Questions for Quare...

[Quaremerepulisti]

Questions for Quare....(con't)....

4. Can a material heretic, or material schismatic for that matter, possess supernatural faith?

Before we get there, let's ask something more fundamental.  Let's stop pretending that the narrow lens of post-Reformation theology and neo-Thomist philosophy is the proper way to view absolutely everything, or that it puts everything in focus, or that the only way to formulate questions is using its terminology.

Could the Apostles, or anyone else for that matter who encountered Jesus during His time on earth, have had supernatural faith that He was the Son of God?  If so, could they have had it prior to seeing Him perform miracles?

I will argue yes to both questions: Scripture has it that Peter said "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" to which was the reply "...flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but My Father Who is in heaven..." indicating that it is not a natural conclusion based on seeing things like walking on water, etc., but a supernatural revelation.

So there must be something operative in humanity which allowed one to see - at one, without discursive argumentation - that Christ is the Son of God.  Sure, it's a revelation from heaven, but be something operative in humanity which permits one to receive such revelation.  Let's see if we can agree on these points before we move any further.

[St. Columba]

Could the Apostles, or anyone else for that matter who encountered Jesus during His time on earth, have had supernatural faith that He was the Son of God?  If so, could they have had it prior to seeing Him perform miracles?

Yes, absolutely.  No problem here.  In fact, I would think that it would even be possible without encountering the historical Jesus at all.  God can grant that grace whenever and however he wants.

So there must be something operative in humanity which allowed one to see - at one, without discursive argumentation - that Christ is the Son of God.  Sure, it's a revelation from heaven, but be something operative in humanity which permits one to receive such revelation.  Let's see if we can agree on these points before we move any further.

No, I disagree with this.  There is no logical necessity requiring that there be something, "operative in humanity" that gives humans the faculty to appropriate supernatural stimuli.

If you had prior knowledge that God acts on humans supernaturally, then yes, there would needs be something operative in humanity to facilitate this.  But we cannot assume that God has done this now, can we? That would be begging the question.

Thanks Quare!   

[Michael Wilson]

Here is Vatican I on the necessity of holding firm to the faith:
http://www.catholicplanet.org/councils/20-Dei-Filius.htm

Therefore, there is no parity between the condition of those who have adhered to the Catholic truth by the heavenly gift of faith, and the condition of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion. For those who have received the faith under the Magisterium of the Church can never have any just cause for changing or doubting that faith. Therefore, giving thanks to God the Father, who has made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the Saints in light, let us not neglect so great a salvation, but with our eyes fixed on Jesus, the author and the completion of our Faith, let us hold fast to the confession of our hope, without wavering. (Hebrews 12:2; 10:23).

[St. Columba]

Hi St. Columba, it's good to see you back, friend. 

Hi Xavier!  Nice to interact with you again!  Thank you for always being so warm and kind!

Xavier, what would you do in the following scenario?

Behind 100 curtains are 100 monstrances, 1 monstrance behind each curtain.  99 of them have consecrated hosts in them, but one of them, you do not know which, contains an unconsecrated host.  You know all of this information beforehand.

A random curtain is opened, say curtain 41.  Do you worship, with latria, the contents in monstrance 41?

[Quaremerepulisti]

Could the Apostles, or anyone else for that matter who encountered Jesus during His time on earth, have had supernatural faith that He was the Son of God?  If so, could they have had it prior to seeing Him perform miracles?

Yes, absolutely.  No problem here.  In fact, I would think that it would even be possible without encountering the historical Jesus at all.  God can grant that grace whenever and however he wants.

OK good.

So there must be something operative in humanity which allowed one to see - at one, without discursive argumentation - that Christ is the Son of God.  Sure, it's a revelation from heaven, but be something operative in humanity which permits one to receive such revelation.  Let's see if we can agree on these points before we move any further.

No, I disagree with this.  There is no logical necessity requiring that there be something, "operative in humanity" that gives humans the faculty to appropriate supernatural stimuli.

If you had prior knowledge that God acts on humans supernaturally, then yes, there would needs be something operative in humanity to facilitate this.  But we cannot assume that God has done this now, can we? That would be begging the question.

