Absolute certainty regarding articles of faith?

Started by Quaremerepulisti, September 06, 2017, 06:59:01 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

An aspiring Thomist

Quote from: Non Nobis on September 26, 2017, 06:40:50 PM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 26, 2017, 11:11:00 AM
QuoteI agree that this is objectively the case, but how do you know subjectively beyond all doubt that you have an authentic desire for union with God? Perhaps you have a false one, like Hindus have.


Because I know what I experienced, and I have taken the Cartesian route to refute skepticism, which not only refutes the idea that sensory experiences are illusions, but all types of experiences.  (I just would like to point out that despite your vehement a priori anti-skepticism you are resorting to a type of it here.)

SOME experiences ARE illusions.  Someone may think with absolute honesty that he either knows by a quiet faith, or by some experience, that the Consecrated Host is only a symbol of Christ's Body. If he instead had TRUE faith, then God would instead be ensuring that his felt knowledge corresponded to the reality that the Host WAS Christ's Body. God brings the true certitude, but not to just anyone who feels he has it.

If a priest tells someone that the Eucharist is only symbolic, an assent to this proposition is simply not faith no matter how certain he thinks he is.

But some experiences do give absolute certainty. I think I read from St. Teresa that there are intellectual experiences which you can be certain are from God, because the Devil or any other being cannot possibly give such an experience because it is purely intellectual.

An aspiring Thomist

#136
QuoteQuote from: An aspiring Thomist on September 25, 2017, 02:46:34 PM
Your opinion about faith is not the same as pre Vatican II theologians. Did you read my quotes from Lagrange?

Yes, I read them, thank you. I agree with Lagrange. If you can show me where my view seems to diverge from Lagrange's, that would be helpful.


Quote
Furthermore, if what you say is true then grace and faith are not needed to come to the same kind of certainty about the truths of the faith that reason can.

1. Jesus is who he says he is (morally certain due to miraculous proofs)
2. He founded the Catholic Church which is infallible (morally certain due to miraculous proofs).
3. The Church teaches God is a Trinity.
4. Therefore, God is a Trinity (insert any article of faith here).

But this would mean that faith is only morally certain, whereas I agree that faith is absolutely certain. The faith you describe here is fallible human faith, not infallible divine faith. Again, I agree that faith is absolutely certain, and that is what I voted for in the poll.

But you don't agree it's absolutely certain to us. When you say it is absolutely certain, you mean that presupposing God is revealing it is infallibly true and that our assent is infallibly true presupposing God is revealing. The point is that to US we have the same kind of certainty through reason and through faith if what you say is correct. I guess the only difference in you frame work is that God gives us extra help to ignore the possibility of error. But in principle someone can do that naturally.

As far as Fr. Tanquery goes, I haven't read anything from him so I don't know exactly how to interpret him. For instance, by the second kind of certainty of faith in which we can doubt, does he mean there are actual reasons the intellect can doubt while considering everything or can it doubt only by ignoring Revalation/faith and only looking at reason? I don't know how to interpret him. However, this interpretation you give him means that we have no absolute certainty, because you divorce objective certainty from the believers mind.

So in the end for us, reason and faith give us the same kind of certainty about the truths of the faith, which is Simi-Palagian.

An aspiring Thomist

John I thinks this contradicts you. He is clearly referring to us having absolute certitude subjectively:

QuoteResting on the principle that habits are specifically differentiated by their formal objects, Thomists, since the days of Capreolus, have never ceased to defend the essential supernaturalness of faith, and its superiority to all natural certitude. On this point Suarez [1216] is in accord with Thomists, but with one exception. To believe God who reveals, and to believe the truths revealed concerning God, are for him two distinct acts, whereas for Thomists they are but one.
Thomists are one in recognizing that the act of infused faith is founded [1217] on the authority of God who reveals, and hence that God is both that by which and that which we believe, [1218] as light, to illustrate, is both that by which we see, and that which is seen, when we see colors. [1219] But this authority of God can be formal motive only so far as it is infallibly known by infused faith itself. Were this motive known only naturally, it could not found a certitude essentially supernatural.

