Understanding a condemnation in the Syllabus of Errors

[Birdmanman]

I have recently been attempting to clarify where Catholic teaching stands in striking the balance between Fideism and Rationalism, and specifically with how far reason can take us into faith. Edward Feser, a Catholic philosopher, and the old Catholic Encyclopedia imply that reason can demonstrate that the Catholic Faith is more reasonable, more acceptable/credible, or better than other faiths. Recent discussion on this forum has led me to consider that, even if the truth of Christian Revelation were a mere conclusion of reason, the assent that leads to Faith would still be free…that is, no matter how far reason can take us, Faith will still be free. In light of this, then, I am trying to discover if it is heretical to hold that it may be a conclusion of reason that Christian revelation is true [which does not mean that Faith is a conclusion of reason].

In support of holding that it is not heretical, I have the following from the Catholic Encyclopedia on Faith:
“But much misunderstanding exists regarding the meaning and office of the motives of credibility. In the first place, they afford us definite and certain knowledge of Divine revelation; but this knowledge precedes faith; it is not the final motive for our assent to the truths of faith…”

However, it seems to me that the following condemnation from the Syllabus of Errors contradicts my understanding of this:
“9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object. – Letters to the Archbishop of Munich, “Gravissimas inter,” Dec. 11, 1862, and “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.”

Now, if reason’s consideration of the motives of credibility can lead reason to 'definite and certain knowledge of Divine Revelation", and Divine Revelation contains “all the dogmas of the Christian religion”…then reason, enlightened in a historical way from the historical facts that are the motives of credibility, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain knowledge of Divine Revelation, that is, to attain knowledge of all of the dogmas of the Christian religion…granted of course that Revelation has actually occurred (no amount of armchair reason is going to make you think up the truth of the Trinity). But this seems to be condemned in the Syllabus of Errors.

The following considerations can harmonize this apparent conflict:

1. The meaning of the condemned statement was that reason, unaided by the actual fact of Revelation, and unaided by the motives of credibility (that is, solely on its own strength), can attain knowledge of the dogmas of Faith.
2. The meaning of the condemned statement’s use of the phrase “true science” was meant to imply that reason could on its own strength (yet even with Christian Revelation and the motives of credibility) exhaust the mysteries of Faith and come to a complete, clear, and entire understanding of those mysteries.
3. By ‘indiscriminately the object of natural science and philosophy’ was meant to exclude the actual teaching authority of The Church…evidently the author of this condemned statement, a Dr. Frohschammer, was not to keen on the authority of the Church over the intellects of the faithful.

Linked below is the book, in German, from which I think the condemned statements were taken or implied…unfortunately I cannot read German, but understanding the author’s meaning of “true science” or “enlightened in a historical way” or other such things can help us understand what is actually being condemned here.
play.google.com/books/reader?id=cRA-AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en&pg=GBS.PR1

Understanding this condemnation will help me see how far reason can take us towards Faith (holding, of course, that Faith is free and not a mere conclusion of reason).

 

[CrossofChrist]

. In light of this, then, I am trying to discover if it is heretical to hold that it may be a conclusion of reason that Christian revelation is true [which does not mean that Faith is a conclusion of reason].

Read that again and you’ll find it makes 0 sense to someone not inside your brain.

Anyway, my basic understanding of this error is that while the truths of faith are reasonable and not contrary to reason, human reason by itself can’t come to an understanding of the Truth without divine grace. Basically the Syllabus is condemning the idea that we can come to an understanding of divine revelation without the help of the grace of God. IOW, it’s condemning a modern day version of Pelagianism.

 

[Birdmanman]

Read that again and you’ll find it makes 0 sense to someone not inside your brain.

Anyway, my basic understanding of this error is that while the truths of faith are reasonable and not contrary to reason, human reason by itself can’t come to an understanding of the Truth without divine grace. Basically the Syllabus is condemning the idea that we can come to an understanding of divine revelation without the help of the grace of God. IOW, it’s condemning a modern day version of Pelagianism.

