Article — Billuart, Summa Summae · from Schola Thomistica
On unbelief in general
Unbelief in general is the absence of faith38. And it is either negative, privative, or contrary. Negative unbelief is the absence of faith in one who has heard nothing of the faith, or has not heard sufficiently. Privative unbelief is the absence of faith in one who has heard sufficiently of the faith and does not will to assent to it, without however asserting the contrary. Contrary unbelief is the absence of faith in one who, though sufficiently instructed concerning the faith, not only refuses to embrace it, but even asserts the contrary and maintains a positive error against the faith. 38 Hic q. 10, a. 1, o.
Infidelitas in communi est carentia fidei38. Et est vel negativa, vel privativa, vel contraria. Infidelitas negativa est carentia fidei in eo qui nihil audivit de fide, vel non audivit sufficienter. Privativa est carentia fidei in eo qui audivit sufficienter de fide, et non vult ei assentiri, absque eo tamen quod contrarium asserat. Contraria est carentia fidei in eo qui sufficienter de fide instructus, non solum detrectat illam amplecti, sed etiam contrarium asserit, et errorem positivum contra fidem sustinet. 38 Hic q. 10, a. 1, o.
I answer. 1°. Merely negative unbelief is not a sin, but a punishment of sin39. 39 Ibid.
Resp. 1°. Infidelitas mere negativa non est peccatum, sed poena peccati39. 39 Ibid.
Proof. 1° Christ, Ioann., XV, 22, says of the Jews: If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin. Expounding this, Aug., Tract. LXXXIX in Ioann., says that Christ speaks of the sin by which they did not believe in Christ. But Christ spoke to negative unbelievers neither by himself nor through his ministers, at least not sufficiently. 2° No one sins by omitting what he cannot do.
Prob. 1° Christus, Ioann., XV, 22, dicit de Iudaeis : Si non venissem et locutus fuissem eis, peccatum non haberent. Quod exponens Aug., Tract. LXXXIX in Ioann., dicit quod Christus loquatur de peccato quo non crediderunt in Christum. Infidelibus autem negative Christus neque per se, neque per suos ministros locutus est, saltem sufficienter. 2° Nemo peccat omittendo quod facere non potest.
How shall they believe in him whom they have not heard? It is just as if he had said: « They cannot believe. » 3° This proposition, the 68th among those of Baius: « Purely negative unbelief, in those to whom Christ has not been preached, is a sin, » was condemned by St Pius V, October 1, 1567, by Gregory XIII, January 29, 1579, and by Urban VIII, March 6, 1641.
Quomodo credent ei quem non audierunt? Perinde est ac si diceret : « Credere non possunt. » 3° Haec propositio 68a inter Baianas : « Infidelitas pure negativa, in his quibus Christus non est praedicatus, peccatum est, » damnata est a S. Pio V, 1 oct. 1567, Gregorio XIII, 29 ianuar. 1579, et Urbano VIII, 6 mart. 1641.
I answer. 2°. Privative and contrary unbelief is a sin40. 40 Ibid.
Resp. 2°. Infidelitas privativa et contraria est peccatum40. 40 Ibid.
1° Because no one is condemned except on account of sin. But he who will not have believed shall be condemned, Marc., XVI, 16. 2° Because faith is the necessary medium unto salvation. Therefore he to whom it is sufficiently proposed is bound to accept it.
1° Quia nemo condemnatur, nisi propter peccatum. Qui autem non crediderit, condemnabitur, Marc., XVI, 16. 2° Quia fides est medium necessarium ad salutem. Ergo is cui sufficienter proponitur, tenetur eam acceptare.
You will ask 2° whether all the works of unbelievers are sins.
Petes 2° utrum omnia opera infidelium sint peccata.
I answer. Negatively41. We weighed this question expressly in the treatise on Grace, dissertation III, § 1. Look for it there. 41 Ibid., a. 4, o.
Resp. negative41. Hanc quaestionem ex professo expendimus in tract. de Gratia, dissert. III, § 1. Require ibi. 41 Ibid., a. 4, o.
I answer. That three are commonly assigned, namely paganism, Judaism, and heresy42. For the sin of unbelief consists in resisting the faith. But one can resist the faith in three ways. For either one resists the faith which he has not yet professed himself to receive as true, and this is the unbelief of the pagans, who are so called from the pagi into which, expelled from the cities by command of the Christian emperors, they withdrew to worship their idols: before that time they were called gentiles. Or one resists the faith which he professed in figure, and this is the unbelief of the Jews. Or finally one resists the faith which he professed in the manifestation of the truth, and this is the unbelief of heretics. 42 Ibid., a. 5, o.
Resp. tres communiter assignari, nempe paganismum, iudaismum et haeresim42. Quia peccatum infidelitatis consistit in renitendo fidei. Tripliciter autem quis potest reniti fidei. Vel enim renititur fidei quam nondum professus est se suscipere ut veram, et est infidelitas paganorum, qui sic dicti sunt a pagis in quos ab urbibus, mandato imperatorum Christianorum, expulsi, se recipiebant, ut colerent sua idola : antea gentiles dicebantur. Vel renititur fidei quam professus est in figura, et est infidelitas Iudaeorum. Vel tandem renititur fidei quam professus est in manifestatione veritatis, et est infidelitas haereticorum. 42 Ibid., a. 5, o.
