9. The Credibility of Revelation
11. Criteria to Know if a Truth is Revealed by God
If a person is aware that God has revealed something, the most reasonable reaction will be to receive it with gratitude. One may understand well what is revealed (these are the mysteria late dicta), not fully understand it (mysteria secundum quid), or remain completely ignorant of the innermost logic of the transmitted truth (mysteria absoluta, also called mysteria stricte dicta).
Gratitude is the only reasonable reaction because God can neither deceive nor be deceived. It is not just that God will not do it; it is indeed impossible for him to do so.
A human being needs some evidence to confirm that it is God who reveals a truth; otherwise, it would not be reasonable to believe with the absolute certainty required by faith. Then, the right thing to do would be to believe only to the extent that reason shows the truth of some particular statement, or according to the amount of trust in the wisdom and good faith of the informant. None of these grounds warrant too firm an assent; a firm assent would be a faulty one, since it would entail an excessive, childish credulity. If this were the case, it would be sound to believe only up to a certain point.
Therefore, we have to know in some way that God is the one speaking. It cannot be known from the content of the revealed truth, since it is not self-evident for us; if it were, it would not be a matter of faith. We need some external testimony, similar to the way external signs vouch for the authenticity of a document: a seal, or the signatures of a notary public and some witnesses, even if it can also be confirmed by its content.
It is reasonable to accept a revelation when it meets certain criteria that identify it as such, that is, as something said by God. This is what the First Vatican Council teaches:
For the submission of our faith to be consonant with reason (cf. Rom 12:1), God has willed that external proofs of his Revelation, namely divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies, should be added to the internal aids given by the Holy Spirit. Since these proofs so excellently display God’s omnipotence and limitless knowledge, they constitute the surest signs of divine Revelation, signs that are suitable to everyone’s understanding. Therefore, not only Moses and the prophets but also and preeminently Christ our Lord performed many evident miracles and made clear-cut prophecies. Moreover, we read of the Apostles: “But they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the preaching by the signs that followed” (Mk 16:20).1
The same document adds later:
For all the many marvelous proofs that God has provided to make the credibility of the Christian faith evident point to the Catholic Church alone. Indeed, the Church herself, because of her marvelous propagation, her exalted sanctity, and her inexhaustible fruitfulness in all that is good, because of her catholic unity and her unshaken stability, is a great and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefutable proof of her own divine mission.2
12. Motives of Credibility
12a) Definition and Classification
In the above quotations, we find a list of the principal motives of credibility, that is, of the criteria used to prove that certain affirmations are made by God or, what is the same, by men who speak with authority in God’s name, and are transmitted to us completely and without error. The principal motives of credibility are miracles, prophecies, and the marvelous life of the Church.3
The motives of credibility are usually classified as follows:
(1) Motives external to man
i) Extrinsic to revealed truth itself
ii) Intrinsic to revealed truth itself
(2) Motives internal to man
i) Common to all: The admirable satisfaction of human aspirations toward justice, sanctity, and God
ii) Individual: The personal experience of a profound peace that the world cannot give (cf. Jn 14:27)
We will have the occasion to review some of these criteria in Chapter 13. Meanwhile, we can focus our attention on the first two: miracles and prophecies.
12b) The Notion of Miracle
The original meaning of the word miraculum (miraculous occurrence) is something admirable, something that causes astonishment. In theology, a miracle is an extraordinary and sensible fact that escapes the laws of nature. This definition follows the text of the First Vatican Council quoted in section 11 of this chapter. Miracles—external proofs of God’s revelation—display God’s omnipotence; they do not have any possible natural cause. They can have only God himself as their immediate cause.
As the definition indicates, only sensible miracles—only those occurrences that can be ascertained by the senses—qualify as criteria for credibility. Thus, for example, the miracle of transubstantiation does not have any demonstrative value because it is not observable by the senses.
To qualify, it must, likewise, be evident that a miraculous fact cannot be attributed to any natural power, corporeal or spiritual (angels and demons).
12c) The Possibility of Miracles
Those who deny the existence of God or his transcendence (his being really different from the world) also deny the possibility of miracles. Their reasoning is clear: If God does not exist, he cannot act; and if he is part of nature, he cannot act outside of it.
Conversely, God’s transcendence and omnipotence sufficiently explain the possibility of miracles since, as we said earlier, God can do anything that is not metaphysically impossible or morally evil.