Haha thanks for that reminder that I need to make what I type readable. Now watch as I utterly fail to do that in the following paragraphs :

So, it is proper for me to say that, in order to attain any truth, God’s grace is necessary?
If so, then I should rephrase my central question: “Is it heretical to hold that it may be a conclusion of reason, assisted by God’s grace, that Christian Revelation is true?” [Keeping in mind that a conclusion of reason is different from an assent, so this isn’t saying Faith can be attained by God’s Grace + conclusions of human reason, since Faith requires assent].
And the assistance of God’s grace in my question does not mean that God imbues the intellect directly with a supernatural knowledge that leads it to the truth of revelation, but that it gives it divine assistance to obtain those truths which are matters of history and philosophy, the motives of credibility, like historical Christian miracles and the proofs of God’s existence, which lead reason (with God’s grace assisting reason in its merely natural processes) to conclude that Divine Revelation is true.
I am not saying any particular person’s reason does indeed now do this, but just questioning if it would be heretical to hold that it is possible.

 

[CrossofChrist]

So, it is proper for me to say that, in order to attain any truth, God’s grace is necessary?

Any truth pertaining to divine revelation, yes.

If so, then I should rephrase my central question: “Is it heretical to hold that it may be a conclusion of reason, assisted by God’s grace, that Christian Revelation is true?”

I’m not sure, but possibly. The Christian faith isn’t rational in the sense that we can prove on step-by-step reasoning that it is correct, like St. Thomas and the Scholastics do to prove various things, such as God’s existence. It can be a conclusion of reason in that it makes a convincing case for why it is true (otherwise why would anyone believe in Christ?), but not because it doesn’t make any sense for it not to be true.

 

[Nita]

“9. All the dogmas of the Christian religion are indiscriminately the object of natural science or philosophy, and human reason, enlightened solely in an historical way, is able, by its own natural strength and principles, to attain to the true science of even the most abstruse dogmas; provided only that such dogmas be proposed to reason itself as its object. – Letters to the Archbishop of Munich, “Gravissimas inter,” Dec. 11, 1862, and “Tuas libenter,” Dec. 21, 1863.”

Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors is condemning the above position/statement.

Here is a link to the Syllabus. papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
It is a list of false and erroneous teachings - which is pretty obvious as soon as you read the first statement! The Syllabus is not a list of what the Church teaches, but a list of what the Church does NOT teach - teachings it condemns.

 

[Birdmanman]

Pius IX’s Syllabus of Errors is condemning the above position/statement.

Here is a link to the Syllabus. papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
It is a list of false and erroneous teachings - which is pretty obvious as soon as you read the first statement! The Syllabus is not a list of what the Church teaches, but a list of what the Church does NOT teach - teachings it condemns.

Haha I understand that Nita, but thanks for the reminder. I thought my title “understanding a condemnation in the Syllabus of Errors” should have made it clear that I know that Pope Pius was condemning that statement. I am trying to understand what exactly is condemned [that is, what the meaning of the statement is], and whether this condemnation condemns my question in this thread, which is the same (or a similar) question from the thread we last spoke on : ). This question is: “Is it heretical to hold that it may be a conclusion of reason, assisted by God’s grace, that Christian Revelation is true?”
[Keeping in mind that the assent of Faith is not a mere conclusion of reason, and where in this question God’s grace does not imbue the intellect with a supernatural knowledge, but rather assists reason in its purely natural operations; these natural operations being applied to historical supernatural facts (miracles) and certain other considerations (like proofs for God’s existence) which act as motives of credibility for Christian Revelation]

Basically, is it heretical to hold that reason, with God’s grace, can** say: “X is true…Y is true…Z is true…this or that historical miracle is morally certain…God’ existence and some facts about Him are proved…therefore Christian Revelation is true*”

*Where this “therefore Christian Revelation is true” is a mere conclusion, and is not the same as the assent of Faith, which is different.
**And keep in mind I am just asking whether or not this is heretical, not whether or not any of us now can actually develop such an argument from reason for Christian Revelation

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

I am trying to discover if it is heretical to hold that it may be a conclusion of reason that Christian revelation is true [which does not mean that Faith is a conclusion of reason].

To answer your question, we need to distinguish between a) Revelation as such, and b) the dogmas that have been revealed. Those are two distinct issues.

As the quote you provided says, “the motives of credibility… afford us definite and certain knowledge of Divine revelation”. Therefore, believing that the Christian Revelation is true can be known by reason alone.

But we can only believe some of the dogmas contained within the revealed deposit by Faith. Some dogmas can be known by the light of reason alone, such as the existence of God, and that he rewards the good and punished evil, but other dogmas can only be known by Faith, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and transubstantiation.

