian (Catholic) Faith teaches that the assent to the Faith is not produced as a necessity from arguments of human reason.

Proposed Resolutions to the apparent contradiction above:
A. Assent, as it is used in that teaching from Vatican I (above), does not mean a continued act, but an initial and single act that has continuous repercussions. This means that an argument from human reason that necessarily causes a faithful Catholic to continue “giving their assent” is not the same as an argument from human reason that necessarily causes one to first assent to the Catholic Faith.

B. A line of reasoning that stems from a teaching of the Faith, a revealed truth, is not the same as an “argument of human reason”, as a line of reasoning that has a matter of Faith as one of its postulates or assumptions is not only human, but in some sense, also “Divine” reasoning, as humanity alone did not discern for itself without Divine help that it is unjust to suspend their assent to the Catholic Faith.

C. There is a non-explicit meaning in these two teachings of Vatican I, where what is meant by “arguments of human reason” or “assent” is unclear to me.

D. My paraphrasing of these 2 teachings is inadequate, and/or these 2 teachings are meant to be read in a very strict way; for example, teaching 5 may really say “One is only anathema if he says BOTH that the assent to the Christian Faith is not free AND that it is necessarily produced by arguments of human reason” (therefore such a person, to be anathematized, would also have to say that assent to arguments from human reason is not free either).

E. I have just totally missed the point.

F. Translation or copy issues

G. Something else

I tried to help but to no avail.
Too much for my poor brain…

 

[empther]

Vatican I was apparently STILL writing for theologians and not for laymen. So they didn’t throw in all the ands, ifs, and buts to make it clear.

We can clarify these statements by moving things around without losing anything:

1. The assent to christian faith is free ( OTHERWISE, NOT ALL MEN COULD BE SAVED ).

The assent doesn’t have to be necessarily produced by arguments of human reason but can be assented by all who choose to believe ( OTHERWISE, THOSE WHO CAN‘T FOLLOW THESE ARGUMENTS CANNOT BELIEVE ).

The assent doesn’t require the grace of God only for those living faith by works of charity but all who choose to believe ( OTHERWISE, THOSE WHO CANNOT DO WORKS OF CHARITY CANNOT BELIEVE ).

1. Nonbelievers are under no obligation to believe until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith ( OTHERWISE, MANY WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN SAVED WILL BE LOST,
   and THEIR HONEST ATTEMPT TO REACH FAITH EVEN IF NOT SUCCESSFUL BEFORE DEATH MAY BE CREDITED TO THEM AS BAPTISM BY DESIRE BY A MERCIFUL GOD ).

But Catholics may NOT suspend their assent to the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith ( OTHERWISE, CATHOLICS MAY BE PULLED AWAY FROM THEIR FAITH BY PERSUASIVE DEVIL’S ADVOCATES AND LOST AFTER ALL WHEN THEY HAD BEEN IN SAFE HARBOR, AND TO SUSPEND THE HOLY SPIRIT’S WORK OF FAITH IN THEIR HEARTS IS A GRAVE ERROR ).

 

[Gorgias]

Hey there, I was wondering if anyone could help me try to resolve the apparent contradiction in my understanding of these 2 teachings from Vatican I; surely this is only an apparent contradiction and not a real contradiction, but any assistance would be appreciated!

I vote “E”:

E. I have just totally missed the point.

What you’re missing, I think, is a sense of the context of Vatican I. These two canons you’ve quoted are the Church’s response to the Catholic theologian Georg Hermes, who wanted to utilize rationalism as the basis for Christian faith.

I will attempt to paraphrase the relevant portion of these 2 teachings as follows:
5. The assent to Christian (Catholic) Faith is not made necessary by arguments of human reason (that is, no once can say "here is miracle x, y, and z, now it is a necessity of reason that you assent to this explanation for miracle x, y, and z).
and

In Canon 5, the council fathers aren’t asserting that “you cannot use reason to assent to the faith”; rather, they’re refuting Hermes, who asserted that faith is not found through a response to the free gift of grace of God, but instead must be found through an exercise of human reason.