Likewise, it is not unbecoming for God to perform miracles. These interventions do not imply that the natural laws that he has given the world are so uncertain and imperfect that corrections or exceptions are required in some cases. Miracles are simply spectacular or extraordinary signs of God’s power, which he uses in order to call our attention to something important for our salvation.
12d) Can We Know the Existence of Miracles?
Some deny the possibility of knowing whether something is a miracle or not. They claim that since we do not know all of nature’s power and laws, we cannot know if a specific event is beyond or against them.
Although this could well occur in many hypothetical cases, the miracles performed by God evade these dangers of confusion. Take, for example, Moses’ staff being converted into a serpent and back again into a staff. The discovery of a law accounting for it is highly improbable, even if all natural laws become known.
Miracles can be classified in three types, according to their degree of evidence. Two bodies occupying the same space, like Jesus’ entry into the Upper Room while the doors were closed, is a miracle of the first type. The resurrection of a dead person (like that of Lazarus or the Naim widow’s son) and giving sight to the blind belong to the second type. The third type includes the instantaneous conversion of water into wine and the multiplication of the loaves of bread.
The supernatural nature of all the above miracles is known with metaphysical certainty once their existence is known. On the other hand, there are other miracles of the third type (such as the calming of the storm) that, after their existence is known, are generally known with moral certainty, only, that is, through the circumstances that accompany them.
We should not overlook the clause “after their existence is known,” since the existence of a miracle (the fact that Lazarus was resurrected from the dead, for example) is not known with metaphysical certainty. Witnesses know it with physical certainty; those who hear about it know about it with moral certainty only. It is exactly the same with other historical events.
12e) Prophecies
The word prophet originally meant “he who speaks for another.” It comes from a Hebrew term meaning “he who talks to man in the name of God.” It is in this sense that we speak of Christ’s prophetic function. In this case, the terms prophet and teacher are equivalent.
The prophets frequently announced future events that could not be foreseen by human means. These predictions are called prophecies in apologetics. Moreover, the term prophecy has a broader sense, equivalent to revelation.
Prophecies are also mentioned in the text of the First Vatican Council, quoted in section 11, among those actions displaying God’s limitless knowledge.
Prophecy can be defined more precisely as an infallible prediction of a contingent future event, which can be foreseen with certainty only through supernatural illumination.
Thus defined, a prophecy is an intellectual miracle, and its author can be only God, who uses it as a sign, as he does with the sensible miracles. Many of the considerations applicable to the latter are also applicable to prophecies. Prophecies can be distinguished from simple conjectures.
13. The Force of the Motives of Credibility
Miracles and prophecies (and other motives of credibility) give us a moral certainty that the truths taught to us come from God without alteration or corruption by whomever performs these miracles or utters the prophecies. In other words, we know that what we are told is revealed by God.
Objectively speaking, the greatest certainty is offered by the external and extrinsic motives of credibility (miracles and prophecies). External and intrinsic criteria produce less certainty, internal ones even less. Among the internal criteria, the experience of a profound peace that the world cannot give is the weakest of all, due to its subjectivity and incommunicability.
Subjectively speaking, however, the order may be inverted; the last of these criteria may be the starting point of the path leading to faith for someone.
On the other hand, the intellect knows the motives of credibility with moral (not physical) certainty. Thus, it does not necessarily feel constrained to accept revelation as coming from God.
However, in the words of the First Vatican Council, these criteria, “especially miracles and prophecies … constitute the surest signs of divine Revelation, signs that are suitable to everyone’s understanding.”4 Thus, the moral certainty that they elicit is strong enough for the will to reasonably command the intellect to accept revelation as coming from God.
Usually, moral certainty is enough for people to responsibly make capital decisions. The certainty produced by these criteria is so strong that the will’s failure to order the intellect to assent would be a very serious fault.
14. The Motives of Credibility and Personal Dispositions
As in the case of natural revelation, certain personal dispositions are needed for a person to admit that something is supernaturally revealed by God. Religious truths affect the innermost part of man and dictate his whole behavior. Then, the will can pay more attention to some considerations that are alien to the fact of revelation itself, but affected by it. These truths are jointly presented by the intellect, which leads the will to admit or reject that God reveals something, although culpably in the latter case.
A person may accept the fact of revelation, or reject it. Sin and all its train push for rejection. Love for the truth and the desire to find God incline a person to accept the fact of revelation, though this entails numerous demands.