Who has infused grace? Not God, not objective mind independent reality. People have infused faith and just like when the intellect knows something the person knows something, so to when infused faith knows something the person knows something. I can quote other passages, but this is sufficient.

John Lamb

#138
I agree, with Lagrange, that infused supernatural faith is infallibly certain. Again, this accords with Fr. Tanquerey's four-fold distinction of certainty, where he describes divine faith as carrying the certitude of infallibility. We do not have this kind of infallibility with human faith, because a human authority is fallible. Neither do we have it with the conclusions of our reason, because our reason is fallible. In an act of faith, my intellect says: "I firmly believe, I am certain that is true, and that it cannot be false, because it rests on the infallible authority of God revealing." Yes, this is a kind of absolute subjective certitude, you are right, because it describes the mind's perfect and unhesitating assent to revealed truth. When I denied absolute subjective certitude earlier, I was referring to the notion that faith carries with it the exclusion of (all possibility of) doubt. Now let me make this clear: faith does indeed exclude doubt - like I said above, "I firmly believe . . .", that is, without doubting whatsoever. When I say that faith is open to the possibility of doubt, what I mean is that the intellect is capable of expressing doubts about revealed truths (maybe God doesn't exist / maybe Christ didn't rise from the dead), however, in faith, there is no assenting to any of these doubts (no, I am certain that God exists / no, I am certain that Christ rose again). The possibility of doubt just means that it is logically possible for the intellect to entertain the idea that revealed truths are false, in a way that the intellect cannot logically entertain the idea that self-evident truths, like 2+2=4, are false. If it were not logically possible for the intellect to express doubts on matters of faith, then there could be no temptations against faith, which is contradicted by the fact that all or most Christians, including great saints, are sometimes tempted in this way.
"Let all bitterness and animosity and indignation and defamation be removed from you, together with every evil. And become helpfully kind to one another, inwardly compassionate, forgiving among yourselves, just as God also graciously forgave you in the Anointed." – St. Paul

Non Nobis

#139
Quote from: An aspiring Thomist on September 26, 2017, 09:03:12 PM
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 26, 2017, 06:40:50 PM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 26, 2017, 11:11:00 AM
QuoteI agree that this is objectively the case, but how do you know subjectively beyond all doubt that you have an authentic desire for union with God? Perhaps you have a false one, like Hindus have.


Because I know what I experienced, and I have taken the Cartesian route to refute skepticism, which not only refutes the idea that sensory experiences are illusions, but all types of experiences.  (I just would like to point out that despite your vehement a priori anti-skepticism you are resorting to a type of it here.)

SOME experiences ARE illusions.  Someone may think with absolute honesty that he either knows by a quiet faith, or by some experience, that the Consecrated Host is only a symbol of Christ's Body. If he instead had TRUE faith, then God would instead be ensuring that his felt knowledge corresponded to the reality that the Host WAS Christ's Body. God brings the true certitude, but not to just anyone who feels he has it.

If a priest tells someone that the Eucharist is only symbolic, an assent to this proposition is simply not faith no matter how certain he thinks he is.

But some experiences do give absolute certainty. I think I read from St. Teresa that there are intellectual experiences which you can be certain are from God, because the Devil or any other being cannot possibly give such an experience because it is purely intellectual.

If someone truly has such an experience, he can be certain it is from God.  But if someone only THINKS he has had such an experience - e.g. he thinks something is purely intellectual when it is not - he may be subjectively certain but wrong.

St. Paul knew with absolute certainty that it was Christ who converted him.   Some protestant fanatic may think Christ did the same for him, but it would not be true.
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Jesus, Mary, I love Thee! Save souls!

An aspiring Thomist

Okay John, I am glad that we might be in agreement. So I think the issue is how we are able to doubt. Are we able to doubt if we are intellectually honest or only if our will moves the intellect to only focus on the truths of the faith through reason alone?