Hermes’ assertion of the impotence of the grace of God is the big problem here, and it’s what the council fathers are addressing in canon 5.

1. One who has assented to the Christian (Catholic) Faith must consider it immoral or unjustified to fail to give assent (suspend his assent) to the Christian (Catholic) Faith, even if they have not had the truth or credibility of the Faith demonstrated to them by philosophy or miracles or what-have-you, and even if a philosophical argument or “lack of evidence” tempt them to doubt their Faith.

Here, the council fathers are saying two things: first, the condition of the faithful and the condition of non-Christians are not equivalent. This is critically important: the acceptance of God’s grace, and the reception of baptism radically change a person; thus, there’s an unimpeachable difference between a baptized and non-baptized person. The reason that this is important is that a rationalist would assert that both are identical; the Church would say that the grace of God is operating in and efficacious in the baptized person in a way that is not the case in the unbaptized.

Second, then, the rationalist would claim that the baptized person can and should suspend their (non-rational) belief until such a time that they are able to provide a rational account for their faith. The council fathers are telling us that this isn’t the case: if one who has been baptized turns away from the faith in order to undergo a period of discernment of the tenets of the faith, then that person is in a precarious situation. (Mind you – the council fathers aren’t telling people not to critically examine their faith; they’re saying that abandoning the faith while doing so is not only wrong but spiritually dangerous to the Christian!)

In other words, once a person is baptized, they have certain obligations. Turning away from these obligations, in order to pursue “a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith” is seriously problematic, and cannot be justified by a Catholic Christian.

1. Apparent Contradiction: an argument from human reason necessarily produces assent to the Christian (Catholic) Faith; but the Christian (Catholic) Faith teaches that the assent to the Faith is not produced as a necessity from arguments of human reason.

No. An argument from human reason may enable assent to the faith; however, rationalism is asserting that only an argument from human reason may do so validly. The Church teaches that assent to the Faith is not produced exclusively (i.e., necessarily) by human reason. Therefore, it is not the case that one must suspend previously assented faith in order to pursue an expression of faith that proceeds solely from human reason. No contradiction.

 

[Gorgias]

We can clarify these statements by moving things around without losing anything:

Hmm… some of your points are interesting, but they’re not really getting to the heart of the issue.

1. The assent to christian faith is free ( OTHERWISE, NOT ALL MEN COULD BE SAVED ).

The appeal to assent as ‘free’ doesn’t have to do with who may be saved; rather, it’s an appeal to the necessity of grace.

The assent doesn’t have to be necessarily produced by arguments of human reason but can be assented by all who choose to believe ( OTHERWISE, THOSE WHO CAN‘T FOLLOW THESE ARGUMENTS CANNOT BELIEVE ).

Pretty much.

The assent doesn’t require the grace of God only for those living faith by works of charity but all who choose to believe ( OTHERWISE, THOSE WHO CANNOT DO WORKS OF CHARITY CANNOT BELIEVE ).

Hmm… not quite. Here, they’re refuting the argument that says that there is such a thing as grace, but it’s only operative and effective in the realm of charitable works subsequent to the assent of faith. In other words, they’re saying that grace precedes assent, not just follows it.

1. Nonbelievers are under no obligation to believe until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith ( OTHERWISE, MANY WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN SAVED WILL BE LOST,
   and THEIR HONEST ATTEMPT TO REACH FAITH EVEN IF NOT SUCCESSFUL BEFORE DEATH MAY BE CREDITED TO THEM AS BAPTISM BY DESIRE BY A MERCIFUL GOD ).

Wow. Umm… no. The Church isn’t advocating rationalism here, which is what it seems you’re saying.

Moreover, an example of ‘baptism by desire’ is not one who attempts to find the faith but fails!