Footnotes:
1. DS 3009.
2. DS 3013.
3. Cf. CCC, 156.
4. DS 3009.
If a person is aware that God has revealed something, the most reasonable reaction will be to receive it with gratitude. One may understand well what is revealed (these are the mysteria late dicta), not fully understand it (mysteria secundum quid), or remain completely ignorant of the innermost logic of the transmitted truth (mysteria absoluta, also called mysteria stricte dicta).
Gratitude is the only reasonable reaction because God can neither deceive nor be deceived. It is not just that God will not do it; it is indeed impossible for him to do so.
A human being needs some evidence to confirm that it is God who reveals a truth; otherwise, it would not be reasonable to believe with the absolute certainty required by faith. Then, the right thing to do would be to believe only to the extent that reason shows the truth of some particular statement, or according to the amount of trust in the wisdom and good faith of the informant. None of these grounds warrant too firm an assent; a firm assent would be a faulty one, since it would entail an excessive, childish credulity. If this were the case, it would be sound to believe only up to a certain point.
Therefore, we have to know in some way that God is the one speaking. It cannot be known from the content of the revealed truth, since it is not self-evident for us; if it were, it would not be a matter of faith. We need some external testimony, similar to the way external signs vouch for the authenticity of a document: a seal, or the signatures of a notary public and some witnesses, even if it can also be confirmed by its content.
It is reasonable to accept a revelation when it meets certain criteria that identify it as such, that is, as something said by God. This is what the First Vatican Council teaches:
For the submission of our faith to be consonant with reason (cf. Rom 12:1), God has willed that external proofs of his Revelation, namely divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies, should be added to the internal aids given by the Holy Spirit. Since these proofs so excellently display God’s omnipotence and limitless knowledge, they constitute the surest signs of divine Revelation, signs that are suitable to everyone’s understanding. Therefore, not only Moses and the prophets but also and preeminently Christ our Lord performed many evident miracles and made clear-cut prophecies. Moreover, we read of the Apostles: “But they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the preaching by the signs that followed” (Mk 16:20).1
The same document adds later:
For all the many marvelous proofs that God has provided to make the credibility of the Christian faith evident point to the Catholic Church alone. Indeed, the Church herself, because of her marvelous propagation, her exalted sanctity, and her inexhaustible fruitfulness in all that is good, because of her catholic unity and her unshaken stability, is a great and perpetual motive of credibility and an irrefutable proof of her own divine mission.2
12. Motives of Credibility
12a) Definition and Classification
In the above quotations, we find a list of the principal motives of credibility, that is, of the criteria used to prove that certain affirmations are made by God or, what is the same, by men who speak with authority in God’s name, and are transmitted to us completely and without error. The principal motives of credibility are miracles, prophecies, and the marvelous life of the Church.3
The motives of credibility are usually classified as follows:
(1) Motives external to man
i) Extrinsic to revealed truth itself
- a. Miracles
- b. Prophecies
ii) Intrinsic to revealed truth itself
- a. The sublimity of revealed doctrine
- b. The marvelous life of the Church
(2) Motives internal to man
i) Common to all: The admirable satisfaction of human aspirations toward justice, sanctity, and God
ii) Individual: The personal experience of a profound peace that the world cannot give (cf. Jn 14:27)
We will have the occasion to review some of these criteria in Chapter 13. Meanwhile, we can focus our attention on the first two: miracles and prophecies.
12b) The Notion of Miracle
The original meaning of the word miraculum (miraculous occurrence) is something admirable, something that causes astonishment. In theology, a miracle is an extraordinary and sensible fact that escapes the laws of nature. This definition follows the text of the First Vatican Council quoted in section 11 of this chapter. Miracles—external proofs of God’s revelation—display God’s omnipotence; they do not have any possible natural cause. They can have only God himself as their immediate cause.
As the definition indicates, only sensible miracles—only those occurrences that can be ascertained by the senses—qualify as criteria for credibility. Thus, for example, the miracle of transubstantiation does not have any demonstrative value because it is not observable by the senses.
To qualify, it must, likewise, be evident that a miraculous fact cannot be attributed to any natural power, corporeal or spiritual (angels and demons).
12c) The Possibility of Miracles
Those who deny the existence of God or his transcendence (his being really different from the world) also deny the possibility of miracles. Their reasoning is clear: If God does not exist, he cannot act; and if he is part of nature, he cannot act outside of it.
Conversely, God’s transcendence and omnipotence sufficiently explain the possibility of miracles since, as we said earlier, God can do anything that is not metaphysically impossible or morally evil.
