T RY

I NI S
DY M
ST U
I B L E
D B
FO
Session 2 – Lesson One: I Believe
SESSION 2 ­
LESSON ONE:
I BELIEVE

T RY
I NI S
DY M
ST U
I B L E
D B
FO
SESSION 2 ­
LESSON ONE:
I BELIEVE

1. Why is the Nicene Creed important? How does it serve as a point of contact among
Christians?
T R Y
•
I N I S
The Nicene Creed succinctly summarizes the beliefs of Christianity.

D Y M
•
T U
It was finalized in the fourth century during
S
the first two ecumenical councils,

I B L E
Nicaea and Constantinople, and acts as a clear statement of the faith.

For the most part, allB

•
Creed. FO D Christians, both from the East and West, profess this same
SESSION 2 ­
LESSON ONE:
I BELIEVE

2. What is the tension between the early introductory words, “We believe,” and the
current form from the Latin, “I believe”? How is each statement appropriate in
expressing the doctrine of Christianity?
T RY
I N I S
•
the words “We believe.”
D Y M
The earliest version of the Creed, still used in some Eastern Churches, begins with

S T U
In many liturgical settings andEthroughout the centuries, the words have been
•
changed to “I believe.” I B L
D B
• Using “we” F
O
emphasizes that those professing the Creed are united with many
other Christians in one community of belief.
Cont.
SESSION 2 ­
LESSON ONE:
I BELIEVE

2. What is the tension between the early introductory words, “We believe,” and the
current form from the Latin, “I believe”? How is each statement appropriate in
expressing the doctrine of Christianity?
T R Y
N I S
However, “we believe” potentially allows a person toIescape, at least to some
•
degree, personal responsibility.
D Y M
S T U
•
B L
And so, “since the issues raised
I E by the Creed have to do with where a person

D B
stands most fundamentally . . . it is altogether appropriate that the one who recites

FO
the Creed commence by saying unequivocally, ‘I believe’” (Bishop Barron).
SESSION 2 ­
LESSON ONE:
I BELIEVE

3. Is faith accepting things without evidence? How is St. John Henry Newman’s
explanation of how we come to assent to a proposition relevant to this question?

Faith never involves a denial or rejection of our reason, so S it T R Y

•
I N I is not blind acceptance.

“Authentic faith or belief hasn’t a thing to doY M

inD
• with naïve credulity, or accepting

S T U
claims on the basis of no evidence. Faith,
infra-rational. The Church hasE
a word, is never below reason, never

I B L absolutely no interest in encouraging superstition or

D B
intellectual irresponsibility” (Bishop Barron).

• St. John HenryFONewman spent much time examining the interplay between faith
and reason, especially in his book A Grammar of Assent.
Cont.
SESSION 2 ­
LESSON ONE:
I BELIEVE

3. Is faith accepting things without evidence? How is St. John Henry Newman’s
explanation of how we come to assent to a proposition relevant to this question?

Summarizing Newman’s argument: “We assent to religiousSclaims T R Y

•
I N I in the same

D Y
of arguments, gut-feeling, the testimony of others,M
manner that we assent to practically any other kind of claim: through a combination
intuition, and personal

S T U
experience, a range of evidences both rational and nonrational” (Bishop Barron).

I B L E
•
B
“Rarely, if ever, do we assent
D
to a proposition on the basis of a single clinching

FO
argument. Typically, we do so under the influence of a congeries of arguments,
intuitions, and experiences, all of which tend along the same trajectory, and this is
eminently true of our assent to the proposition that God exists” (Bishop Barron).
SESSION 2 ­
LESSON ONE:
I BELIEVE

4. What is the Christian understanding of the word “God”? Why is “knowing God” not
like knowing anything else? (Exod. 3:14; CCC 198, 206)

T
At the burning bush in the book of Exodus, God tells MosesSthat R Y
•
I N I his name is “I am
who I am.”