But Catholics may NOT suspend their assent to the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith ( OTHERWISE, CATHOLICS MAY BE PULLED AWAY FROM THEIR FAITH BY PERSUASIVE DEVIL’S ADVOCATES AND LOST AFTER ALL WHEN THEY HAD BEEN IN SAFE HARBOR, AND TO SUSPEND THE HOLY SPIRIT’S WORK OF FAITH IN THEIR HEARTS IS A GRAVE ERROR ).

The issue, I think, is less that Catholics may fail in their “scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith”; instead, it’s that, having accepted the faith and having been baptized, there’s a certain new ontological reality that they cannot legitimately step away from.

 

[Birdmanman]

I vote “E”:

What you’re missing, I think, is a sense of the context of Vatican I. These two canons you’ve quoted are the Church’s response to the Catholic theologian Georg Hermes, who wanted to utilize rationalism as the basis for Christian faith.

In Canon 5, the council fathers aren’t asserting that “you cannot use reason to assent to the faith”; rather, they’re refuting Hermes, who asserted that faith is not found through a response to the free gift of grace of God, but instead must be found through an exercise of human reason.

Hermes’ assertion of the impotence of the grace of God is the big problem here, and it’s what the council fathers are addressing in canon 5.

Here, the council fathers are saying two things: first, the condition of the faithful and the condition of non-Christians are not equivalent. This is critically important: the acceptance of God’s grace, and the reception of baptism radically change a person; thus, there’s an unimpeachable difference between a baptized and non-baptized person. The reason that this is important is that a rationalist would assert that both are identical; the Church would say that the grace of God is operating in and efficacious in the baptized person in a way that is not the case in the unbaptized.

Second, then, the rationalist would claim that the baptized person can and should suspend their (non-rational) belief until such a time that they are able to provide a rational account for their faith. The council fathers are telling us that this isn’t the case: if one who has been baptized turns away from the faith in order to undergo a period of discernment of the tenets of the faith, then that person is in a precarious situation. (Mind you – the council fathers aren’t telling people not to critically examine their faith; they’re saying that abandoning the faith while doing so is not only wrong but spiritually dangerous to the Christian!)

In other words, once a person is baptized, they have certain obligations. Turning away from these obligations, in order to pursue “a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith” is seriously problematic, and cannot be justified by a Catholic Christian.

No. An argument from human reason may enable assent to the faith; however, rationalism is asserting that only an argument from human reason may do so validly. The Church teaches that assent to the Faith is not produced exclusively (i.e., necessarily) by human reason. Therefore, it is not the case that one must suspend previously assented faith in order to pursue an expression of faith that proceeds solely from human reason. No contradiction.

Hi Gorgias, thanks for your response, I think this satisfies my question!

Thanks Qoeleth, PaultoJesus, and empther for responding as well!

 

[Linusthe2nd]

I vote “E”:

What you’re missing, I think, is a sense of the context of Vatican I. These two canons you’ve quoted are the Church’s response to the Catholic theologian Georg Hermes, who wanted to utilize rationalism as the basis for Christian faith.

In Canon 5, the council fathers aren’t asserting that “you cannot use reason to assent to the faith”; rather, they’re refuting Hermes, who asserted that faith is not found through a response to the free gift of grace of God, but instead must be found through an exercise of human reason.

Hermes’ assertion of the impotence of the grace of God is the big problem here, and it’s what the council fathers are addressing in canon 5.

Here, the council fathers are saying two things: first, the condition of the faithful and the condition of non-Christians are not equivalent. This is critically important: the acceptance of God’s grace, and the reception of baptism radically change a person; thus, there’s an unimpeachable difference between a baptized and non-baptized person. The reason that this is important is that a rationalist would assert that both are identical; the Church would say that the grace of God is operating in and efficacious in the baptized person in a way that is not the case in the unbaptized.