Likewise, it is not unbecoming for God to perform miracles. These interventions do not imply that the natural laws that he has given the world are so uncertain and imperfect that corrections or exceptions are required in some cases. Miracles are simply spectacular or extraordinary signs of God’s power, which he uses in order to call our attention to something important for our salvation.
12d) Can We Know the Existence of Miracles?
Some deny the possibility of knowing whether something is a miracle or not. They claim that since we do not know all of nature’s power and laws, we cannot know if a specific event is beyond or against them.
Although this could well occur in many hypothetical cases, the miracles performed by God evade these dangers of confusion. Take, for example, Moses’ staff being converted into a serpent and back again into a staff. The discovery of a law accounting for it is highly improbable, even if all natural laws become known.
Miracles can be classified in three types, according to their degree of evidence. Two bodies occupying the same space, like Jesus’ entry into the Upper Room while the doors were closed, is a miracle of the first type. The resurrection of a dead person (like that of Lazarus or the Naim widow’s son) and giving sight to the blind belong to the second type. The third type includes the instantaneous conversion of water into wine and the multiplication of the loaves of bread.
The supernatural nature of all the above miracles is known with metaphysical certainty once their existence is known. On the other hand, there are other miracles of the third type (such as the calming of the storm) that, after their existence is known, are generally known with moral certainty, only, that is, through the circumstances that accompany them.
We should not overlook the clause “after their existence is known,” since the existence of a miracle (the fact that Lazarus was resurrected from the dead, for example) is not known with metaphysical certainty. Witnesses know it with physical certainty; those who hear about it know about it with moral certainty only. It is exactly the same with other historical events.
12e) Prophecies
The word prophet originally meant “he who speaks for another.” It comes from a Hebrew term meaning “he who talks to man in the name of God.” It is in this sense that we speak of Christ’s prophetic function. In this case, the terms prophet and teacher are equivalent.
The prophets frequently announced future events that could not be foreseen by human means. These predictions are called prophecies in apologetics. Moreover, the term prophecy has a broader sense, equivalent to revelation.
Prophecies are also mentioned in the text of the First Vatican Council, quoted in section 11, among those actions displaying God’s limitless knowledge.
Prophecy can be defined more precisely as an infallible prediction of a contingent future event, which can be foreseen with certainty only through supernatural illumination.
Thus defined, a prophecy is an intellectual miracle, and its author can be only God, who uses it as a sign, as he does with the sensible miracles. Many of the considerations applicable to the latter are also applicable to prophecies. Prophecies can be distinguished from simple conjectures.
13. The Force of the Motives of Credibility
Miracles and prophecies (and other motives of credibility) give us a moral certainty that the truths taught to us come from God without alteration or corruption by whomever performs these miracles or utters the prophecies. In other words, we know that what we are told is revealed by God.
Objectively speaking, the greatest certainty is offered by the external and extrinsic motives of credibility (miracles and prophecies). External and intrinsic criteria produce less certainty, internal ones even less. Among the internal criteria, the experience of a profound peace that the world cannot give is the weakest of all, due to its subjectivity and incommunicability.
Subjectively speaking, however, the order may be inverted; the last of these criteria may be the starting point of the path leading to faith for someone.
On the other hand, the intellect knows the motives of credibility with moral (not physical) certainty. Thus, it does not necessarily feel constrained to accept revelation as coming from God.
However, in the words of the First Vatican Council, these criteria, “especially miracles and prophecies … constitute the surest signs of divine Revelation, signs that are suitable to everyone’s understanding.”4 Thus, the moral certainty that they elicit is strong enough for the will to reasonably command the intellect to accept revelation as coming from God.
Usually, moral certainty is enough for people to responsibly make capital decisions. The certainty produced by these criteria is so strong that the will’s failure to order the intellect to assent would be a very serious fault.
14. The Motives of Credibility and Personal Dispositions
As in the case of natural revelation, certain personal dispositions are needed for a person to admit that something is supernaturally revealed by God. Religious truths affect the innermost part of man and dictate his whole behavior. Then, the will can pay more attention to some considerations that are alien to the fact of revelation itself, but affected by it. These truths are jointly presented by the intellect, which leads the will to admit or reject that God reveals something, although culpably in the latter case.
A person may accept the fact of revelation, or reject it. Sin and all its train push for rejection. Love for the truth and the desire to find God incline a person to accept the fact of revelation, though this entails numerous demands.
Footnotes:
1. DS 3009.
2. DS 3013.
3. Cf. CCC, 156.
4. DS 3009.