Whether Sacred Doctrine is a matter of argument

[utunumsint]

Here is what St. Thomas says aboutt his question:

Question 1. The nature and extent of sacred doctrine
Article 8. Whether sacred doctrine is a matter of argument?

I answer that, As other sciences do not argue in proof of their principles, but argue from their principles to demonstrate other truths in these sciences: so this doctrine does not argue in proof of its principles, which are the articles of faith, but from them it goes on to prove something else; as the Apostle from the resurrection of Christ argues in proof of the general resurrection (1 Corinthians 15). However, it is to be borne in mind, in regard to the philosophical sciences, that the inferior sciences neither prove their principles nor dispute with those who deny them, but leave this to a higher science; whereas the highest of them, viz. metaphysics, can dispute with one who denies its principles, if only the opponent will make some concession; but if he concede nothing, it can have no dispute with him, though it can answer his objections. Hence Sacred Scripture, since it has no science above itself, can dispute with one who denies its principles only if the opponent admits some at least of the truths obtained through divine revelation; thus we can argue with heretics from texts in Holy Writ, and against those who deny one article of faith, we can argue from another. If our opponent believes nothing of divine revelation, there is no longer any means of proving the articles of faith by reasoning, but only of answering his objections — if he has any — against faith. Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.

I really liked this description when I read it, and I was wondering what you all think about it.

It seems to me that St. Thomas is saying that if someone does not accept any of our Catholic doctrines, then all we can do is try our best to argue for faith in general. Are discussions on the Eucharist, or the Virgin birth, or miracles, useless when directed to one who has no faith? And how can you argue for faith in general? This seems especially strange when faith seems to be something gifted to a person.

Many of the topics discussed in this forum (philosophy) have to do with what Aquinas calls the preambles to faith. But even if we were to win all such arguments, would it produce faith in the one who does not have faith? Or only predispose them to receive the gift?

God bless,
Ut

 

[EnchantedEve]

I think it depends on the person you are arguing with. I am very much a hard-headed rational type, and I was persuaded of the Truth of the Catholic Faith rationally long before it embraced me spiritually. I think a charitable, rational approach works well. I do not think trying to convince people we are right works, but rather that the Truth is such that it is irresistable to the rational mind and the open heart. Just leave it on the table, and, like a delicious dinner, people will eagerly eat it up!

 

[utunumsint]

I think it depends on the person you are arguing with. I am very much a hard-headed rational type, and I was persuaded of the Truth of the Catholic Faith rationally long before it embraced me spiritually. I think a charitable, rational approach works well. I do not think trying to convince people we are right works, but rather that the Truth is such that it is irresistable to the rational mind and the open heart. Just leave it on the table, and, like a delicious dinner, people will eagerly eat it up!

I suppose Aquinas would agree.

Since faith rests upon infallible truth, and since the contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated, it is clear that the arguments brought against faith cannot be demonstrations, but are difficulties that can be answered.

Faith cannot contradict reason.

God bless,
Ut