An aspiring Thomist

Quote from: Non Nobis on September 26, 2017, 09:48:47 PM
Quote from: An aspiring Thomist on September 26, 2017, 09:03:12 PM
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 26, 2017, 06:40:50 PM
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 26, 2017, 11:11:00 AM
QuoteI agree that this is objectively the case, but how do you know subjectively beyond all doubt that you have an authentic desire for union with God? Perhaps you have a false one, like Hindus have.


Because I know what I experienced, and I have taken the Cartesian route to refute skepticism, which not only refutes the idea that sensory experiences are illusions, but all types of experiences.  (I just would like to point out that despite your vehement a priori anti-skepticism you are resorting to a type of it here.)

SOME experiences ARE illusions.  Someone may think with absolute honesty that he either knows by a quiet faith, or by some experience, that the Consecrated Host is only a symbol of Christ's Body. If he instead had TRUE faith, then God would instead be ensuring that his felt knowledge corresponded to the reality that the Host WAS Christ's Body. God brings the true certitude, but not to just anyone who feels he has it.

If a priest tells someone that the Eucharist is only symbolic, an assent to this proposition is simply not faith no matter how certain he thinks he is.

But some experiences do give absolute certainty. I think I read from St. Teresa that there are intellectual experiences which you can be certain are from God, because the Devil or any other being cannot possibly give such an experience because it is purely intellectual.

If someone truly has such an experience, he can be certain it is from God.  But if someone only THINKS he has had such an experience - e.g. he thinks something is purely intellectual when it is not - he may be subjectively certain but wrong.

St. Paul knew with absolute certainty that it was Christ who converted him.   Some protestant fanatic may think Christ did the same for him, but it would not be true.

Fair enough, but wouldn't the Protestant be intellectually dishonest or at least there would be some way for him to distinguish between a legitimate and non legitimate experience?

John Lamb

#142
Quote from: An aspiring Thomist on September 27, 2017, 05:33:17 AM
Okay John, I am glad that we might be in agreement. So I think the issue is how we are able to doubt. Are we able to doubt if we are intellectually honest or only if our will moves the intellect to only focus on the truths of the faith through reason alone?

It's more the latter. But that is a positive doubt.

So let me distinguish: faith excludes positive doubt, in other words, to have faith means not to doubt. However, the possibility of doubt means the possibility of doubting thoughts arising in the intellect, e.g. "Christ did not rise from the dead." As long as the intellect does not assent to these doubting thoughts, however, there is no positive doubt, and therefore no sin against faith. The same way that the intellect may be filled with lustful thoughts, but unless they are consented to, there is no sin. So, for example, St. Thérèse was filled with doubting thoughts towards the end of her life, as a trial of faith sent to her by God, but she never consented to any of these thoughts, but resolutely resisted them by constantly making acts of faith; hence, she did not ever sin against faith (by doubting), despite her mind being filled with the temptation of doubting thoughts. Similarly, St. Catherine of Sienna was filled with lustful thoughts for a period of time, as a trial sent to her by God, but she never consented to them and so never sinned. Faith excludes doubt, but not the possibility of any attack from doubting thoughts; just as chastity excludes lust, but not the possibility of any attack from lustful thoughts.

This is all I mean when I say that faith carries the "possibility of doubt". It does not mean that faith is not certain, it only means it is not absolutely impregnable to any attack of doubting thoughts; whereas self-evident truths such as "2+2=4" cannot even possibly or theoretically doubted, as the intellect has clear evidence of them (whereas the intellect remains in a kind of obscurity in regards to revealed truths).

And again, I don't think that faith is merely morally certain or probably certain; it is fully and infallibly certain as being revealed by God Himself.
"Let all bitterness and animosity and indignation and defamation be removed from you, together with every evil. And become helpfully kind to one another, inwardly compassionate, forgiving among yourselves, just as God also graciously forgave you in the Anointed." – St. Paul

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: Non Nobis on September 26, 2017, 06:40:50 PM
SOME experiences ARE illusions. 

Sensory experiences, yes; but pure mystical experiences, no.

