The Duty of Accepting Divine Revelation as Proposed by the Catholic Church

Chapter XXVIII.—The Duty of Accepting Divine Revelation as Proposed by the Catholic Church

Art. 1.—Indifferentism and Liberalism.

I.—Absolute Indifferentism.

This doctrine denies the necessity of any, even of Natural, Religion (D. 1703). It is the fruit of Atheism or Agnosticism or Pantheism. The practical application of these principles may be read in such books as La Foi Laïque, by F. Buisson. Jaurès, in a discourse made in the Chamber of Deputies (11th February, 1895), said: “Si Dieu lui-même se dressait devant les multitudes sous une forme palpable, le premier devoir de l’homme serait de refuser l’obéissance, et de le considérer comme l’égal avec qui l’on discute, non comme le maître que l’on subit.”

II.—Moderate Indifferentism or Latitudinarianism.

This form of belief recognises some duties to God and some form of worship. That the worship must be nebulous in character is shewn by the fact that some (e.g., Jules Simon) deny the utility and efficacy of prayer. Félicité de Lamennais held that: “If moral life is lived in accordance with what is right, eternal salvation of the soul can be reached by the profession of any faith” (D. 1613, 1617). As thus expressed the doctrine can only be characterised as “Indifferentism.”

III.—Liberalism.

There are three periods of Liberalism.

First Period.

Félicité de Lamennais founded in 1830 the paper called L’Avenir to defend the rights of the Church. He proposed separation of Church from State to secure freedom for the Church, and he defended the civil liberty of every form of worship as a means of reconciling Faith and Science.

Gregory XVI in his Encyclical Mirari Vos (1832) condemned this opinion as paving the way for Indifferentism. The disciples of de Lamennais at once accepted the condemnation. De Lamennais himself at first accepted, but afterwards attacked the Church in his book Paroles d’un Croyant, which was condemned (1834). De Lamennais died in 1854 without any sign of submission.

Second Period.

After the discourse given by Montalembert at the Congress of Mechlin 1863, Pius IX again condemned Liberalism in his Encyclical Quanta Cura (1864). With this Encyclical was published the Syllabus of modern errors.

Third Period.

Leo XIII in his Encyclical Immortale Dei (1885) confirmed the teaching of Gregory XVI and of Pius IX. But he also stresses the principle that there can be no compulsion regarding the adoption of the Catholic Faith; and quotes St. Augustine: “credere non potest homo nisi volens.”

Again, in the Encyclical Libertas (1888) Leo XIII condemns unrestrained liberty for different forms of religion.

Finally, Pius X in Encyclical Pascendi (1910), in letters regarding the errors of Le Sillon, and in Encyclical Vehementer Nos confirms the condemnations already pronounced. Continuity of doctrine may be seen by comparison of these utterances with those of Boniface VIII in Unam Sanctam (D. 469), of Martin V (D. 640-682), of Leo X (D. 773), etc.

Art. 2.—The duty of professing the truths of Natural Religion.

I.—There is a moral obligation binding each individual to profess Natural Religion.

(a) First Argument. Man needs religion to attain to his natural end.

Major: The end to which man is naturally directed is the knowledge of Supreme Truth and the love of Supreme Goodness.

Minor: But to reach this knowledge and love, man must endeavour to think rightly of God, to obey Him, and to manifest to Him interiorly and exteriorly subjection and love, in which manifestation religion consists.

Conclusion: Therefore man needs religion to attain to his natural end.

The Major is proved (1) from the standpoint of intellect and (2) from the standpoint of will.

(1) The intellect is directed to the knowledge of truth. But no truths are more necessary than the knowledge of the First Cause of our nature, of the Supreme Law of moral action, of the Source of help necessary for right living. Therefore our intellect is naturally directed to the knowledge of God, Author of nature, in so far as He is knowable from the works of creation.

(2) The will is directed to the love of that which is good as shewn by the intellect. But the intellect knows not only particular goods but good in general, and cannot find the fulness of good except in the Supreme Goodness of God. (“Inquietum est cor nostrum donec requiescat in Te”). Therefore the will is naturally directed to love God, Author of nature, above all things.

