Here is a quote from a blog post in which it is suggested that matters in Scripture exist which to believe is never essential to the faith even if you know they are there:
In the Summa Theologica, Thomas Aquinas responds to an objection that everything in scriptures is a matter of faith:
"[O]f things to be believed some of them belong to faith, whereas others are purely subsidiary, for, as happens in any branch of knowledge, some matters are its essential interest, while it touches on others only to make the first matters clear. Now because faith is chiefly about the things we hope to see in heaven, 'for faith is the substance of things hoped for,' [Hebrews xi.1] it follows that those things which order us directly to eternal life essentially belong to faith; such as the three Persons of almighty God, the mystery of Christ's incarnation, and other like truths. . . . Some things, however, are proposed in Holy Scripture, not as being the main matters of faith, but to bring them out; for instance, that Abraham had two sons, that a dead man came to life at the touch of Elisha's bones, and other like matters narrated in Scripture to disclose God's majesty or Christ's incarnation."
Sweethearts Seeking Sanctity : Geocentrism: A Dangerous Pseudoscience
http://sweetheartsseekingsanctity.blogspot.com/2014/05/geocentrism-dangerous-pseudoscience.html
Now, there is such a thing as a footnote (number 45) giving us the reference for this quote:
Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae II-II, q. 1, a. 6, ad 1, quoted in William E. Carroll, "Creation, Evolution, and Thomas Aquinas," Revue des Questions Scientifiques 171 (2000): 319-347
Before agreeing with the next words of the blog post, namely ...
Cosmology is one of those subjects in scriptures which do not “order us to eternal life” but serves to “bring out” or illustrate a matter of faith and to “disclose God’s majesty.” Since cosmology is not a matter of faith, it follows that it cannot be doctrine. If I believed the entire universe went around the moon, I would be mistaken, but I would not be a heretic.
... let us see if the William E. Carroll from whose article "Creation, Evolution, and Thomas Aquinas," might not have dishonestly given the context in a truncated fashion. Did either of the two Sweethearts Seeking Sanctity, specifically Anthony whose blog post it is, bother to look up Summa theologiae II-II, q. 1, a. 6, ad 1?
I happen to know the passage rather well, since some time before 2000. I will give you the whole article:
Article 6. Whether those things that are of faith should be divided into certain articles?
Objection 1. It would seem that those things that are of faith should not be divided into certain articles. For all things contained in Holy Writ are matters of faith. But these, by reason of their multitude, cannot be reduced to a certain number. Therefore it seems superfluous to distinguish certain articles of faith.
Objection 2. Further, material differences can be multiplied indefinitely, and therefore art should take no notice of them. Now the formal aspect of the object of faith is one and indivisible, as stated above (Article 1), viz. the First Truth, so that matters of faith cannot be distinguished in respect of their formal object. Therefore no notice should be taken of a material division of matters of faith into articles.
Objection 3. Further, it has been said by some [Cf. William of Auxerre, Summa Aurea] that "an article is an indivisible truth concerning God, exacting [arctans] our belief." Now belief is a voluntary act, since, as Augustine says (Tract. xxvi in Joan.), "no man believes against his will." Therefore it seems that matters of faith should not be divided into articles.
On the contrary, Isidore says: "An article is a glimpse of Divine truth, tending thereto." Now we can only get a glimpse of Divine truth by way of analysis, since things which in God are one, are manifold in our intellect. Therefore matters of faith should be divided into articles.
I answer that, the word "article" is apparently derived from the Greek; for the Greek arthron [Cf. William of Auxerre, Summa Aurea] which the Latin renders "articulus," signifies a fitting together of distinct parts: wherefore the small parts of the body which fit together are called the articulations of the limbs. Likewise, in the Greek grammar, articles are parts of speech which are affixed to words to show their gender, number or case. Again in rhetoric, articles are parts that fit together in a sentence, for Tully says (Rhet. iv) that an article is composed of words each pronounced singly and separately, thus: "Your passion, your voice, your look, have struck terror into your foes."
