THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
R
Revelation. — I. Meaning of Revelation. —
Revelation may be defined as the communication
of some truth by God to a rational creature through
means which are beyond the ordinary course of nature.
The truths revealefl may be such as are otherwise in-
accessible to the human mind — mysteries, which even
when revealed, the intelknit of man is incapable of
fully penetrating. But Revelation is not restricted
to these. God may see fit to employ supernatural
means to affirm truths, the discovery of which is not
per se beyond the powers of reason. The essence
of Revelation lies in the fact that it is the direct
speech of God to man. The mode of communication,
however, may be mediate. Revelation does not
cease to be such if God's message is delivered to us
by a prophet, who alone is the recipient of the im-
mediate communication. Such in brief is the account
of Revelation given in the Constitution "De Fide
Catholica" of the Vatican Council. The Decree
" Lamentabili " (3 July, 1907), by its condemnation
of a contrary proposition, declares that the dogmas
which the Church proposes as revealed are "truths
which have come down to us from heaven" (veri-
tates e coelo ddaps(v) and not "an interpretation of
religious facts which the human mind has acquired
by its own strenuous efforts" (prop., 22). It will be
seen that Revelation as thus explained differs clearh'
from: (1) inspiration such as is bestowed by God
on the author of a sacred book; for this, while in-
volving a special illumination of the mind in virtue
of which the recipient conceives such thoughts as
God desires him to commit to writing, docs not
necessarily suppose a supernatural communication
of these truths; (2) from the illustrations which God
may bestow from time to time upon any of the faith-
ful to bring home to the mind the import of some
truth of religion hitherto obscurely grasped; and
(3) from the Divine assistance by which the pope
when acting as the supreme teacher of the Church, is
preserved from all error as to faith or morals. The
function of this assistance is purely negative: it need
not carry with it any positive gift of light to the mind.
Much of the confusion in which the discussion of Reve-
lation in non-Catholic works is involved arises from
the neglect to distinguish it from one or other of
these.
During the past century the Church has been called on to reject as erroneous several views of Revelation irreconcilable with Catholic belief. Three of these may here be noted. (1) The view of Anton Guenther (1783-1863). This writer denied that Revelation could include mysteries strictly so-called, inasmuch as the human intellect is capable of penetrating to the full all revealed truth. He taught, further, that the meaning to be attached to revealed doctrines is under- going constant change as human knowledge grows and man's mind develops; so that the dogmatic formulae which are now true will gradually cease to be so. His writings were put on the Index in 1857, and his XIII.— 1
erroneous propositions definitively condemned in the
decrees of the Vatican Council. (2) the Modernist
view (Loisy, Tyrrell). According to this school, there
is no such thing as Revelation in the sense of a direct
communication from God to man. The human soul
reaching up towards the unknowable God is ever
endeavouring to interpret its sentiments in intellec-
tual fornmla;. The formula) it thus frames are our
ecclesiastical dogmas. These can but symbofize the
Unknowable; they can give us no real knowledge
regarding it. Such an error is manifestly subversive
of all behef, and was explicitly condemned by the
Decree "LamentabiU" and the Encyclical "Pascendi"
(8 Sept., 1907). (3) With the view just mentioned is
closely connected the Pragmatist view of M. Lcroy
("Dogme et Critique", Paris, 2nd ed. 1907). Like
the Modernists, he sees in revealed dogmas simply the
results of spiritual experience, but holds their value
to fie not in the fact that they symbolize the Unknow-
able, but that the} have practical value in pointing
the way by which we may best enjoy experience of the
Divine. This view was condemned in the same docu-
ments as the last mentioned.
II. Possibility of Revelation. — The possibility of Revelation as above explained has been strenuously denied from various points of view during the last ccnturj'. For this reason the Church held it necessary to issue special decrees on the subject in the Vatican Council. Its antagonists may be divided into two classes according to the different standpoints from which they direct their attack, viz: (1) Rationalists (under this class we include both Deist and Agnostic WTiters). Those who adopt this standpoint rely in the main on two fundamental objections: they either urge that the miraculous is impossible, and that Rev- elation involves miraculous interposition on the part of the Deity; or they appeal to the autonomy of reason, which it is maintained can only accept as truths the results of its own activities. (2) Immanent- ists. To this class may be assigned all those whose objections are based on Kantian and Hegelian doc- trines as to the subjective character of all our knowl- edge. The views of these writers frequently involve a purely pantheistic doctrine. But even those who repudiate pantheism, in place of the personal God, Ruler, and Judge of the world, whom Christianity teaches, substitute the vague notion of the "Spirit" immanent in all men, and regard all religious creeds as the attempts of the human soul to find expression for its inward experience. Hence no religion, whether pagan or Christian, is wholly false; but none can claim to be a message from God free from any admix- ture of error. (Cf. Sabatier, "Esquisse", etc., Bk. I, cap. ii.) Here too the autonomy of reason is invoked as fatal to the doctrine of Revelation properly so called. In the face of these objections, it is evident that the question of the possibility of Revelation is at present one of the most vital portions of Christian apologetic.