The Minor is proved.

Unless man endeavours to reach the knowledge and love of God by the exercise of religion, the knowledge remains merely speculative, and has no influence on life.

Moreover, by the law of nature there is an obligation of subjection, honour, gratitude and love. Man in his whole nature depends on his Creator, by whom he is preserved and helped. Accordingly by the law of nature he owes to God sentiments of subjection, honour, gratitude and love.

Subjection, honour, gratitude and love constitute internal worship. There is need of external worship, as God is the Author of the body as well as of the soul, and if internal worship be really sincere, it will externate itself.

Finally there is need of social worship as God is likewise the founder of society.

Because worship is due to God, the virtue of religion is said to belong to the cardinal virtue of Justice.

II.—Corollaries.

1° Our duties towards God are of first importance because they are immediately founded upon the Eternal and Natural Laws. The highest virtues are the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity which directly regard God. Next in importance is the virtue of Religion.

2° Our duties towards God are the indispensable foundation of all other duties. If the Eternal Law and the Natural Law, which is a reflex of the Eternal, be disregarded, there is neither foundation nor sanction for family, social, or civil responsibilities.

III.—Chief acts of Natural Religion.

Prayer and Sacrifice are the chief acts of Natural Religion—prayer, in recognition of God’s supremacy and of human needs; sacrifice in atonement for human faults.

Art. 3.—The duty binding the individual to accept Divine Revelation sufficiently proposed, and to seek it, if there is a serious probability of its existence.

I.—Proof derived from the law of God.

Revelation, sufficiently proposed, comes from God, Creator, Lord, Source of truth. Hence the duty of acceptance. If the objection be raised that the obligation of accepting Divine Revelation is supernatural and not natural, and therefore is not based on the Natural Law, St. Thomas replies that it is clearly against the Natural Law (because an act of disobedience) to oppose an interior grace or an external grace which may come through the ministry of preaching, even though grace be supernatural. The unbeliever who resists supernatural grace, contravenes directly the Supernatural Law and indirectly the Natural Law.

II.—Proof derived from the end of man.

Major: Man by the law of nature is obliged to strive to attain his last end, whether natural or supernatural.

Minor: But without acceptance of Divine Revelation man cannot efficaciously attain his last end.

Conclusion: Therefore he is bound to accept Divine Revelation.

The Major is proved: The Natural Law directly obliges man to strive to reach his last end—the knowledge of God from creatures, and natural love of God above all things. But the Natural Law indirectly obliges man to tend to his supernatural end, inasmuch as it obliges man to obey God when He imposes positive precepts for a supernatural purpose.

The Minor is proved: As already shewn, Revelation is morally necessary for such knowledge of the truths of Natural Religion as shall be speedily acquired, certain and without admixture of error. Revelation is absolutely necessary for the knowledge of supernatural truths, on the acceptance of which salvation depends.

III.—There is grave obligation of seeking after Divine Revelation, when there is serious probability of its existence. Both the law of God and the end of man establish the necessity.

IV.—“Out of the Church there is no salvation.”

This is a time-honoured principle, and it is of importance to understand it rightly.

Origen wrote: “Outside this house, i.e., outside the Church, no one is saved.”

St. Cyprian wrote: “He cannot have God for his father, if he has not the Church for his mother.”

St. Augustine wrote: “Who denies that there is no salvation outside the Church?” (De Baptismo, Book IV.).

Theologians distinguish between the body and the soul of the Church.

To the body of the Church belong the baptised who profess the Catholic Faith under the magisterium of the Church.

To the soul of the Church belong those who preserve internal Faith and Charity.

Those who culpably remain outside the body of the Church cannot be saved.

Those who inculpably remain outside the body of the Church can be saved, if by Faith and charity or through perfect contrition they belong to the soul of the Church.

Hence for salvation it is absolutely necessary (necessitate medii):

1° to belong really to the soul of the Church;

2° for adults to belong to the body of the Church either really or in desire, for infants to belong really to the body of the Church through valid baptism (Cf. D. 1647).

V.—Difficulties.

(1) Is there not an element of truth in all forms of Religion?

