Телеграм канал «Ecce Verbum»

What is theological faith ?

Although the concept of faith is one of the central elements in Christianity, and in religion in general, there is often great confusion and misunderstanding among many people regarding the issue of faith. Yet faith is the necessary beginning of the path to salvation, the first step in turning toward God. So what is this faith that forms the root of our justification?

Faith in general

Let us begin with the concept of faith understood generally, as a concept that can be used not necessarily in a religious context. Faith in general is the firm acceptance of some statement as true based on someone’s testimony. Therefore, faith differs from a hypothesis or opinion, which are not firm acceptances but merely conjectures.

Faith also differs from ordinary knowledge, which is likewise a firm acceptance of something as true, but one acquired through investigation and the discernment of a truth evident to reason.

Theological faith - the divine virtue

The divine virtue of faith is a kind of faith, since it too consists in accepting specific statements (dogmas - revealed truths of faith) as true on account of someone’s testimony. This faith is divine because the testimony on which it is based is divine - God Himself is the source of Revelation containing the dogmas given for belief, which we accept as absolutely true. Christian faith is furthermore supernatural, since we arrive at the act of faith with the help of supernatural grace, not through natural striving alone.

The authority of God - the source of absolute certainty

Since faith is the firm acceptance of something as true, its characteristic feature is certainty. Faith is not a supposition that something might be true, but a strong conviction of truth. Christian faith is not, after all, the result of our personal reflections, but the effect of the fact that God Himself - the most perfect Being - has revealed specific truths to us, and God can neither lie nor err.

Doubts in faith

Since faith is based on God’s testimony, it excludes voluntary doubting but does not exclude involuntary doubts. Because faith consists in accepting truths that are largely not naturally accessible to reason nor obvious to it, involuntary doubts may arise in the believing person. Such doubts may arise as a result of temptations, but they may also be the effect of traits stemming from the personality of a specific individual, their psyche, especially their emotionality. They do not then signify a lack of faith. However, it must be remembered that divine faith excludes voluntary (rational) doubts, since God’s authority surpasses all human authority and possesses the greatest, absolute guarantee of truth.

Definition of faith

Theological faith can thus be defined as the firm, supernatural acceptance as true of all that God has revealed, on account of the reliability of God Himself revealing it. Christian faith requires absolute adherence to all Christian dogmas. In this way, our obedience to God is expressed, our recognition of Him as the highest authority, and our response to the grace from His side, which constitutes our first step toward Him and toward our salvation.

Literature: Fr. M. Sieniatycki, Outline of Catholic Dogmatics

#faith

St. Thomas Aquinas on whether we may reprove our superiors

Fraternal correction, as an act of love, is incumbent upon everyone in relation to any person whom one has a duty to love, if one finds in that person something that needs to be corrected by admonition... However, since a virtuous act should be moderated by due circumstances, when admonishing superiors, subordinates should do so in a fitting manner, and thus not boldly and rudely, but courteously and respectfully... It must be known that in the case of a threat to the faith, subordinates should admonish superiors even publicly.

And thus even Paul, who was subordinate to Peter, rebuked him publicly, and the reason for this was the threatening disturbance in matters of faith.

And this is how the Gloss of Augustine on the letter to the Galatians (2:14) understands it, saying: “Peter himself gave an example to superiors, that in the case of straying from the straight path they should not take offense at the admonitions of subordinates.”

Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 33 a. 4: Whether we are bound to reprove our prelate?

#obedience #correction

Marriage is a natural institution

The concept of "natural" does not mean - "from nature." It means "proper to man." Man is not defined by what he shares with the animal world, but by what distinguishes him from it. This is, after all, the general logical principle that allows us to differentiate between various objects and entities. It is a certain primer. Natural, that is, inscribed in human nature. Man: a purposeful being, superior to animals thanks to his particular abilities, capable of achieving his optimal development in and through community.

(We do not recognize natural law by the fact that a given phenomenon occurs in nature. If that were the case, we would have to deem, for example, a wife devouring her husband as consistent with natural law, following the example of mantises. Natural law (ius naturale) is a philosophical and legal concept referring to universal moral norms derived from reason or the order of creation, rather than from biological empiricism. Therefore, homosexuality is and will remain a deviation inconsistent with natural law, and marriage is by nature indissoluble.)

Marriage is earlier than the state. It's the foundation of society. State authority can only protect it, but has no right to change it. This is an obvious truth, but apparently worth repeating: Marriage has a mixed character. An important public law factor arises from the public interest in recognizing and promoting, through legally established institutions, naturally occurring social structures, including the permanence of marriage. Its breakdown is a violation of the social order, carrying consequences whose burden will be borne by the entire community. And the nullification of the investments that the entire community has made in the form of concessions and privileges granted to spouses and given to the family. What morality calls the evil of divorce has its very concrete and measurable social cost. Financial, ethical, and also in the realm of social trust capital.

“on the one hand, numerous initiatives for the good of the family should be supported, which Christians promote together with other people of good will (for example, wedding anniversary celebrations), while on the other hand, the risk of permissiveness in fundamental questions concerning the essence of marriage and the family must be avoided (cf. John Paul II, January 28, 2002, Letter to Families, 17).