So, the fact of Revelation can indeed be known by reason alone; but when it comes to believing the particular dogmas that make up the revealed deposit, an act of supernatural faith is necessary.

 

[Nita]

It’s important to understand what “motives of credibility” means in this context. Here is the definition from the article entitled “Faith” in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It would be well to read the entire article since it addresses the issues of this thread.
newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

MOTIVES OF CREDIBILITY;
(a) When we say that a certain statement is incredible we often mean merely that it is extraordinary, but it should be borne in mind that this is a misuse of language, for the credibility or incredibility of a statement **has nothing to do **with its intrinsic probability or improbability; it depends solely upon the credentials of the authority who makes the statement……

 

[Birdmanman]

To answer your question, we need to distinguish between a) Revelation as such, and b) the dogmas that have been revealed. Those are two distinct issues.

As the quote you provided says, “the motives of credibility… afford us definite and certain knowledge of Divine revelation”. Therefore, believing that the Christian Revelation is true can be known by reason alone.

But we can only believe some of the dogmas contained within the revealed deposit by Faith. Some dogmas can be known by the light of reason alone, such as the existence of God, and that he rewards the good and punished evil, but other dogmas can only be known by Faith, such as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and transubstantiation.

So, the fact of Revelation can indeed be known by reason alone; but when it comes to believing the particular dogmas that make up the revealed deposit, an act of supernatural faith is necessary.

But would you not say that the dogma of the Trinity is contained within Divine Revelation, or at least, that the teaching authority of the The Church is contained within it, so that if one comes to the conclusion, from reason, that Revelation is true, one will implicitly come to the conclusion that the Trinity, or whatever is taught by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, is true?

An example of how reason concludes to these mysteries might be: “The motives of credibility afford me certain knowledge, through my reason, that Christian Revelation is true, and within Christian Revelation, it is revealed that God is a Trinity of Persons; therefore, the motives of credibility afford me certain knowledge, through my reason, that God is a Trinity of Persons, although I can choose to assent or not assent to this conclusion of reason, even though it is sound”.

 

[Birdmanman]

It’s important to understand what “motives of credibility” means in this context. Here is the definition from the article entitled “Faith” in the Catholic Encyclopedia. It would be well to read the entire article since it addresses the issues of this thread.
newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

MOTIVES OF CREDIBILITY;
(a) When we say that a certain statement is incredible we often mean merely that it is extraordinary, but it should be borne in mind that this is a misuse of language, for the credibility or incredibility of a statement **has nothing to do **with its intrinsic probability or improbability; it depends solely upon the credentials of the authority who makes the statement……

Yes, the motives of credibility establish for us the credentials of the person who claims that X or Y is actually revealed by God, as the Catholic Encyclopedia says:
“Here, however, the real question is not as to the credentials of God or the credibility of what He says, but as to the credibility of the statement that God has spoken. In other words who or what is the authority for this statement, and what credentials does this authority show? What are the motives of credibility of the statement that God has revealed this or that?”

Now, if these motives of credibility “afford us definite and certain knowledge of Divine revelation”, that is, they sufficiently establish to our reason that God has revealed Christian Revelation, then it is a conclusion of reason that, since God is truth Himself and infallible and does not deceive us, whatever is contained in Christian Revelation is true. And since The Doctrine of the Trinity is contained within Christian Revelation, then reason, through the motives of credibility, can come to the conclusion that The Doctrine of the Trinity is true, because reason knows through the motives of credibility that God has revealed this doctrine.
[And I hate to keep putting the disclaimer on here, but all of this is just a conclusion of reason, and is not Faith, since Faith here would be assent to these Divinely Revealed truths which reason has discovered through the motives of credibility. God’s grace, His providing Revelation itself, and His providing the motives of credibility are all things that reason doesn’t do, so it is improper to say that reason, entirely by its own power and without any help from God, can come to those true mysteries which only God reveals].

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

But would you not say that the dogma of the Trinity is contained within Divine Revelation, or at least, that the teaching authority of the The Church is contained within it, so that if one comes to the conclusion, from reason, that Revelation is true, one will implicitly come to the conclusion that the Trinity, or whatever is taught by the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, is true?