The element of truth which may exist in false doctrine is not the soul of the doctrine, but the servant of error.

(2) Does not the obedience of Faith clash with the independence and dignity of reason?

The “independence” of reason is limited by truth. It is not a sign of rational independence to claim the liberty of believing that 2 + 2 = 5. Reason is only genuinely free, when its conclusions are in accordance with truth. As Auguste Nicolas has written: “To be free is to do what one wishes in doing what one should.”

Art. 4.—The obligation binding the civil authority and society to accept Divine Revelation sufficiently proposed.

I.—Proof drawn from the law of God, Author of civil society.

God is Creator, Lord, Benefactor of society. Hence society owes to God social worship and the obedience of Faith if God clearly reveals supernatural truth.

II.—Proof based on the end of society.

The end of society—the temporal well-being of citizens—depends on their spiritual well-being. Accordingly civil society cannot neglect to take notice of Revealed Truth, provided that the genuineness of the Revelation is clear.

III.—How the civil authority should accept Divine Revelation.

1° Negatively.

The State should make no decree in prejudice of Revealed Religion. The State has no just right to prevent the preaching of the Word of God, the administration of the Sacraments, the celebration of Divine worship, judgment regarding the morality of human acts, the education of ministers of Religion, the well-being of Religious Communities, etc.

The State cannot deny the indissolubility of marriage, nor sanction divorce (D. 1719-1721, 1767).

2° Positively and indirectly.

The State ought to defend in the temporal order not only Natural but Revealed Religion. St. Thomas writes: “Unbelievers who have never received the Faith, such as Jews and Gentiles, are not to be forced to believe, because to believe is a matter of the will.” Writing of a Catholic state in medieval times and of apostates from the Faith: “Such should be compelled even by corporal punishment to fulfil what they promised, and to hold what they at one time accepted.” He goes on to argue that if coiners and other malefactors were condemned to death by secular princes, much more should apostates be not only excommunicated but put to death. The Church was merciful and therefore did not condemn unless after a first and a second admonition. If admonitions were useless the Church excommunicated, and left further action to the secular power (IIᵃ IIᵃᵉ q 10 a 8; q 11 a 3).

3° Positively and directly.

The State should cherish Revealed Religion by:

(1) The encouragement of the preaching and propagation of the Faith.

(2) The building of churches.

(3) The immunity of clerics from military service.

(4) Participation in Divine worship, thus securing public veneration for the names of God and of Christ.

Constantine the Great wished to be known as an “external bishop” (episcopus ad extra), and Charlemagne as “the devoted defender and humble helper of Holy Church.”

What can the Church demand from (a) an heretical (b) an indifferent, or (c) an unbelieving state?

(a) From an heretical State the Church can demand that Catholics living therein should be free in the profession of their religion.

(b) An indifferent State should regard the Church as a legitimate society, and hence not to be opposed but protected.

(c) An unbelieving State should not prevent the preaching and propagation of the Christian Faith.

IV.—Difficulties.

(1) May the Catholic State tolerate the worship of unbelievers and of heretics?

The State cannot tolerate per se (i.e., without a grave cause) that which is evil and injurious to God. Per accidens the worship of unbelievers and of heretics may be tolerated to avoid greater evil. But the Catholic State cannot sanction by law freedom of worship. “The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes; she is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe, and they are intolerant in practice because they do not love.”

(2) Is not the duty of the Catholic civil authority to look after the temporal well-being of its subjects, and therefore to be neutral in matters religious?

Temporal well-being is essentially subordinate to spiritual well-being. The natural and the supernatural should not be separated.

Under the illuminating guidance of Père Garrigou-Lagrange, we have explored the errors of Modernism and found its roots in Agnosticism, Pantheism and Rationalism. Surely the examination of these errors manifests by contrast the sanity and beauty of Catholic Teaching. May we be worthy of the blessings which are ours! The earliest of Christian Apologists reminds us that we, if worthy of our destiny, “shall be delivered from the servitude of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God” (Rom. viii. 21). And Our Blessed Lord indicates the means whereby we shall reach this glorious consummation: “If you continue in My word, you shall be My disciples indeed, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John viii. 31, 32).