Thanks Quare!   

Aack.  I really hate the English language sometimes; it's sometimes really difficult to be precise and say exactly what I mean.  I didn't mean "must" as meaning logical necessity but see how you could have interpreted it as such.  What I really meant was:

Necessarily, if God granting supernatural faith is possible, then there is something operative in humanity making its reception possible.

IOW, there's a difference between two worlds: one where such condition doesn't exist, meaning it would have been impossible for the Apostles or anyone else to have supernatural faith in Christ as Son of God; and another where it does hold, meaning it is possible (whether or not God grants it).

[Quaremerepulisti]

Here is Vatican I on the necessity of holding firm to the faith:
http://www.catholicplanet.org/councils/20-Dei-Filius.htm

Therefore, there is no parity between the condition of those who have adhered to the Catholic truth by the heavenly gift of faith, and the condition of those who, led by human opinions, follow a false religion. For those who have received the faith under the Magisterium of the Church can never have any just cause for changing or doubting that faith. Therefore, giving thanks to God the Father, who has made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the Saints in light, let us not neglect so great a salvation, but with our eyes fixed on Jesus, the author and the completion of our Faith, let us hold fast to the confession of our hope, without wavering. (Hebrews 12:2; 10:23).

This doesn't mean that it is impossible to adhere to Catholicism as merely a human opinion but without the heavenly gift of faith, nor that it is impossible to have faith even while (per accidens) following a false religion.

[St. Columba]

Necessarily, if God granting supernatural faith is possible, then there is something operative in humanity making its reception possible.

Haha....that sounds like modal logic.  Actually Quare, you piqued my interest into studying the topic further!  Are you by chance engaged in any research in the area of modal logic?

Ok, the way you worded the above makes it sound like there must be something operative in humanity already, if God granting supernatural faith is possible.  I might reword as:

Necessarily, if God granting supernatural faith is possible, then it is possible that there is something operative in humanity making its reception possible.

In plain english: If God could grant supernatural faith, then it follows that humans could receive it.  But just because God could do it, does not necessarily mean that humans already possess the capacity.

Sounds like a lot of pedantry, but depending on how the argument evolves, this subtle distinction might be relevant.  It seems to me that you are going to use the claim that humans have the capacity to appropriate supernatural faith as a springboard to the next part of the argument.  Truth is, humans might have it now, or not....but it is definitely possible that they have it.

IOW, there's a difference between two worlds: one where such condition doesn't exist, meaning it would have been impossible for the Apostles or anyone else to have supernatural faith in Christ as Son of God; and another where it does hold, meaning it is possible (whether or not God grants it).

Yes, I agree.

[St. Columba]

....nor that it is impossible to have faith even while (per accidens) following a false religion.

Really?  How so, Quare?  How can an eastern orthodox, for example, have supernatural faith, if supernatural faith demands absolute certitude, and it is impossible that Eastern Orthodoxy be integrally true (if we grant that Catholicism is true)?

[Michael Wilson]

St. Columba,
the term: "material heretics" denotes those who having been baptized validly, but raised in a false religion, have not deliberately denied one of the articles of the faith. The example you gave of a person born in Orthodoxy: they have supernatural faith by the virtue of their Baptism, and as long as they do not deliberately deny any of the truths of the Catholic faith they retain the virtue of faith.

[Non Nobis]

https://archive.org/details/catechismonmoder00lemiuoft/page/24

John Lamb, so this comes from:  Catechism on Modernism according to the encyclical 'Pascendi dominici gregis' of his Holiness Pius X?

Maybe you could have said more, but are the quoted answers directly from Pope St. Pius X  (based on a quick look, it seems that may be the case)?

Here it is in a (downloaded) PDF: https://catholicharboroffaithandmorals.com/Catechism%20on%20Modernism.pdf#page=7

I find this note near the beginning of the book:

N.B.
"This catechism reproduces, in its entirety and in the exact order of its ideas, the Encyclical of our Holy Father the Pope 'On the Doctrines of the Modernists.' The Text used is that of the Official Translation published with authority.

A little more than a text dump, although you might have explained this.

Still open to more explanation; and certainly a better understanding than I have.

