Suitability and Necessity of Revelation

Chapter XIII.—Suitability and Necessity of Revelation

Art. I.—Heterodox opinions and the teaching of the Church.

I.—Heterodox opinions.

1° Rationalists deny the suitability of Revelation on the following grounds:

(A) Revelation is superfluous in regard to the natural truths of Religion. Reason alone can discover them. Moreover, Revelation would obstruct the progress of Science by imposing an unchanging doctrine expressed according to the ideas of a particular period.

(B) Revelation of Supernatural truths implies the abdication of Reason through obligation of believing unintelligible mysteries.

Semi-Rationalists admit the suitability of revelation of natural truths, but reject revelation of supernatural mysteries.

2° Traditionalists and Fideists maintain that the supernatural revelation of natural truths is absolutely necessary. Revelation is transmitted by tradition.

The following authors have developed this idea:

Joseph de Maistre (1753-1821) precursor of Traditionalism.

Vicomte de Bonald (1753-1840).

Félicité de Lamennais (1772-1854). A milder form of Traditionalism was taught by P. Ventura (1791-1861), Bautain, Bonnetty.

II.—The Church’s doctrine.

1° Revelation of the natural truths of Religion is not absolutely necessary.

Reason alone can from created things acquire sure knowledge of existence of God, etc.

2° Revelation of the natural truths of Religion is morally necessary, so that all the truths may be known “quickly, with firm certitude, and with no admixture of error by all.” The totality of these truths does not exceed the physical power of human reason, but exceeds its moral power because of many impediments.

3° Revelation of supernatural truths is absolutely necessary on the supposition of the gratuitous elevation of man to a supernatural end.

Art. II.—Rational defence of the Church’s doctrine.

I.—Revelation is not even morally necessary in order that men may know some natural truths relating to God.

Note different kinds of Necessity:

• Necessity
  • absolute (intrinsic) — (angles of triangle = 2 right angles)
  • hypothetical (extrinsic)
    • arising from wish to attain an end
      • strict, e.g., physical incapacity.
      • moral — incapacity morally speaking, i.e., in view of human circumstances and limitations
    • arising from an agent — necessity due to force.

The first principles of reason are naturally known without tradition or revelation, and as, from these principles, reason is led to knowledge of God’s existence, therefore human reason without the help of revelation may easily know some natural truths concerning God. Theologians commonly deny the possibility of invincible ignorance regarding the primary principles of the Natural Law and the existence of God.

II.—Revelation is morally necessary for knowledge of the totality of the truths of Natural Religion.

Moral necessity means a necessity which arises from the ordinary conditions and limitations of human nature involving great difficulty in the achievement of certain ends. It is clear that in ordinary conditions of life men cannot without revelation overcome difficulties in the way of knowing firmly and without error the sum of the truths of Natural Religion. St. Thomas assigns the qualities of sacred knowledge which make Revelation morally necessary: (1) Knowledge quickly acquired; (2) Knowledge more widely spread; (3) Knowledge firmly believed.

Confirmation:

1° From the history of Philosophy.

(a) Amongst the Greeks.

Heracleitus and Democritus were materialists. Parmenides and Anaxagoras taught more spiritual principles, but with great admixture of error. Socrates, Plato and Aristotle evolved a true method of philosophy, but with many errors intellectual and moral.

Epicureans and Stoics relapsed into materialism.

Pyrrhonists became sceptics.

Neo-Platonism degenerated into Pantheism.

(b) In modern times, many errors have prevailed:

Sensism and materialism in England.

Exaggerated idealism of Descartes and his followers.

Agnosticism of Kant and his school.

Pantheism of Fichte, Schelling and Hegel.

Positivism of Comte.

2° From history of nations and religions.

(1) Degradation of idea of God.

(2) Degeneration of worship into licentious rites.

(3) Immortality of soul denied.

(4) Crime rampant.

III.—Revelation of supernatural mysteries is hypothetically but strictly necessary.

1° Necessity proved:

It is strictly necessary that an end should be known in order that human actions may be directed thereto. And as a supernatural end cannot be known without revelation, it follows that the revelation of this end, and of the means necessary thereto, is strictly necessary on the assumption of gratuitous direction of man to this end.

2° It is suitable that Revelation should be at first obscure.

If God were to reveal His essential nature the worship of the creature would be no longer free and meritorious.

IV.—Suitability of the gratuitous direction of the human race to a supernatural end.

1° From the standpoint of God and His infinite goodness.

It is befitting to Highest Good, i.e., to God to communicate to His creatures what is intimate in Him. In God the Divine nature is most intimate. Hence it is befitting that God should give His creature participation in His Divine nature, i.e., supernatural grace.

“The higher a nature is, the more intimate his gift.” “Summum Bonum est sui diffusivum.”

2° From the standpoint of man.

An elevation without which our natural desire, conditional and inefficacious, cannot be satisfied is befitting and at the same time gratuitous. But without elevation to a supernatural end our natural desire, conditional and inefficacious, of seeing God as He is in Himself cannot be satisfied. Therefore elevation of man to a supernatural end is befitting, and at the same time gratuitous.

The elevation is gratuitous because it exceeds the exigency of our nature. At the same time it is highly befitting, founded not on an inclination or direction to a supernatural end, but on the obediential capacity of human nature. After such elevation there ensues a positive inclination to a supernatural end, founded on the infused theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity.

V.—In a state of pure nature would the revelation of the sum of the natural truths of Religion be morally necessary?

(a) In a state of pure nature, man could have reached his natural end by knowledge of the principal truths of Natural Religion. Human nature would have been subject to ignorance and concupiscence, but would not have been wounded in its faculties as original sin wounded them.

(b) In a state of integrity of nature man, though not elevated to supernatural life, would have received from God the full perfection of nature, and modally supernatural privileges, e.g., immunity from ignorance, concupiscence, death and the conflict of passions. In this state there would have been a modally supernatural revelation in respect to the sum of the truths of Natural Religion.

Hence Revelation of the totality of the truths of Natural Religion is morally necessary, not in a state of pure nature, but in our present state, i.e., on the presumption of man directed to a supernatural end.

Rationalists should remember that whilst supernatural truths are incomprehensible and undemonstrable, they are not irrational or unintelligible. In every statement of supernatural truth, we know, at least analogically, what subject and predicate signify.