Hence matters of Christian faith are said to contain distinct articles, in so far as they are divided into parts, and fit together. Now the object of faith is something unseen in connection with God, as stated above (Article 4). Consequently any matter that, for a special reason, is unseen, is a special article; whereas when several matters are known or not known, under the same aspect, we are not to distinguish various articles. Thus one encounters one difficulty in seeing that God suffered, and another in seeing that He rose again from the dead, wherefore the article of the Resurrection is distinct from the article of the Passion. But that He suffered, died and was buried, present the same difficulty, so that if one be accepted, it is not difficult to accept the others; wherefore all these belong to one article.
Reply to Objection 1. Some things are proposed to our belief are in themselves of faith, while others are of faith, not in themselves but only in relation to others: even as in sciences certain propositions are put forward on their own account, while others are put forward in order to manifest others. Now, since the chief object of faith consists in those things which we hope to see, according to Hebrews 11:2: "Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for," it follows that those things are in themselves of faith, which order us directly to eternal life. Such are the Trinity of Persons in Almighty God [The Leonine Edition reads: The Three Persons, the omnipotence of God, etc.], the mystery of Christ's Incarnation, and the like: and these are distinct articles of faith. On the other hand certain things in Holy Writ are proposed to our belief, not chiefly on their own account, but for the manifestation of those mentioned above: for instance, that Abraham had two sons, that a dead man rose again at the touch of Eliseus' bones, and the like, which are related in Holy Writ for the purpose of manifesting the Divine mystery or the Incarnation of Christ: and such things should not form distinct articles.
Reply to Objection 2. The formal aspect of the object of faith can be taken in two ways: first, on the part of the thing believed, and thus there is one formal aspect of all matters of faith, viz. the First Truth: and from this point of view there is no distinction of articles. Secondly, the formal aspect of matters of faith, can be considered from our point of view; and thus the formal aspect of a matter of faith is that it is something unseen; and from this point of view there are various distinct articles of faith, as we saw above.
Reply to Objection 3. This definition of an article is taken from an etymology of the word as derived from the Latin, rather than in accordance with its real meaning, as derived from the Greek: hence it does not carry much weight. Yet even then it could be said that although faith is exacted of no man by a necessity of coercion, since belief is a voluntary act, yet it is exacted of him by a necessity of end, since "he that cometh to God must believe that He is," and "without faith it is impossible to please God," as the Apostle declares (Hebrews 11:6).
New Advent > Summa Theologica > Second Part of the Second Part > Question 1 Faith > 6 Article Should the things to be believed be divided into a certain number of articles?
http://newadvent.com/summa/3001.htm#article6
Let me first stress the question posed in the article. Whether the object of faith can be divided into a certain number of articles (Apostolic Creed having 12 or 14 depending on division, the Creed of St Athanasius having 40). Not whether everything in the Bible is to be believed. Especially not whether some things in the Bible are not to be believed.
Let me then stress what the first objection was, I quote again from the New Advent site:
Objection 1. It would seem that those things that are of faith should not be divided into certain articles. For all things contained in Holy Writ are matters of faith. But these, by reason of their multitude, cannot be reduced to a certain number. Therefore it seems superfluous to distinguish certain articles of faith.
What is taken for granted is that Bible is inerrant in every aspect. What is being argued is that since Bible has an infinity of aspects, faith cannot be divided into a finite number of articles.
Now, let me quote the answer in full, unlike what William E. Carroll did. I will stress words he left out.
Reply to Objection 1. Some things are proposed to our belief are in themselves of faith, while others are of faith, not in themselves but only in relation to others: even as in sciences certain propositions are put forward on their own account, while others are put forward in order to manifest others. Now, since the chief object of faith consists in those things which we hope to see, according to Hebrews 11:2: "Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for," it follows that those things are in themselves of faith, which order us directly to eternal life. Such are the Trinity of Persons in Almighty God [The Leonine Edition reads: The Three Persons, the omnipotence of God, etc.], the mystery of Christ's Incarnation, and the like: and these are distinct articles of faith. On the other hand certain things in Holy Writ are proposed to our belief, not chiefly on their own account, but for the manifestation of those mentioned above: for instance, that Abraham had two sons, that a dead man rose again at the touch of Eliseus' bones, and the like, which are related in Holy Writ for the purpose of manifesting the Divine mystery or the Incarnation of Christ: and such things should not form distinct articles.
