T
tuopaolo
Guest
“That implies to me at least that his brethern and possibly he himself are saying that we should not accept anything that scripture says unless external proofs can be given and I would reject such a position.”
No, no, no, no no!
That’s not what Sanctus Anselm, Doctor of the Church is saying at all
If he were saying that, he would never have been celebrated as a saint, let alone, proclaimed by the Pope (not the present one of course) as Doctor of the Church, sharing that title with greats such as St Thomas Aquinas.
In fact St Anselm says specifically – I don’t know if it is in that particular book – that were he to find that his reason leads him to see a conclusion as reasonable that the authority of scripture says is false that he would without hestitation conclude that something must be defective with his reasoning – which is the exact opposite approach of modernists who assume that it is the scripture and not their reasoning abilities which are defective and is similiar to the approach of John Paul II given some expression in Fides et Ratio. St Anselm also appeals specifically to the authority of the Catholic faith, apart from any authority of reason, in his response to the monk Gaunilo’s criticism of one of his arguments.
No, St Anselm is coming at this from the approach of faith seeking understanding. This is a theme not only present in his more academic writings like this one but also present in his written personal prayers. And he says specifically that he does not seek to understand so that he may believe, but rather seeks to believe that he may understand. However upon believing, he seeks to understand what he already accepts as true on the authority of God revealing with the gift that God has given him in his intellect.
There is a value in knowing that which one has already accepted by faith by the use of reason alone. For example, the Church teaches that it is possible to prove the existence of a personal God (but not the Trinity) without the aid of divine revelation. If someone accepts already the existence of Him by faith, there may be still value in his knowing it also by reason (some theologians hold it is possible to know something both ways at the same time; others hold that once you know something solely by reason that then it makes that object no longer something known by faith – which makes some sense since it is held that faith and hope cease to exist in Heaven, with only love remaining, but I am undecided on this question). And for St Anselm there was much value for his was a faith seeking understanding.
There is some question of in what sense St Anselm saw the Trinity as being “provable.” One theory would be that St Anselm thought that it would not be possible to come to know the Trinity by reason without the aid of divine revelation but that one, having already by divine grace come into acquaintance with the Trinity by divine revelation is then able to know its truth also by reason. But there are other theories, and I certainly don’t know which one would be true.
No, no, no, no no!
That’s not what Sanctus Anselm, Doctor of the Church is saying at all
If he were saying that, he would never have been celebrated as a saint, let alone, proclaimed by the Pope (not the present one of course) as Doctor of the Church, sharing that title with greats such as St Thomas Aquinas.In fact St Anselm says specifically – I don’t know if it is in that particular book – that were he to find that his reason leads him to see a conclusion as reasonable that the authority of scripture says is false that he would without hestitation conclude that something must be defective with his reasoning – which is the exact opposite approach of modernists who assume that it is the scripture and not their reasoning abilities which are defective and is similiar to the approach of John Paul II given some expression in Fides et Ratio. St Anselm also appeals specifically to the authority of the Catholic faith, apart from any authority of reason, in his response to the monk Gaunilo’s criticism of one of his arguments.
No, St Anselm is coming at this from the approach of faith seeking understanding. This is a theme not only present in his more academic writings like this one but also present in his written personal prayers. And he says specifically that he does not seek to understand so that he may believe, but rather seeks to believe that he may understand. However upon believing, he seeks to understand what he already accepts as true on the authority of God revealing with the gift that God has given him in his intellect.
There is a value in knowing that which one has already accepted by faith by the use of reason alone. For example, the Church teaches that it is possible to prove the existence of a personal God (but not the Trinity) without the aid of divine revelation. If someone accepts already the existence of Him by faith, there may be still value in his knowing it also by reason (some theologians hold it is possible to know something both ways at the same time; others hold that once you know something solely by reason that then it makes that object no longer something known by faith – which makes some sense since it is held that faith and hope cease to exist in Heaven, with only love remaining, but I am undecided on this question). And for St Anselm there was much value for his was a faith seeking understanding.
There is some question of in what sense St Anselm saw the Trinity as being “provable.” One theory would be that St Anselm thought that it would not be possible to come to know the Trinity by reason without the aid of divine revelation but that one, having already by divine grace come into acquaintance with the Trinity by divine revelation is then able to know its truth also by reason. But there are other theories, and I certainly don’t know which one would be true.