Yes, that’s exactly right. But it doesn’t exclude the necessity to accept the particular teaching of the Trinity by an act Faith. Your question is good. What you are touching on is the authority of the Church as the teacher of revealed truth. The Church is the divinely established depository of revelation, and the infallible teacher of revealed truth. The act of Faith (for example, by believing the doctrine of the Trinity) is based on the authority of the Church teaching. Once a person arrives at the belief that the Church is indeed the infallible teacher of revelation, they will accept on Faith whatever the Church defines as true.

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

Now, if these motives of credibility “afford us definite and certain knowledge of Divine revelation”, that is, they sufficiently establish to our reason that God has revealed Christian Revelation, then it is a conclusion of reason that, since God is truth Himself and infallible and does not deceive us, whatever is contained in Christian Revelation is true. And since The Doctrine of the Trinity is contained within Christian Revelation, then reason, through the motives of credibility, can come to the conclusion that The Doctrine of the Trinity is true, because reason knows through the motives of credibility that God has revealed this doctrine.

This post wasn’t addressed to me, but I did want to respond to the underlined part (in case my last post did not answer it).

The motive of belief is the authority of the Church proposing, but it still requires an act of Faith to accept the particular teaching as being true.

Some teachings of the Church must be accepted with divine and Catholic Faith, and others must be accepted with ecclesiastical faith. The former are truths that have been directly revealed by God; the latter are truths that are connected with the revealed deposit, but were not directly revealed. But both sets of teachings are believed *by faith *because they are proposed by the Church. You can see from this how the authority of the Church is intimately linked together with the act of Faith.

 

[Nita]

This post wasn’t addressed to me, but I did want to respond to the underlined part (in case my last post did not answer it).
.

My post was not meant for you and Birdmanman, but for those viewers who are new to this topic and are unfamiliar with the meanings of the terms (as I was when I got involved with Birdmanman’s previous thread). It’s very easy to interpret the phrase in the sense of the credibility of the content rather than the credibility of the author of the content. I wanted to point it out very specifically - connecting the phrase with its proper definition - for al those who view this thread, even tho they may choose not to post.

 

[Birdmanman]

This post wasn’t addressed to me, but I did want to respond to the underlined part (in case my last post did not answer it).

The motive of belief is the authority of the Church proposing, but it still requires an act of Faith to accept the particular teaching as being true.

Some teachings of the Church must be accepted with divine and Catholic Faith, and others must be accepted with ecclesiastical faith. The former are truths that have been directly revealed by God; the latter are truths that are connected with the revealed deposit, but were not directly revealed. But both sets of teachings are believed *by faith *because they are proposed by the Church. You can see from this how the authority of the Church is intimately linked together with the act of Faith.

If by “accept” you mean “assent to”, then yes, Faith is assenting to those Divinely revealed truths, whether directly revealed or indirectly revealed. However, it still seems reason itself (with the Grace of God assisting its purely natural operations, and with God providing Revelation and the motives of credibility) can conclude those things that are even indirectly revealed, not by its own power (as if it could discern those indirectly revealed things from directly revealed things), but instead by its conclusion that the authority of The Church in these matters is as credible as the authority of God, and from there further concluding that all that the Church teaches as a matter of dogma is true. But reason can conclude this without the person assenting to this. [One can almost always choose to be unreasonable].
Concisely, I think the Catholic Encyclopedia means reason can conclude from the motives of credibility that the authority of God and the authority of the Church on matters of revelation, both direct and indirect, is infallibly trustworthy, and can thus conclude that all that God reveals in Christian Revelation and all that the Church teaches dogmatically is absolutely true. Yet the man who is doing the reasoning is not compelled against his will to assent to what his reason tells him is true.

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

If by “accept” you mean “assent to”, then yes, Faith is assenting to those Divinely revealed truths, whether directly revealed or indirectly revealed. However, it still seems reason itself (with the Grace of God assisting its purely natural operations, and with God providing Revelation and the motives of credibility) can conclude those things that are even indirectly revealed, not by its own power (as if it could discern those indirectly revealed things from directly revealed things), but instead by its conclusion that the authority of The Church in these matters is as credible as the authority of God, and from there further concluding that all that the Church teaches as a matter of dogma is true. But reason can conclude this without the person assenting to this. [One can almost always choose to be unreasonable].
Concisely, I think the Catholic Encyclopedia means reason can conclude from the motives of credibility that the authority of God and the authority of the Church on matters of revelation, both direct and indirect, is infallibly trustworthy, and can thus conclude that all that God reveals in Christian Revelation and all that the Church teaches dogmatically is absolutely true. Yet the man who is doing the reasoning is not compelled against his will to assent to what his reason tells him is true.

