Faith and Reason

Between two spaces.

I've struggled recently with the Catholic Church's teaching on the relationship between faith and reason, especially as expressed in Vatican One. I'm not posting this to lead anyone astray--the Catholic teaching is the correct one, and any discomfort on my part is due to it being *on my part* and only on my part, due to my own human fallibility.

The difficulty comes to me in three ways.

1. It would seem at first glance that nothing could be properly *beyond* human reason. I personally lean Hegelian, and from that I am coming to this discussion with the presupposition that truth always falls under the species of "concept" for the following reason: 

if something is, it is true. If it is true, it exists as a concept, an abstract concept as found in a statement. Something intelligible by the intellect. Now, a Hegelian would probably say it exists first as concept and secondly as how it presents itself in individual experience. Maybe that doesn't matter here. But truth, any truth, would exist conceptually. If it does not exist as concept, it does not exist. 

Now, take God's essence for example. If God is real (He is, and we are in awe of Him) it would seem to follow that His essence would fall under a concept of some kind. It is real, it is a fact (higher than a fact, sure). But if His essence is unintelligible to the intellect, it would seem that it would not really be a concept at all. His essence, while not confined to the realm of ideas, would seem to exist in the realm of abstract conceptual ideas. But Vatican One states that this is impossible, as are all other matters of revelation (keep in mind that one can come to knowledge of God's existence but not His essence, according to Catholic teaching).

I know there are holes in this argument, and perhaps one of you would be so kind as to show me where I am wrong. It is probably in the Hegelian thought I tend towards.

2. It would seem at first glance that certain doctrines, held to be above reason and thus inscrutable, are attainable by the intellect. An examples that come to mind is the Papacy (and maybe Original Sin? Although that may be a part of revelation that is actually something the Church teaches can be known by reason). The Papacy, to myself at least, seems to be one of the first things that present themselves intuitively to the observer. I could provide some a priori reasons for it being intuitive, but among them is the reasons that St. Thomas gives in the Summa. It is fitting and right (and probably the only possible way?) for a group with communions to exist. Is it not syllogistically (that is to say reasonably) possible to prove the necessity of the Papacy, at least in its function? 

I forget the third one. Maybe it will come back later. Good bye!