Here  is the encyclical itself:  http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius10/p10pasce.htm

[John Lamb]

John Lamb, so this comes from:  Catechism on Modernism according to the encyclical 'Pascendi dominici gregis' of his Holiness Pius X?

Yes. It breaks down the encyclical.

Maybe you could have said more, but are the quoted answers directly from Pope St. Pius X  (based on a quick look, it seems that may be the case)?

I believe they all are, yes.

[John Lamb]

John Lamb, I simply don't respond to text dumps without an actual argument.

You said something which you yourself admitted is akin to Modernism and subjectivism. I was only providing the text which explains why you might be right about that.

As for an 'argument' – you said that a religion which provides you with "spiritual benefit" is "true for you". Of course this all hangs on what you mean by "spiritual benefit", which you have left ambiguous. If you mean an objective spiritual benefit, then of course any religion is true to the extent to which it provides true spiritual benefit. But if you mean a merely perceived or subjective spiritual benefit, that is no way to assess the veracity of any religion. If you deny that there's any real distinction between a true and merely perceived spiritual benefit, or affirm that each individual soul is reliably able to determine for themselves what is true spiritual benefit (no need for any kind of spiritual director, everyone is his own shepherd and spiritual master), or that a religion is true to the extent to which its members derive a perceived (not necessarily true) spiritual benefit from it, or that religious doctrine or dogma is derived primarily from these spiritual experiences and the intellect's reflection upon them (i.e. not from divine revelation proceeding through a divinely established teaching authority / 'magisterium') – then I'd venture to say you're some kind of Modernist or subjectivist. My 'argument' rests on the authority of the Roman church in declaring what these terms (Modernist/Subjectivist) mean, hence the "text dump". If you want me to explain why these two things are harmful spiritually and religiously, that's a separate argument.

[Michael Wilson]

Re. The Catechism of Modernism: For me it was much clearer than the Encyclical, as the Q. and A. Format helps to break down the information and make it easier to understand. Pascendi in my estimation is one of the most difficult Encyclicals, because of the convoluted nature of Modernism. I highly recommend the Catechism for those who have had difficulties with the Encyclical. 

[Xavier]

My dear Daniel, your worldview seems to be what could be called dogmatic agnosticism: "you can't know anything for certain, and that sure is for certain!" This is confirmed in your post script, "edit - speaking of which, the phrase "beyond a reasonable doubt" is itself misleading. No matter how much evidence you have, there will always be the possibility that Christ is not God." Let me know if that's not what you believe.

But there's just this tiny problem with the Danielite approach - society would instantly collapse if it were followed! Imagine if anybody applied the principle - we can't know anybody is guilty for certain (they could possibly be innocent), therefore all murderers and rapists, criminals and terrorists can't be imprisoned, but should be set free. We can't ever know for certain that a prescription is safe (it could possibly be poison), so we should never take a medicine. You see, this would logically end in complete inaction and paralysis. That's wrong. Certainty beyond reasonable doubt, or moral certainty, definitely exists, and it is always safe to act on, and not safe to ignore.

What is your view on Eucharistic miracles? Btw, only God can effect Transubstantiation as an efficient cause. Here, just like Jesus promised in Scripture, He miraculously changes the Bread into His Body and the Wine into His Blood. For certain doubting Thomases, Daniel, Jesus gives such manifest evidence by transforming them visibly, so that you and all others can come to certainty that He is God.

1. If a person can say the Nicene creed sincerely in Church, he has the Faith. That's why we do profess it in Holy Mass before receiving Holy Communion. There's no need to complicate a simple thing. If someone firmly believes Jesus is God and the Eucharist is His Flesh, he should adore the Lord's Body and His Precious Blood when the Host and the Chalice are elevated, and then go forward to receive the Lord. If he does not have faith, or refuses to adore God in the Eucharist, then he cannot come forward and must be denied Holy Communion. This applies primarily to adults. St. Augustine says as much. For children, it suffices to make explicit acts of faith in the Eucharist, and some formula of faith like "O my God, I believe all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches, because Thou hast revealed it, Who can neither deceive nor be deceived". This prayer suffices to receive the gift of faith. God is always giving His grace to us, like the sun which shines on all, as St. Thomas says. It is man who sometimes shuts his eyes to the light. What is faith? (1) Faith is an infused supernatural virtue by which we believe firmly all that God has revealed. (2) the Saints and mystics speak of it as a kind of supernatural light in the soul enlightening the intellect, even as supernatural charity inflames the will (3) and it is also a prelude to the beatific vision (4) Finally, it is necessary for salvation, for no one can please God without faith, as St. Paul says. Since God is Supreme Truth, and the whole universe was made simply by His speaking His Word, it is right and necessary to believe by faith all that He declares to be True.