You’re still missing the key. Maybe this will help.

Let’s consider the difference between belief and knowledge.

**Knowledge **is something that we know to be true. It is either something that we have witnessed first hand, or a conclusion that we have arrived by the use of our reason (for example, reasoning to conclusions based on principles).

Belief is something that we accept as true on the authority of another.

Example of belief: Let’s say that a friend told you that he got pulled over by the police. If you believed him based on his word, that would be an act of faith.

Example of knowledge: If you saw your friend being pulled over by the police, you would possess knowledge of the event. If he later told you that he had been pulled over (which you had previously seen with your own eyes), you would not be able to believe him by Faith, since knowledge excludes Faith.

Now, if your friend was a liar, you might not believe him if he told you he had been pulled over, whereas if your friend was trustworthy, you probably would believe him. So, the motive of belief would be the trust you had in your friend. But that does not exclude the fact that you would still have to believe him by faith.

It is the same thing with the Church and what the Church teaches. If you trust that the Church is the divinely infallible teacher of revelation, you will believe what it teaches. But it still requires faith to believe the specific teachings themselves. You can reason your way to the conclusion that what the Church teaches is true, but it still requires faith in the Church in order to believe the specific points of doctrine that it teaches. You might know that what the Church teaches true, but you can only belief in the Trinity by Faith. When you believe in the Trinity, you are making an act of Faith in the Church, even though you know that what the Church teaches is true. Actually, that is the reason you accept, by Faith, what the Church teaches.

What is belief? Believe is an act of the will, which accepts a proposition presented to the intellect. So, a proposition is presented to the intellect (God is three Persons). The will is the free to accept this as true, suspend judgment, or reject it as false. If the will accepts this as true, the person has made an act of faith.

An act of supernatural faith is basically the same. The difference is that the will assents to the truth proposed to the intellect with the help of the virtue of Faith, and under the influence of actual grace.

 

[Birdmanman]

Thanks, Texas, for your explanation. I will take some time to mull it over.

You might know that what the Church teaches true, but you can only belief in the Trinity by Faith. When you believe in the Trinity, you are making an act of Faith in the Church, even though you know that what the Church teaches is true. Actually, that is the reason you accept, by Faith, what the Church teaches.
What is belief? Believe is an act of the will, which accepts a proposition presented to the intellect. So, a proposition is presented to the intellect (God is three Persons). The will is the free to accept this as true, suspend judgment, or reject it as false. If the will accepts this as true, the person has made an act of faith.

I agree with this, but let me rephrase it to be sure:
By the motives of credibility, reason can** know** the utter trustworthiness of God and The Church, and therefore conclude (know) (and by that, I do not mean believe) that each point of revelation is true (whether it is something revealed directly, or indirectly). Yet, regardless of what reason concludes (knows), the person, with their will, may believe what is concluded (known) by their reason to be true, or reject it as false, or suspend their judgment. Belief in the Doctrine of the Trinity is an act of Faith, whereas knowledge that the Doctrine of the Trinity is true (because of the utterly trustworthy authority of the God who reveals it) is not an act of Faith, but merely a conclusion of reason from reason’s consideration of the motives of credibility.

Is this coherent with what you have said?

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

I agree with this, but let me rephrase it to be sure:
By the motives of credibility, reason can** know** the utter trustworthiness of God and The Church, and therefore conclude (know) (and by that, I do not mean believe) that each point of revelation is true (whether it is something revealed directly, or indirectly).

Yes, that part was exactly perfect.
Birdman:

Yet, regardless of what reason concludes (knows), the person, with their will, may believe what is concluded (known) by their reason to be true, or reject it as false, or suspend their judgment. Belief in the Doctrine of the Trinity is an act of Faith, whereas knowledge that the Doctrine of the Trinity is true (because of the utterly trustworthy authority of the God who reveals it) is not an act of Faith, but merely a conclusion of reason from reason’s consideration of the motives of credibility.

Is this coherent with what you have said?

There is a little bit of imprecision in the above part, especially the underlined portion. Usually, when someone arrives at a conclusion (by the use of their reason) that something is true, their will *will *embrace it as being true. If a person only arrives at the conclusion that a particular point is probably true [as opposed to certainly true], they may suspend judgment. But if the reason is certain that a thing is true, it will almost always accept it as being true. This is considered knowledge.