Second, then, the rationalist would claim that the baptized person can and should suspend their (non-rational) belief until such a time that they are able to provide a rational account for their faith. The council fathers are telling us that this isn’t the case: if one who has been baptized turns away from the faith in order to undergo a period of discernment of the tenets of the faith, then that person is in a precarious situation. (Mind you – the council fathers aren’t telling people not to critically examine their faith; they’re saying that abandoning the faith while doing so is not only wrong but spiritually dangerous to the Christian!)

In other words, once a person is baptized, they have certain obligations. Turning away from these obligations, in order to pursue “a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith” is seriously problematic, and cannot be justified by a Catholic Christian.

No. An argument from human reason may enable assent to the faith; however, rationalism is asserting that only an argument from human reason may do so validly. The Church teaches that assent to the Faith is not produced exclusively (i.e., necessarily) by human reason. Therefore, it is not the case that one must suspend previously assented faith in order to pursue an expression of faith that proceeds solely from human reason. No contradiction.

A provisional excellent, I need to think it over some more. But it looks right.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Vatican I was apparently STILL writing for theologians and not for laymen. So they didn’t throw in all the ands, ifs, and buts to make it clear.

We can clarify these statements by moving things around without losing anything:

1. The assent to christian faith is free ( OTHERWISE, NOT ALL MEN COULD BE SAVED ).

The assent doesn’t have to be necessarily produced by arguments of human reason but can be assented by all who choose to believe ( OTHERWISE, THOSE WHO CAN‘T FOLLOW THESE ARGUMENTS CANNOT BELIEVE ).

The assent doesn’t require the grace of God only for those living faith by works of charity but all who choose to believe ( OTHERWISE, THOSE WHO CANNOT DO WORKS OF CHARITY CANNOT BELIEVE ).

" A " for effort. It was a tough question. I think you got pretty close.

1. Nonbelievers are under no obligation to believe until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith ( OTHERWISE, MANY WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN SAVED WILL BE LOST,
   and THEIR HONEST ATTEMPT TO REACH FAITH EVEN IF NOT SUCCESSFUL BEFORE DEATH MAY BE CREDITED TO THEM AS BAPTISM BY DESIRE BY A MERCIFUL GOD ).

But Catholics may NOT suspend their assent to the faith which they have already received from the teaching of the church, until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith ( OTHERWISE, CATHOLICS MAY BE PULLED AWAY FROM THEIR FAITH BY PERSUASIVE DEVIL’S ADVOCATES AND LOST AFTER ALL WHEN THEY HAD BEEN IN SAFE HARBOR, AND TO SUSPEND THE HOLY SPIRIT’S WORK OF FAITH IN THEIR HEARTS IS A GRAVE ERROR ).

 

[empther]

Quote:
6. Nonbelievers are under no obligation to believe until they have completed a scientific demonstration of the credibility and truth of their faith ( OTHERWISE, MANY WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN SAVED WILL BE LOST,
and THEIR HONEST ATTEMPT TO REACH FAITH EVEN IF NOT SUCCESSFUL BEFORE DEATH MAY BE CREDITED TO THEM AS BAPTISM BY DESIRE BY A MERCIFUL GOD ).

Wow. Umm… no. The Church isn’t advocating rationalism here, which is what it seems you’re saying.

Not at all.
The nonbelievers aren’t cradle Catholics or cradle anything else.
To get faith in God, they want proof, evidence, rational explanations.
Of course, there may be a few nonbelievers who do assent to faith without proof etc, but they are the exception.
Of course, the Church would love it if every nonbeliever came around to assenting to faith without proof etc, but that’s not going to happen, is it!
So the Church is saying the nonbelievers are not obliged to assent to faith first, which apparently is impossible in most cases. Rationalizing will have to do. The Church must be practical. It’s like the Church told its missionaries when they went to distant, very poor places. “First, fill their bellies. Then talk about God.”

This is in contrast to believing Catholics who are under obligation to retain their faith. Otherwise, they walk away from the Holy Spirit which is a very dangerous thing to do.