2. Daniel said. "Miracles / prophecies can't provide 100% certainty. They can provide proof "beyond a reasonable doubt", but that's not sufficient. It needs to be beyond all doubt. Otherwise there is always room for error... and faith, we know, is incompatible with doubt and error." Reply: Proof beyond reasonable doubt is sufficient to act upon; by act upon, I mean to be baptized, if one is non-Christian, or, if one was already Catholic but then fell into unbelief, to return to the practice of the Faith, after a good confession; if a King sent us his son sealed with the royal seal, we could know it was obviously from the king, and we should listen to his word, and do it; so much more when Almighty God, the King of Kings, sent His Son into the world, after having testified to Him by all the Prophets; and having confirmed His Word in so many ways - by the miracles He worked, and by those done in the lives of His Apostles, in the apparitions of His Mother, in all the lives of so many Saints, and finally in Eucharistic miracles, the effects of which are still visible to our eyes - we ought therefore to believe all that He has told us of, "Pilate therefore said to him: Art thou a king then? Jesus answered: Thou sayest that I am a king. For this was I born, and for this came I into the world; that I should give testimony to the truth. Every one that is of the truth, heareth my voice." (Jn 18:37)

Modernists err because they make subjective experience more important than objective truth. In this way, anything that is a nice experience becomes "true for you". "If it feels good, do it". Not at all. The Christian view is that Objective Truth comes first. But because there is in fact an objective difference between the Eucharistic Lord, and an unconsecrated bread, Christians who firmly believe in and receive Him can also experience the reality of His presence. We discussed something along these lines in another thread about contemplation. The Saints and mystics encourage contemplation, St. Thomas and St. Montfort did so. Fr-G.L wrote a thesis about this in Three Ages of the Interior Life. Dom Gueranger also said the same in writing about the gifts of the Holy Spirit. We should meditate firmly on what we believe; and as we increase in faith, and the gifts of the Holy Spirit grow in our soul, we will come to experience more deeply the Truth we have believed. Christian Faith rests on the testimony of God. It is nourished by practice, it is confirmed by experience. If we want to know the Faith is true, we should practice it wholeheartedly. Be a good Catholic. Abstain from sin. Strive to grow in holiness. The more we do, the more our conviction will grow, Jesus Christ has given us so many ways to come to a strong and solid Faith in Him.

Well, SC, that's a tough one. As we sometimes say "Lord Jesus, I adore You in all the Tabernacles You are present throughout the world, especially those where You are least loved and adored". I would say "Lord Jesus, I adore You in the Tabernacle where You are Present"!

[St. Columba]

St. Columba,
the term: "material heretics" denotes those who having been baptized validly, but raised in a false religion, have not deliberately denied one of the articles of the faith. The example you gave of a person born in Orthodoxy: they have supernatural faith by the virtue of their Baptism, and as long as they do not deliberately deny any of the truths of the Catholic faith they retain the virtue of faith.

.....all of which bolsters my point: According to St. Thomas, faith is not even necessary for Baptism.  So, of course, Orthodox Baptisms can be valid from a Catholic perspective, and yet, possessing an ostensibly valid baptism, and thus granted supernatural faith, they nevertheless believe heresy.

....all of which shows, it is possible to have supernatural faith according to Catholic theology, and yet not possess absolute certitude that one own's faith is correct (which is impossible for an Orthodox to have).

To wit: If one can have supernatural faith while believing error, then, a fortiori, one can have supernatural faith while not having absolute certitude, since someone who is in objective error in the content of their beliefs cannot possibly have certitude.