D Y M
Catholic belief understands this to meanU
•
E ST that God is the sheer act of “to-be” or
Being itself.
I B L
St Anselm said thatD Bis “that than which nothing greater can be thought.”
FO
• God

Cont.
SESSION 2 ­
LESSON ONE:
I BELIEVE

• “What is immediately clear is that this name corresponds to no being in the world,
indeed to no possible being among beings. For to such a reality, something more

RY
could always be added: the conventional Supreme Being plus the world would be
T
I S
greater than the conventional Supreme Being alone” (Bishop Barron).
I N
DY M
• Knowing God is not like knowing anything else, because everything else we know is

ST U
created and depends on some cause outside itself for its existence.

B
God cannot be grasped inItheL E
•
D B same way because he is not a being as other things

FO
are in our experience.

Cont.
SESSION 2 ­
LESSON ONE:
I BELIEVE

• “The knowing faculty is ordered, by its nature, to things that appear and to those
truths that can be deduced from things that appear” (Bishop Barron).

R Y
“The world is God’s creation and reflects his nature; however,Tnothing in the world
•
I N I S
D Y
than God himself.” And St. Augustine aptly said M
is God. St. Thomas Aquinas, said, “Whatever can be known
that
or understood is less
if you think you understand
God, it’s not God” (Bishop Barron).
S T U
The Catechism comments:IB L E
•
D B “This divine name is mysterious just as God is mystery. It

FOGod as what he is—infinitely above everything that we can

is at once a name revealed and something like the refusal of a name, and hence it
better expresses
understand or say” (CCC 206).
SESSION 2 ­
LESSON ONE:
I BELIEVE

5. What principles of science and rationality support belief in God as Creator?

R Y
There are two key scientific principles that support belief in God as Creator:
T
Intelligibility: The universe is intelligible, meaning itIN
S
canIbe known. “Every

D
science is predicated finally on the supposition Y M
that the world that the scientist

S
goes out to meet through her senses and
marked by form, pattern, andE
T U her curious, critical intelligence, is

I B L understandability. Whether we are talking about

D B
the practitioners of psychology, biology, chemistry, astrophysics, or geology, every

FO
scientist must assume objective intelligibility” (Bishop Barron).

Cont.
SESSION 2 ­
LESSON ONE:
I BELIEVE

5. What principles of science and rationality support belief in God as Creator?

RY
Contingency: Everything in the universe (and the universe itself) is contingent—
T
I S
that is, beings do not contain within themselves the reason for their own existence.
I N
DY M
They require an explanation extrinsic to themselves, and so we look for their
causes, for the conditions for their possibility, and for a sufficient explanation of

ST U
why they exist as they do. But then we are naturally led to ask, in regard to those

L E
causes or sets of causes, whether they are self-explanatory (self-sufficient) or
I B
B
contingent. Following this path, we must acknowledge the “existence of some
D
FO
reality that ultimately explains contingent being and is not itself contingent.
Thomas Aquinas referred to this reality as the “uncaused cause” or the “necessary
being.” And this, he affirmed, is what reasonable people are referring to when
they use the word ‘God’” (Bishop Barron).
SESSION 2 ­
LESSON ONE:
I BELIEVE

6. What is the “moral” argument for God’s existence?

T RY
• The “moral” argument for God’s existence rests upon the reality of conscience and

NI S
our capacity to evaluate the goodness or evil of our moral acts.
I
DY M
• “Only in the case of moral evaluation do we feel ourselves in the presence of

ST U
Someone whom we have either pleased or offended. If we make an erroneous

B L E
aesthetic judgment, we might feel ignorant or foolish, but we don’t, strictly
I
B
speaking, feel ashamed” (Bishop Barron).
D
FO
• “And this is precisely why we speak, only in the case of moral evaluation, of the
‘voice’ of our conscience. Someone, we are convinced, is praising us or blaming us”
(Bishop Barron).