Quaremerepulisti

Quote from: John Lamb on September 27, 2017, 06:08:47 AM
This is all I mean when I say that faith carries the "possibility of doubt". It does not mean that faith is not certain, it only means it is not absolutely impregnable to any attack of doubting thoughts; whereas self-evident truths such as "2+2=4" cannot even possibly or theoretically doubted, as the intellect has clear evidence of them (whereas the intellect remains in a kind of obscurity in regards to revealed truths).

Everyone will agree with this.  There are truths of faith which are certainly not (logically/metaphysically) necessary truths, as there are possible worlds where they are false (e.g. where the Incarnation did not occur); and there are truths which are arguably necessary (such as the Trinity) but the basis for the necessity (if it is the case) is the Divine essence, which we are unable to comprehend, and hence the necessity is epistemically unknowable for us.

QuoteAnd again, I don't think that faith is merely morally certain or probably certain; it is fully and infallibly certain as being revealed by God Himself.

OK.  Now again the question is the basis for the intellect's subjective absolute certainty.

There must be something specific about this world that makes the intellect able to know with subjective absolute certainty that the Incarnation and the Trinity are true, since there are possible worlds where they are false.

The answer will of course be that God has revealed these truths in this world, but then there must be something specific about this world that makes the intellect able to know with subjective absolute certainty that such revelation has in fact occurred, as distinguished from the mere claim that it has.

If recourse is had to deductions and inferences using reason made from external motives of credibility, faith becomes equivalent to reason, since the real formal motive of faith is one's reason and not God revealing - that is just an intermediate step on the epistemological chain.

If recourse is had, circularly, to "faith" (defined as that virtue by which the intellect assents to God's revelation) it is saying the intellect is able to know with subjective absolute certainty because it does.  It is therefore impossible for an unbeliever to attain to faith, since because he doesn't know, it is impossible for him to know (the very means for him to attain the knowledge isn't there by definition).  And it's a viciously circular epistemology besides even for the believer.  He knows the claimed revealed doctrines are true because he has faith, and he knows he has faith because he assents to the claimed doctrines.

The only answer, and the only one consonant with Trent and Orange, is that it is infused knowledge.  The best the unbeliever can do is ask God to enlighten his intellect to see which, if any, of the claimed revelations are true.



Non Nobis

#145
Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 27, 2017, 10:20:10 AM
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 26, 2017, 06:40:50 PM
SOME experiences ARE illusions. 

Sensory experiences, yes; but pure mystical experiences, no.

But couldn't someone feel subjectively absolutely certain that he had had such an experience, when in fact he had not?

Weren't there some at the time of Galileo who felt subjectively absolutely certain that the sun moved around the earth, because of what (they thought) the Church taught?

Who are you to say that none of these people honestly thought they had had a mystical experience?

A mystical experience brings absolute certainty; but THINKING you had one does not.

Faith brings certainty of the fact and certainty that you have faith, yet a protestant may THINK he has this faith.

A child old enough to say and mean the Creed may have faith and certainty without having had a "mystical experience" in the sense that you seem to mean (but maybe you could explain it more).  But (as St. Thomas too teaches) his faith is indeed infused by God.
[Matthew 8:26]  And Jesus saith to them: Why are you fearful, O ye of little faith? Then rising up he commanded the winds, and the sea, and there came a great calm.

[Job  38:1-5]  Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said: [2] Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words? [3] Gird up thy loins like a man: I will ask thee, and answer thou me. [4] Where wast thou when I laid up the foundations of the earth? tell me if thou hast understanding. [5] Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Jesus, Mary, I love Thee! Save souls!

Vetus Ordo

Quote from: Quaremerepulisti on September 27, 2017, 10:20:10 AM
Quote from: Non Nobis on September 26, 2017, 06:40:50 PM
SOME experiences ARE illusions. 

Sensory experiences, yes; but pure mystical experiences, no.

Can you share that mystical experience with us, Quare?

I'm genuinely interested.
DISPOSE OUR DAYS IN THY PEACE, AND COMMAND US TO BE DELIVERED FROM ETERNAL DAMNATION, AND TO BE NUMBERED IN THE FLOCK OF THINE ELECT.