In my earlier post, when I was referring to a proposition entering the intellect, and then the will a) assenting to it, b) suspending judgment, or c) rejecting it, I was referring to a particular proposition that had not been concluded by the light of reason, but instead had been revealed (presented to the intellect) by an external source.

For example, take the person who told you he got a ticket. You didn’t reason your way to this conclusion, since you had know knowledge of the event. You might reason your way to the conclusion that the person who told you this is trustworthy, but you didn’t reason your way to the conclusion that the trustworthy person got a ticket. Instead, the proposition (namely, that your friend got a ticket) was revealed to you by an external source (your trustworthy friend). At this point, your will would either accept the proposition as true, suspend judgment, or reject it as false. If you accepted it as true, it would constitute an act of faith.

Now, regarding the Trinity, we cannot reason our way to the “knowledge” of this truth. It must be presented to our intellect by an external source (the Church). Since we trust the Church, we will likely believe what it presents to us as true. When this happens, the proposition is presented to the intellect, and the will either chooses to accept it - assents to it (which is an act of Faith) - suspends judgment, or rejects it.

So, the two points to consider are 1) the external source that reveals to us a proposition that we could not know without this revelation; and 2) the particular doctrine that is revealed. Since we were unable to arrive at certain knowledge of the doctrine if it was not revealed to us, we accept the doctrine as an act of Faith in the one revealing.

Also keep in mind the relation between God and the Church. God has revealed the truth of the Trinity, and the Church has proposed this truth to us for belief. Our trust that the Church is the infallible teacher of revelation, enables us to accept, by faith, what it teaches, even when such teachings have not been arrived at by the use of reason alone.

One more distinction. The teaching that God exists can be known by reason alone, as the first Vatican Council teaches. Not everyone will have the intellectual ability to arrive at this truth, but human reason alone is potentially able to do so. Now, if there was a very intelligent man who arrived at the certain knowledge that God does indeed exist by his reason alone, and if this man entered the Church, his acceptance of this particular teaching of the Church would not be an act of Faith, since knowledge excludes Faith. He would know this by reason, and therefore would not believe it by Faith. The same is true with other truths that can be known by the light of reason. If a person knows (by reasoning from principles) that something is true (for example, that contraception is contrary to nature and therefore evil) his knowledge of this truth is not an act of Faith. One person may have to believe this teaching on faith, whereas one who **knows **it to be true will not.

But there are some truths, such as the Trinity, that man can never know by his reason alone. These higher truths will always have to be **believed **by Faith, since the reason alone could never arrive at certain knowledge of them.

I hope this helps. This is a deep and technical issue, but you seem to be grasping it.

 

[Nita]

I agree with this, but let me rephrase it to be sure:
By the motives of credibility, reason can** know** the utter trustworthiness of God and The Church, and therefore conclude (know) (and by that, I do not mean believe) that each point of revelation is true (whether it is something revealed directly, or indirectly). Yet, regardless of what reason concludes (knows), the person, with their will, may believe what is concluded (known) by their reason to be true, or reject it as false, or suspend their judgment.Is this coherent with what you have said?

How is it possible for a person “know” something is true and yet not “believe” that it is true. Eg. How could you ever say, I KNOW that there is milk in the refrigerator, but I don’t believe there is milk in the refrigerator?? To “know” something is true is to “believe” it is true.
The intellectual act of “knowing” something is true means the intellect is “assenting” to it’s truth. (At least that is how I understand it.)

From the article on Faith in the Ency. newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm

Faith may be considered both objectively and subjectively
…
(a) The twofold order of knowledge. — “The Catholic Church”, says the Vatican Council, III, iv, “has always held that there is a twofold order of knowledge, and that these two orders are distinguished from one another not only in their principle but in their** object**; in one we know by natural reason, in the other by Divine faith; the object of the one is truth attainable by natural reason, the object of the other is mysteries hidden in God, but which we have to believe and which can only be known to us by Divine revelation.”

Belief in the Doctrine of the Trinity is an act of Faith, whereas knowledge that the Doctrine of the Trinity is true (because of the utterly trustworthy authority of the God who reveals it) is not an act of Faith, but merely a conclusion of reason from reason’s consideration of the motives of credibility.

