It is better to be super!
Apologetics · The Bridge to Revelation
It Is Better to Be Super!
Why Supernatural Religion Perfects Rather Than Destroys the Natural
Why would anyone prefer the "supernatural" to the "natural"? In a scientific age, supernatural sounds like superstition, something that muscles past reason and evidence.
But what if the supernatural does not oppose the natural at all? What if it completes it, the way an oak completes an acorn rather than contradicting it?
That is the Catholic claim, and it is more radical than it first appears. Grace does not bulldoze nature. It also does not merely add facts to nature. It elevates nature to an end that nature, of itself, could never reach, not in a thousand years, not in a thousand lifetimes, not ever.
Natural religion is whatever human reason can discover about God without any special revelation. It is called "natural" not because it worships nature, but because it uses our natural faculties: reason, observation, moral intuition.
And it delivers more than most people think. Across the last three articles we established, by argument alone, that:
- God exists, as unmoved mover, first cause, and subsistent being itself
- God is infinite, simple, one, eternal, omnipotent, and perfectly good
- You are a rational animal with an immortal soul, ordered toward truth and goodness
- There is a real moral order, binding on all men, which points to a lawgiver
That is a serious achievement, and it belongs to no religion in particular. Aristotle got a great deal of it without a Bible. So did Cicero. This is real knowledge of God, and the Church insists on it, as we will see in a moment.
Here is where most explanations of this topic go soft, and it matters enormously.
It is tempting to say natural religion is incomplete and revelation fills in the blanks, as though God had given us a partial map and later mailed the missing corner. That would make the difference one of degree: reason gets you 40% of the way, revelation supplies the other 60%.
That is not the Catholic teaching, and the truth is far stranger.
This is genuinely good and genuinely happy, and it is the best a creature can do with its own equipment.
Not to know about God. To possess Him.
Any created nature. Not just ours. An angel cannot get there on its own either.
The created intellect, by its own natural power, cannot see the essence of God (ST I, Q.12, A.4). Man cannot attain beatitude by his natural powers (ST I-II, Q.5, A.5). The problem is not that we are ignorant. The problem is that we are disproportionate.
A dog cannot do calculus. Not because nobody has explained it well enough, but because a dog does not have the kind of intellect that could receive it. And we do not have the kind of nature that could see God. The gap is not informational. It is ontological.
So what is needed is not merely revelation (God telling us things) but elevation (God raising our nature so that it can receive Him at all). That is what sanctifying grace is. It does not just inform you. It changes what you are capable of.
And notice: this is the axiom in action. Grace does not destroy your nature, replacing it with something else. It perfects it, lifting a real human nature to an end that human nature, left alone, could only ache for without ever naming.
Aquinas opens the entire Summa with this question, and gives two distinct answers (ST I, Q.1, A.1).
First: For truths that exceed reason
The Trinity. The Incarnation. That God became man and died for you specifically. That your sins can be forgiven. That you are invited into God's own life.
No amount of philosophy will ever yield these, because they concern God's free choices, and you cannot deduce a free choice. I cannot reason my way to what my wife decided to make for dinner. I have to be told. Here revelation is absolutely necessary, because the object is simply beyond the reach of the instrument.
Second, and this is the surprising one: even for truths reason could reach
God revealed things like His own existence and unity, which reason can in principle demonstrate. Why bother? Aquinas gives three reasons, and they are devastatingly practical:
- Few would ever get there. How many people have the leisure, the aptitude, and the training to work through the Five Ways? Salvation cannot be a reward for having a philosophy degree.
- Those few would take a very long time. Metaphysics is slow. A man might spend forty years reasoning his way to God and then die. God did not want the truth to arrive only for the elderly and clever.
- And even they would get some of it wrong. Human reasoning, over long chains, drifts. Look at the history of philosophy: brilliant men reaching brilliant conclusions and mixing in serious errors. Reason is reliable but not immaculate.
God revealed even the reachable truths so that they could be held by everyone, immediately, and with certainty: by the farmer as well as the philosopher, by the young as well as the old, by the slow as well as the quick. Revelation is not a shortcut for the lazy. It is an act of mercy toward the many.
Christians go wrong on this in two opposite directions, and the Church has condemned both of them, at the same council, in the same document. That fact alone tells you where Catholicism actually stands.
