May 2, 2010

  • Question 244 - Is Canon 1 of Vatican Council I legitimate?

    Dr. Sungenis, If I understand the matter correctly, it is generally accepted that for any teaching of the Church to be considered de fide, the pronouncement must pertain to faith or morals. While reading over the documents of Vatican I, the first canon in the section on revelation caught my attention. It reads: If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema. It seems safe to say that the canon has nothing explicit to say on morals. It also strikes me that this is not a pronouncement on faith either, since it says that God can be known by the natural light of human reason. The passage is a reference to Rom. 1:20, a revealed source, but, given the wording, the canon should be able to stand on its own, without needing to make reference to Romans. The canon tells us what we are able to know from nature, therefore, it is a pronouncement on epistemology, not faith. I have always understood that any pronouncement which has an anathema attached to it should be considered as de fide. My questions are, 1) is this de fide or not? 2) Does this in fact relate to faith or morals? 3) Can an anathema be attached to something that is not de fide? 4) Can the Church make a de fide pronouncement on a purely epistemological point? I appreciate any help you can give me to clear up these questions, Robert. Thank you for taking some time to consider these points with me. Gregory

     

    R. Sungenis: Gregory, to #1, yes; to #2, yes. Since Scripture reveals to us that reasoning from the existence of the creation is a sufficient basis to know, honor, thank and be judged by God (Romans 1:18-21), then it is a matter of faith, since anything that is revealed by divine inspiration (as are the facts in Romans 1:18-21) is a matter of faith, especially those things dealing with the Last Four Things. As to #3, no; as to #4, no, but nothing in Scripture is "purely epistemological." To be purely epistemological there could be no Scripture addressing the point at issue.

     

    Gregory 2: I was tempted to respond that your solution is overly fideistic, since you seem, at first glance, to be saying that the only way we can know that God is revealed through nature is by consulting Romans 1.  But you, of course, wrote that Scripture is sufficient, not necessary.  It is possible, and indeed probable, that one would come to this apart from revealed sources. 

     

    A brilliant distinction and an elegant response.  That's why you're the teacher and I'm the student.  Thank you again, Robert.