 

[Gorgias]

empther,

Some of the stuff you say here is interesting. The problem is, it isn’t what these canons are trying to say…!

Not at all.
The nonbelievers aren’t cradle Catholics or cradle anything else.
To get faith in God, they want proof, evidence, rational explanations.
Of course, there may be a few nonbelievers who do assent to faith without proof etc, but they are the exception.

You know what? Some do want a rational explanation – but not all! I’ve worked in RCIA programs for a number of years, and I wouldn’t say that that “faith without proof” crowd is “the exception”! Often, they are the spouses of Catholics. And what brings them to the doorstep of the Church isn’t exegesis or apologetics; rather, it’s the witness of the faith lived out by their spouse that convicts them. Sure, later on (and in RCIA in particular) they learn what the faith says, but for them, it isn’t about hearing a lecture and debating its merits: instead, they’ve already been sold on seeing what good there is in a faithful Catholic whom they love.

Of course, the Church would love it if every nonbeliever came around to assenting to faith without proof etc, but that’s not going to happen, is it!

Well, I don’t know … I mean, after all, we’re supposed to use both faith and reason, aren’t we? So, the Church can’t be saying, “go ahead – believe but don’t think!”

So the Church is saying the nonbelievers are not obliged to assent to faith first

In this canon, that’s not what’s being said. Some were saying “that the condition of the faithful and those who have not yet attained to the only true faith is alike”; the council fathers felt the need to point out that this isn’t the case. The focus of this canon isn’t unbelievers (i.e., “those who have not yet attained” Christian faith) – it’s the Catholic faithful!

So, this canon isn’t addressing the way in which non-believers reach faith: it’s telling Catholics that they cannot simply ‘suspend’ their faith! The council fathers are saying that there’s no such thing as a ‘sabbatical’ from the Church!

This is in contrast to believing Catholics who are under obligation to retain their faith. Otherwise, they walk away from the Holy Spirit which is a very dangerous thing to do.

Very true! From Chapter 3, paragraph 15:

Consequently, the situation of those, who by the heavenly gift of faith have embraced the Catholic truth, is by no means the same as that of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion; for 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.

One last thought: these canons talk about the proper relationship between ‘reason’ and ‘faith’ in the context of how a person gives assent to the teachings of the Church. In the section that these canons come from, the following text is found:

we are obliged to yield to God the revealer full submission of intellect and will by faith.

This faith, which is the beginning of human salvation, the Catholic Church professes to be a supernatural virtue, by means of which, with the grace of God inspiring and assisting us, we believe to be true what He has revealed, not because we perceive its intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God himself, who makes the revelation and can neither deceive nor be deceived.

So, here’s what was in play at that time: some were saying that a Kantian approach was proper – that the means to come to one’s Catholic faith had nothing to do with the grace of God, but that reason alone was sufficent (and, in fact, was the only necessary thing) to bring a person to God. In the quote above, we see that the Church is asserting exactly the opposite: we “yield to God”, in faith, submitting our intellect and will to Him. We do this “not because we perceive [faith’s] intrinsic truth by the natural light of reason”, but because it comes from God himself. That is, “faith itself… is a gift of God” (paragraph 7).

 

[empther]

Quote:
Originally Posted by empther
Not at all.
The nonbelievers aren’t cradle Catholics or cradle anything else.
To get faith in God, they want proof, evidence, rational explanations.
Of course, there may be a few nonbelievers who do assent to faith without proof etc, but they are the exception.

You know what? Some do want a rational explanation – but not all! I’ve worked in** RCIA programs ** :bigyikes: for a number of years, and I wouldn’t say that that “faith without proof” crowd is “the exception”!

People who come to RCIA meetings are a typical sampling of nonbelievers?

Have a nice day, Gorgias.

 

[Gorgias]

People who come to RCIA meetings are a typical sampling of nonbelievers?

Wow… you really are misunderstanding the context of these canons, aren’t you, empther?

