The Intermountain Catholic. (Salt Lake City [Utah] ;) 1899-1920, 1901-11-30

I'm every proposition, be 1t what II
may which 1 believe because God re-
veals it. l do believe him, do 1 not?'
so it follows from what we have
said"
But if the more essential point is
to believe God. the more essential err
ror must be to disbelieve him, must II
not?"
Certainly. to disbelieve God is the
most heinous offense of which man can
be guilty. The grossest insult we can
offer even to a fellow-mortal is to cal
him a liar: and we call God a lla1
whenever we disbelieve or refuse to be-
lieve him.
But do I not disbelieve or refuse to
believe God, and therefore make God a
liar. whenever 1 refuse to believe a
proposition because L have only His
word for it?'
You do, and are guilty of the sin
of infidelity."
Then. if Cod has told me, no mat
ter for what reason. that Toby had a
dog and the dog wagged his tail, and
I refuse to believe it, do L or do not
err essentially"
you err essentially as it appears
| from what we have said"
'Then there may be essential error,
where the matter or proposition denied
is not in itself essential?"
$50 it would SEEM
Then you will concede what you call
the non-fundamentals, if revealed
truths can no more be denied without
essential error than the fundamentals
themselves"
Not at all. Doubtless. where the
! matter is clearly and manifestly re-
vealed, refusal to believe Is essential
error; but it does not therefore follow
that it is essential error to refuse to
| believe, where 1t is not clearly and
manifestly revealed, where it is I'M
certain that God speaks, and, if he
does. what is the exact meaning OF
what he says"
This uncertainty, not the funda-
mental or n-fundamental nature of
the matter in question, then. is that
which saves the refusal to believe from
| being essential error
That seems to follow
IF the same uncertainty existed with
regard to what is fundamental, the
refusal to believe the nonfunda-
mentals?"
That seems also to follow
I'm order, then, to determine what
are the essentials, that is, what must
| be believed, and cannot be denied
without essential error, and what are
the on-essentials; that is, what with
out essential error may be either be-
lieved or denied it will be necessary to
inquire not what are the fundamentals,
and what are the nom fundamentals,
but what is or is not clearly and mani
testify revealed"
"Since the fundamentals are all
clearly and manifestly revealed, L
have no objections to saying So"
Whether the fundamentals are I'll
clearly and manifestly revealed or not,
you must so say, or abandon the
grouad you have taken. The essen
tials. then, are what is clearly and
manifestly revealed"
BE it So
THE none essentials what is not
clearly and manifestly revealed?'
Agreed
He who believes all that is clearly
the essentials, is free from essential
error, is substantially orthodox"
Agreed. again"
He who rejects any truth clearly
and manifestly revealed errs essen
tially?"
He does"
But he who rejects only the nom
essentials does not err essentially"
stop there moment. Men may
OlIIeT as TO lIle IlOIl-eSSetIIldlS NlluOuI
essential error, but to differ in opin
ion about a point is not necessarily to
deny it, for both parties may intend
to believe it. and would, if they could
only ascertain the truth involved"
But individuals may differ in some
respects, even as to matters of faith,
from Presbyterians, without erring es-
sentially?'
II do not deny it,
THE point on which they differ must
be non-essentials, otherwise the diff
ference would be essential. In regard
to these points they must differ from
Presbyterians. either by holding some
things to be revealed truths which
Presbyterians do not, or by denying
some things to be revealed truths
which Presbyterians believe are re-
vealed truths?"
''They also differ from them by sim
pie ignorance.
That is true, but then they differ
only negatively, not positively. Pres
byterians in this respect must differ
from one another. for some are better
informed as to what Presbyterianism
is than others are or can be. but they
are, nevertheless, all alike Presbyter-
ians. So l, as a Catholic, may be ig
norant of some points of the Catholic
faith, and in this respect differ from
the one who knows them all, but I am
as true a Catholic as he. because I in
tend to believe all the Church teaches.
because l am ready to believe all as
soon as explicitly propounded to me,
and because the points on which
am ignorant 1 believe implicitly, since
they are implied in what I believe ex-
plicitly. This is, therefore. a mere neg
alive difference and amounts, to moth
ing. The differences in question are
positive differences, and these must
consist either in believing things to be
revealed which you deny to be re-
vealed or in denying certain things to
be revealed which you believe to be
revealed"
81 do not see how that follows"
''The differences we are considering
concern matters of faith and nothing.
L suppose you will grant, is or can be
matter of faith which is not a di-
vinely revealed truth. Or, rather. no
man can hold anything, to be mat
ter of faith unless he holds it to be
matter of revelation, that is, a re-
vealed truth.
81 do not know about that"
But you do, for the faith we are
speaking of is religious faith, and we
have agreed that there can be religious
faith only where the proposition be-
lieved is a revealed proposition"
Very well. proceed"
eff. then you admit differences as
to matters OF faith may exist without
essential error, you must admit that
the non essentials may be either be-
lieved or disbelieyed without essential
error 0nieSS YOU choose IN admit that