What does Anthony conclude?
Biblical cosmology cannot be doctrine.
What should he conclude?
Biblical cosmology cannot be a distinct article of faith.
What is the difference? One is that there are doctrines that are not articles of faith in themselves.
But another is that each distinct article of faith - which are finite in number - gives occasion to a potentially infinite number of doctrines - one for each Bible passage that is actively contested in relation to the article.
There is a connexion. Every doctrine is about an article of faith or about a commandment in the decalogue or related to the double command of charity or about a petition in the Lord's Prayer.
So, Biblical cosmology can touch, primarily as articles: first one saying God is Creator, and the one which says the Holy Ghost has spoken through the prophets.
There are obviously articles of cosmology which are not Biblical. Earth not being a globe but instead a disc can not very well be reconciled with Holy Writ once we know geography, since the latest flat earth maps show land masses as having a midpoint in North Pole (probably after a Hindoo idea) and three corners verging towards the South rim: Americas, Africa, SE Asia. Bible requires four corners. We could get four corners more easily if we allow the globe to be a globe and do not distort the landmasses to suit an idea of North Pole as "centre point" and "South rim as periphery".
But as Anthony suggested with a wrong example, if I were a flat earthist, I would be wrong but not an heretic. I could for instance be ignorant of geography and count Jerusalem as centre of a flat disc and Americas as a fable. That would be wrong, but not heretical. The four corners would be the same as one version of what I consider they might be: NW, NE, SE and SW corners of the Old World, a k a Europe, Asia and Africa. My other option, as a round Earth admitter (let's not call it globe earth believer, it is not doctrine) would be to replace Cape of Good Hope with Cape Horn as SW corner. And to see Atlantic Ocean as a secondary incursion into the four cornered land mass. Of course a third option would be to consider the four corners as referring to a pre-Flood landmass, in which case flat earthers would just possibly be able to say, escaping heresy, that after the Flood the fourth corner is missing. And still adher to the North Centre/South Rim map. I would not do that. Four corners does just not require it.
But there are other articles of cosmology, which, though not articles of faith are still to be believed because they are in the Bible.*
As the "objection 1" states as a premiss and as the "reply to objection 1" does not argue against.
I am sorry, but William E. Carroll has - 14 years ago in Revue des Questions Scientifiques 171 (2000): 319-347 - given himself to the abject practise of quote mining - of using a quote, not only to make a point strange to the person quoted, but even worse, to make it appear, by truncation of context, that the person quoted agrees with one. At least on one essential where this is not the case.
Before finalising such an accusation, I must of course read that article, I have not done so yet. But I find it significant that Anthony quotes a piece lacking the final words that clarify context and the meaning in which faith "is not directed to" things like Abraham having two sons (at age hundred, later he had more) or Elisha's relics raising a man from the dead. I must either think Anthony was an inattentive reader of William E. Carroll, or that Anthony was himself quote mining William E. Carroll - or that, as my main suspicion lies - William E. Carroll was deliberately quote mining. This is way beyond just sloppy.
Now, if and when I read the article from 14 years ago, I will give an update on whether my culprit is William E. Carroll. Meanwhile I will pubish this post of mine, link to it under the post of Anthony, and hope that this time he publishes it. He has already twice not published comments (he has comment validation on, I have free comments) I wrote under it.
My main suspicion of Anthony is that he took the quote as given by Carroll on faith - on human faith in a fellow Catholic or supposed such. And never bothered to check it himself, since he counted on such a publication not publishing anything without checking.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibliothèque Marguérite Audoux
St Elisabeth daughter of the King of Hungary
widow in Marburg**
19-XI-2014
* All real discoveries of Galileo through the telescope, observations as opposed to his conclusions, are not concerned. There were in both processes 1616 and 1633 just two theses where he was uttering something in conflict with Biblical cosmology.
** In oppido Marpurgi, in Germania, depositio sanctae Elisabeth Viduae, Regis Hungarorum Andreae filiae, ex tertio Ordine sancti Francisci, quae, pietatis operibus assidue intenta, miraculis clara migravit ad Dominum.
No comments:
Post a Comment