Against fideism, the Council defined that God can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason from created things (see Romans 1:20; Wisdom 13). It attached an anathema to the denial. The Church dogmatically insists that reason works. Note how remarkable this is: she has bound herself, under anathema, to the reliability of philosophy.
Against rationalism, the same Council defined that there exist mysteries hidden in God which, unless divinely revealed, cannot be known, and which even after revelation remain veiled to the mind in this life. The Church dogmatically insists that reason has a ceiling.
Consider what that means. The Church is the only institution on earth that will anathematize you both for saying reason cannot reach God and for saying reason can reach everything. She is fighting a war on two fronts, and she has never conceded an inch on either.
Gnosticism is often filed under "the rationalist extreme." It does not belong there.
The Gnostics were not rationalists at all. They claimed secret supernatural revelation, a hidden gnosis given to initiates, and they despised the material world. If anything, they were hyper-supernaturalist, and their error was the opposite of Deism's: not too much confidence in reason, but a contempt for nature and the body that the axiom at the top of this page directly forbids. Grace does not destroy nature. The Gnostic thought nature was the problem.
For the genuine rationalist extreme, look to Deism (Voltaire, Jefferson) and to the semi-rationalists of the nineteenth century, whom Vatican I had squarely in view.
Tends to develop a technical philosophical vocabulary for revealed truth: substance and accident, nature and person, transubstantiation. The instinct is that if a thing is true, we should be able to say something precise about it, even while confessing that our precision never exhausts the mystery.
Tends toward apophatic reserve: emphasizing what God is not, guarding the mystery from over-definition, and developing distinctions of its own (the essence and the energies of God).
But do not mistake this for a lower appetite for rigor. Gregory of Nyssa, Maximus the Confessor, and Gregory Palamas were not allergic to precision. And on the Eucharist the East is not vague: the Synod of Jerusalem (1672) used the Greek word metousiosis, the exact structural equivalent of transubstantiation.
The difference is one of theological temperament and idiom, not of whether reason is welcome.
Span nearly the whole spectrum, and it is a mistake to speak of them as one thing. Reformed theology has produced formidable systematic reasoning. Evangelical movements range from the rigorously intellectual to the intensely experiential. Liberal Protestantism has often drifted toward the rationalist pole, dissolving revelation into religious experience. Some fundamentalist currents drift toward the fideist pole, treating philosophy as a snare.
Each carries real insight, and each faces its own characteristic temptation.
Note the image carefully. Two wings. Not a wing and a crutch. Not a wing and a spare. A bird with one wing does not fly badly; it does not fly at all. It spirals.
Not because natural religion is false. Everything reason discovers about God is true, and remains true. It is better because supernatural religion fulfills what natural religion could only long for.
Knowledge
Reason establishes that God is perfectly good. It cannot tell you that He is your Father, that He knows your name, or that He came looking for you. Those are not deductions. They are news.
Power
Reason can show you the moral law with perfect clarity and leave you entirely unable to keep it. Everyone knows he ought to forgive his enemies. Watch how that goes. Philosophy diagnoses; grace heals. The sacraments are not lectures.
Relationship
The God of the philosophers is unimpeachable and unapproachable. You cannot pray to a First Cause. You can pray to a Father, and here is the thing: He is the same God. Revelation did not swap Him out. It introduced Him.
Hope
Natural religion can suggest an afterlife apportioned by desert, which is, if you are honest with yourself, a terrifying prospect. Supernatural religion promises something reason would never have dared to guess: forgiveness, resurrection of the body, and the final defeat of death.
To stop at natural religion, having been offered more, would be like a man capable of friendship who resolves to keep everyone at the level of acquaintance. Nothing false has been said about the acquaintances. It is simply an appalling waste of a capacity.
Which Leaves Exactly One Question
We have now gone as far as reason alone can carry us. There is a God. He is infinite, simple, good. You have an immortal soul made for Him. And you cannot reach Him by your own powers, because the end you were made for exceeds every created nature there is.
So everything now depends on whether God has spoken. If He has not, natural religion is all we get, and we are left aching at a locked door. If He has, then everything changes.
But that raises the hard question immediately, and it is the right one to be nervous about: plenty of people claim God has spoken to them. Every religion on earth makes some version of the claim, and they cannot all be right. Muhammad claimed it. Joseph Smith claimed it. So do a great many men who are currently unmedicated.
How would you tell a genuine revelation from a counterfeit? That is not a rhetorical question, and the Church has a rigorous answer to it. That is where we go next.
Comments
Post a Comment