In your example of the doctrine of the Trinity, where the doctrine of the Trinity is the object, your natural reason isn’t really involved in “knowing” it’s truth; you “know” it it is true because the Church teaches it. Again, knowing is believing. b),lastly, the intellect may be induced to assent to a truth for none of the foregoing reasons, but solely because, though not evident in itself, this truth rests on grave authority — for example, we accept the statement that the sun is 90,000,000 miles distant from the earth because competent, veracious authorities vouch for the fact. This last kind of knowledge is termed faith, and is clearly necessary in daily life. If the authority upon which we base our assent is human and therefore fallible, we have human and fallible faith;** if the authority is Divine, we have Divine and infallible faith. If to this be added the medium by which the Divine authority for certain statements is put before us, viz. the Catholic Church, we have Divine-Catholic Faith **(see RULE OF FAITH).

 

[Texas_Longhorns]

How is it possible for a person “know” something is true and yet not “believe” that it is true. Eg. How could you ever say, I KNOW that there is milk in the refrigerator, but I don’t believe there is milk in the refrigerator?? To “know” something is true is to “believe” it is true.

Nita,

In a broad sense the words knowledge and belief can be (and often are) used interchangeably. But in a strict philosophical sense (which is sometimes necessary when dealing with technical issues) the two words are mutually exclusive. A simple way to understand it is to say that “knowledge” is a term used for a truth we have arrived at by the use of our reason alone, whereas “belief” is a truth that we accept on the word of another.

 

[Birdmanman]

Texas_Longhorns:
Hi Texas;
To begin, in my terminology (and this is relevant for Nita), what you say is “belief” I call “assent”, and what you say is “knowledge” I call “conclusion”. When I say “knowledge” I mean “justified, true, assent”, which is not conclusion, since assent and conclusion are distinct. A justified, true, conclusion would simply be called a valid and sound conclusion in my terminology. In my last post I tried to use your terminology, which I think caused Nita some confusion, since I find that some people use the classical definition of knowledge as “justified, true, belief (assent)”. In my terminology, it is possible to conclude something perfectly without knowing it, since assent is always a choice a person can make.

If the motives of credibility make it a conclusion of reason (what you call knowledge) that both God and The Church are utterly trustworthy, and saying something is “utterly trustworthy” means that the what is taught by the utterly trustworthy source is true, then it is likewise a conclusion of reason (what you would call knowledge) that all that God and The Church teach is true. [Here I am speaking, of course, of the Church’s Magisterium in dogmatic matters of faith and morality]. An analogy might help show how reason concludes this: Let us say that, a man somehow learns through various means (the motives of credibility) that his friend is infallible in all that he says, from which the man then concludes “Whatever my friend says is certainly true.” His friend then tells the man that the friend was in a car accident on this date at this time. Since the man has already concluded that whatever his friend tells him is true, and what his friend just told him was “I was in a car accident”, then the man has likewise concluded that what his friend just told him is true, not because the man could find out, on his own, that his friend was in a car accident, but because his friend has proposed it to him, and he knows his friend is infallible. Reason must conclude that each thing taught by an infallible teacher is true.

This does not mean that anyone has to assent to (believe in) what the infallible teacher or infallible friend says, since one can always choose to be unreasonable, irrational, and distrust things that are already concluded, yet not accepted, as true.

“So, the two points to consider are 1) the external source that reveals to us a proposition that we could not know without this revelation; and 2) the particular doctrine that is revealed. Since we were unable to arrive at certain knowledge of the doctrine if it was not revealed to us, we accept the doctrine as an act of Faith in the one revealing.”

The external source is already known, through reason’s consideration of the motives of credibility, to be God, and thus infallible. God reveals the particular doctrine. Reason concludes that what is infallibly revealed is also infallibly true, therefore, reason concludes that the particular infallibly revealed doctrine is also infallibly true. Reason didn’t get their on its own, since it needed God to reveal the particular doctrine in order to conclude that that particular doctrine was true; but once God did reveal that particular doctrine, and the doctrine is concluded reason to be revealed by God, then the doctrine is necessarily concluded by reason to be absolutely true because it is revealed by God. The doctrine is not concluded to be true in itself because of the implicit truth of the doctrine, but is instead ONLY concluded to be true because of the authority of the one who reveals it. But this does not mean that reason did not conclude it to be true.
Yet simply because reason concludes this does not mean that (in my terminology) the person knows it, or that the person assents to it.