OK – you may be talking about everyone in the world, and so in that context, there are a lot of non-believers who demand unreasonable levels or types of proof. However, that’s not the context of the text or of this discussion. Rather, the context is the person who is Catholic but feels pressure to come to a rational understanding of his faith as the basis for his belief. (See what happens when you take the conciliar text out of its intended context, empther? you come up with a weird red herring argument that no one’s discussing… )

Anyway, in the context of canon 6, there’s a glancing mention of those “who have not yet attained to the only true faith”. See that, empther? The reference isn’t to dyed-in-the-wool agnostics or intransigent atheists: it’s simply the person who hasn’t yet attained to the faith. This person, looking to attain to the faith, may decide to make that attempt via a rational investigation. The council fathers aren’t addressing him here, though – they’re only addressing the Catholic who decides to do the same thing. They’ve already addressed this faith-seeking person in canon 5, in which they said that a purely rational approach cannot work without the free grace of God.

So, if you want to claim that RCIA participants aren’t a valid subset of those who are attempting to find the faith, you go right on ahead. When you want to talk about what these canons of Vatican I are talking about, though, let us know, ok?

Have a nice day, Gorgias.

You too, empther…

 

[fhansen]

Hey there, I was wondering if anyone could help me try to resolve the apparent contradiction in my understanding of these 2 teachings from Vatican I; surely this is only an apparent contradiction and not a real contradiction, but any assistance would be appreciated!

So here are 2 teachings from Vatican I, labeled “5” and “6”:

I will attempt to paraphrase the relevant portion of these 2 teachings as follows:
5. The assent to Christian (Catholic) Faith is not made necessary by arguments of human reason (that is, no once can say "here is miracle x, y, and z, now it is a necessity of reason that you assent to this explanation for miracle x, y, and z).
and
6. One who has assented to the Christian (Catholic) Faith must consider it immoral or unjustified to fail to give assent (suspend his assent) to the Christian (Catholic) Faith, even if they have not had the truth or credibility of the Faith demonstrated to them by philosophy or miracles or what-have-you, and even if a philosophical argument or “lack of evidence” tempt them to doubt their Faith.

Now:

1. If assent is something that is maintained, that is, continuously given, and
2. If it is an argument of human reason to say that “because a teaching of Vatican I is credible and true, I therefore will follow the teaching from Vatican I that says that a Catholic may not have just cause to call their Faith into doubt and suspend their assent”
   then
   **3. For a practicing Catholic who is considering whether or not to suspend his assent to the Catholic Faith, and who reads teaching 6 (above) from Vatican I that says he does not have just cause to suspend his assent to the Catholic Faith, an argument from human reason has therefore been made that necessarily produces his continued assent to the Catholic Faith.
3. Apparent Contradiction**: an argument from human reason necessarily produces assent to the Christian (Catholic) Faith; but the Christian (Catholic) Faith teaches that the assent to the Faith is not produced as a necessity from arguments of human reason.

Proposed Resolutions to the apparent contradiction above:
A. Assent, as it is used in that teaching from Vatican I (above), does not mean a continued act, but an initial and single act that has continuous repercussions. This means that an argument from human reason that necessarily causes a faithful Catholic to continue “giving their assent” is not the same as an argument from human reason that necessarily causes one to first assent to the Catholic Faith.

B. A line of reasoning that stems from a teaching of the Faith, a revealed truth, is not the same as an “argument of human reason”, as a line of reasoning that has a matter of Faith as one of its postulates or assumptions is not only human, but in some sense, also “Divine” reasoning, as humanity alone did not discern for itself without Divine help that it is unjust to suspend their assent to the Catholic Faith.

C. There is a non-explicit meaning in these two teachings of Vatican I, where what is meant by “arguments of human reason” or “assent” is unclear to me.

D. My paraphrasing of these 2 teachings is inadequate, and/or these 2 teachings are meant to be read in a very strict way; for example, teaching 5 may really say “One is only anathema if he says BOTH that the assent to the Christian Faith is not free AND that it is necessarily produced by arguments of human reason” (therefore such a person, to be anathematized, would also have to say that assent to arguments from human reason is not free either).