"...Among such endeavors, initiatives that contribute to the public recognition of the indissolubility of marriage through civil legislation must not be lacking (cf. ibid., 17). A firm opposition to any legal and administrative measures that introduce divorce or equate free unions—even homosexual ones—with marriage should be accompanied by constructive attitudes, expressed in proposing legal solutions aimed at improving the social recognition of true marriage within legislation that unfortunately allows divorce.”

#marriage

Note on some questions regarding the participation of Catholics in political life. 

II. Central points in the current cultural and political debate

2. Civil society today is undergoing a complex cultural process as the end of an era brings with it a time of uncertainty in the face of something new. The great strides made in our time give evidence of humanity’s progress in attaining conditions of life which are more in keeping with human dignity.  

The growth in the sense of responsibility towards countries still on the path of development is without doubt an important sign, illustrative of a greater sensitivity to the common good. At the same time, however, one cannot close one’s eyes to the real dangers which certain tendencies in society are promoting through legislation, nor can one ignore the effects this will have on future generations.

A kind of cultural relativism exists today, evident in the conceptualization and defence of an ethical pluralism, which sanctions the decadence and disintegration of reason and the principles of the natural moral law. Furthermore, it is not unusual to hear the opinion expressed in the public sphere that such ethical pluralism is the very condition for democracy.[12] As a result, citizens claim complete autonomy with regard to their moral choices, and lawmakers maintain that they are respecting this freedom of choice by enacting laws which ignore the principles of natural ethics and yield to ephemeral cultural and moral trends,[13] as if every possible outlook on life were of equal value. At the same time, the value of tolerance is disingenuously invoked when a large number of citizens, Catholics among them, are asked not to base their contribution to society and political life – through the legitimate means available to everyone in a democracy – on their particular understanding of the human person and the common good. The history of the twentieth century demonstrates that those citizens were right who recognized the falsehood of relativism, and with it, the notion that there is no moral law rooted in the nature of the human person, which must govern our understanding of man, the common good and the state.

🔗 continued1, 🔗2 🔗3

#politics

Saint Thomas and sexual sins

"We tend to think that when the Church speaks of morality, the only moral issue is the sexual sphere. In reality, there are far greater and more important matters."

Some seemed upset when Leo said sexual sins are not as grave as other sins, like injustice and oppression. This is theologically sound, and, incidentally, also accords with Aquinas. (Note that Leo did not say sexual sins are not important -- of course they are; they are mortal sins -- only that they are not as grave as certain other sins. Yet, there is an excessive focus on sex in today's world.)

St. Thomas Aquinas says the worst sin of all is hatred of God. He also explains that, all things being equal, "Spiritual sins are of greater guilt than carnal sins." "[O]f the seven capital sins five are spiritual (pride, greed, wrath, envy, sloth), and two carnal (lust, gluttony)." The reason sexual sins are grave is not merely because they are illicit pleasure, or wrong use of the body; they are fundamentally grave because they use another person as an object for personal gratification. Each person is created in the image of God, with profound dignity, and is meant to be loved, not used.

To use another person for one's own ends is a desecration of the human person, who bears the imago Dei. And that unlawful use can be applied towards many ends: lust, power, greed, etc.

https://drbo.org/summa/question/19205.htm

"Rebel like Athanasius during the Arian crisis"

You are probably familiar with the SSPX prayer that they must rebel like Athanasius during the Arian crisis.

The Arian crisis actually concerned precisely the fact that bishops began to ignore the will and decision of the pope. The main charge was that Arian bishops were convening synods without the pope's consent, meaning they were automatically invalid. Additionally, they ignored his rulings, especially when the pope revoked the suspension of Bishop Athanasius.

Therefore, unfortunately, the analogy to the Arian crisis, that the SSPX are like Athanasius, is inaccurate. Athanasius always sought salvation in the See of Peter and saw Peter as the guarantor of truth.

"...[Pope] Julius, having concluded that Athanasius's further stay in Egyptian territory for the time being was fraught with danger, summoned him to his side. To the bishops gathered in Antioch, from whom he had just then received a letter, he sent a writing accusing them of secretly introducing something new contrary to the exposition of the faith accepted by the Council of Nicaea and of failing to summon him to the synod in defiance of the Church's laws: for there exists a binding law for priests that all actions taken against the opinion of the Roman bishop must be deemed invalid. The proceedings initiated against Athanasius in Tyre and in Mareotes were not an act of due process."

source: Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, chapter 10

Converting by force
Benedict XVI

“Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. ‘Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God.’”

(2006 Regensburg Lecture)

Authentic truth is discovered through dialogue, conscience, and faith, not through force or ideological imposition. Whenever violence is used in the name of truth, the truth itself is corrupted: “The truth cannot impose itself except by virtue of its own truth.”

(Dignitatis Humanae)

“The Church proposes; she imposes nothing. She respects individuals and cultures, and she honors the sanctuary of conscience.”

(Homily, Jan 2006)