E. I have just totally missed the point.

F. Translation or copy issues

G. Something else

Skip the canons for now and go to session 3, chap 4 to get a handle on the church’s teaching on faith-and the relationship of faith, grace, and reason.

1. grace is necessary for faith in God and His revelations
2. reason does not lead necessarily to faith (grace is necessary for faith-but our assent is free, because grace can be resisted, while reason cannot conflict with faith)

 

[Gorgias]

Skip the canons for now and go to session 3, chap 4 to get a handle on the church’s teaching on faith-and the relationship of faith, grace, and reason.

 

[Birdmanman]

Skip the canons for now and go to session 3, chap 4 to get a handle on the church’s teaching on faith-and the relationship of faith, grace, and reason.

1. grace is necessary for faith in God and His revelations
2. reason does not lead necessarily to faith (grace is necessary for faith-but our assent is free, because grace can be resisted, while reason cannot conflict with faith)

Thanks for the advice, fhansen! I’m reading it now.

 

[empther]

Gorgias,

So, if you want to claim that RCIA participants aren’t a valid subset of those who are attempting to find the faith, you go right on ahead.

I was the first to crack, breakdown, parse, analyze, or otherwise explain the question raised by the original post.
After I had done this service,
you jump in four and a half hours late to basically repeat what I said.
Not satisfied with that, you criticized everything I said to make yourself look good. You often do this.

Then you wrote about your RCIA nonbelievers to disprove a point I intended to make about nonbelievers ( obviously ) in general.

Now

you claim I don’t accept RCIA participants as a valid subset of nonbelievers, although it should be clear to anybody who reads that I didn’t say that, and indeed I’m saying they’re a subset, but not a typical sampling of nonbelievers in general.

in order to make yourself look good at my expense.

This kind of quibbling activity goes on all the time. It’s irritating.

 

[Gorgias]

I was the first to crack, breakdown, parse, analyze, or otherwise explain the question raised by the original post.
After I had done this service,

you jump in four and a half hours late to basically repeat what I said.

Wow… you think that, in our posts, we said the same thing? Actually, I “jumped in” because I thought you’d missed the point…

Not satisfied with that, you criticized everything I said to make yourself look good. You often do this.

You’re in quite the mood today. Hope your day gets better as it goes along…!

Then you wrote about your RCIA nonbelievers to disprove a point I intended to make about nonbelievers ( obviously ) in general.

And, if you notice, once I saw your response, I noted that I thought we were staying on topic (which wasn’t unbelievers in general) but that if your comment had to do with all believers ( obviously ) your point holds (but it’d have been off-topic nevertheless).

you claim I don’t accept RCIA participants as a valid subset of nonbelievers, although it should be clear to anybody who reads that I didn’t say that, and indeed I’m saying they’re a subset, but not a typical sampling of nonbelievers in general.

Hmm… no. I’m claiming that catechumens is a typical sampling of those who are attempting “to attain to the faith” – that is, a sampling of those non-Catholics that canon 6 is talking about. Whether or not you consider them to be a “valid subset of nonbelievers”, as irrelevant as that is to the present discussion, is immaterial…

in order to make yourself look good at my expense.

Wow… you’ve really got a burr under your saddle. Hope you’re feeling better…

 

[empther]

Anybody who wants to take a hour of their time to read the entire thread line by line can see for themselves I nailed it on the head in my last post.

You conduct RCIA meetings, Gorgias?

I don’t suffer fools gladly. Good by.

 

[Gorgias]

Anybody who wants to take a hour of their time to read the entire thread line by line

I admit, I can get a bit pedantic. It’s a weakness of mine. :sad_yes:

empther:

I don’t suffer fools gladly.

v23 might’ve been more appropriate…

Good by.

LOL… always a pleasure, empther…!