I said: « Which he has professed himself to receive; » because for Judaism or heresy there seems not to be required that one have truly received the faith in figure or in manifested truth, but it suffices if he have outwardly professed himself to receive it. Hence unbaptized infants of heretics, who therefore never received the faith, are called heretics because in estimation they profess together with their parents the faith of Christ.
Dixi : « Quam professus est se suscipere; » quia ad iudaismum vel haeresim videtur non requiri quod revera susceperit fidem in figura vel veritate manifestata, sed sufficere si exterius professus fuerit se suscipere. Unde infantes haereticorum non baptizati, qui ideo nunquam fidem susceperunt, dicuntur haeretici, eo quod secundum aestimationem profiteantur cum parentibus fidem Christi.
To paganism belong atheists, deists, and Mohammedans; because they have never professed themselves to receive the faith of Christ, whether in figure or in truth. For although the Mohammedans acknowledge Christ as a prophet, they do not acknowledge him as God.
Ad paganismum pertinent athaei, deistae et Mahumetani; quia nunquam professi sunt se suscipere, sive in figura, sive in veritate, fidem Christi. Licet enim Mahumetani agnoscant Christum ut prophetam, non tamen eum agnoscunt ut Deum.
Apostasy seems not to be distinguished from heresy except according to more and less; for the apostate abandons the whole faith which he professed, the heretic only a part: understand this objectively. Similarly other forms of unbelief can be reduced to one of the aforementioned.
Apostasia non videtur distingui ab haeresi, nisi secundum magis et minus; quia apostata deserit totam fidem quam professus est, haereticus partem tantum : intellige obiective. Similiter ad unam ex praedictis possunt reduci alia infidelitates.
[You will ask 4° whether unbelievers are to be compelled to the faith.
[Petes 4° utrum infideles cogendi sint ad fidem.
I answer. Those who have never received the faith, whether they be subject to Christian princes or not, are by no means to be compelled to embrace the faith; they can, however, be compelled not to impede the faith and the preaching of the faith by blasphemies, wicked persuasions, or open proclamations.
Resp. Qui nunquam fidem susceperunt, sive subdantur principibus christianis, sive non, nullatenus sunt cogendi ad fidem amplectendam; possunt tamen cogi ne impediant fidem fideique praedicationem blasphemiis, malis persuasionibus, aut apertis praedicationibus.
The first part is clear; because the Church has no jurisdiction over those who have not received the faith, according to that saying, I Cor., V, 12: What have I to do to judge those who are without? And the Council of Trent, session XIV, chapter 5, declares that « the Church exercises judgment upon no one who has not first entered her through the door of baptism. » Christian princes likewise have no jurisdiction over foreigners, but over subjects they have jurisdiction by which they govern them politically; this jurisdiction nevertheless does not include the right of compelling them to the faith. And although they can compel subjects to abandon idolatry, which is against the natural law, of which every prince is the guardian, their power nevertheless does not extend to the law of faith, which is of the supernatural order.
Patet prima pars; quia Ecclesia non habet iurisdictionem in eos qui non susceperunt fidem, iuxta illud, I Cor., V, 12 : Quid mihi de iis qui foris sunt iudicare? Et concilium Trident., sess. XIV, cap. 5, declarat quod « Ecclesia in neminem iudicium exercet, qui non prius in ipsam per baptismi ianuam fuerit ingressus. » Principes etiam christiani nullam in extraneos, in subditos autem habent iurisdictionem qua politice eos gubernent; haec iurisdictio non includit tamen ius eos ad fidem cogendi. Et quamvis possint cogere subditos ad deserendam idololatriam, quae est contra ius naturale, cuius quilibet princeps est custos, non tamen eorum potestas se extendit ad legem fidei, quae est ordinis supernaturalis.
This conclusion is confirmed by the decisive words of Leo XIII, in the Encyclical Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885: « If, he says, the Church judges it unlawful that the various kinds of divine worship hold the same right as the true religion, she does not on that account condemn those moderators of commonwealths who, for the sake of obtaining some great good or preventing some great evil, patiently bear by custom and usage that each of these things hold a place in the state. — The Church likewise greatly takes care that no one be compelled to embrace the Catholic faith against his will; because, as Augustine wisely admonishes, Tract. XXVI in Ioann., n. 2, man cannot believe unless he is willing. »
Haec conclusio confirmatur verbis decretoriis Leonis XIII, in Encyclica Immortale Dei, 1 novemb. 1885 : « Si, inquit, divini cultus varia genera eodem iure esse, quo veram religionem, Ecclesia iudicat non licere, non ideo tamen eos damnat rerum publicarum moderatores qui, magni alicuius aut adipiscendi boni aut prohibendi causa mali, moribus atque usu patienter ferunt ut ea habeant singula in civitatem locum. — Atque illud quoque magnopere cavere Ecclesia solet, ut ad amplexandam fidem catholicam nemo invitus cogatur; quia, quod sapienter Augustinus monet, Tract. XXVI in Ioann., n. 2, « credere non potest homo, nisi volens. »
The second part is also clear. For the Church has from Christ the command, and consequently the right, of preaching the Gospel in the whole world, Matth., XXVIII, 19. If therefore barbarians impede this preaching, Christian princes can, and at times must, wage war against them and subdue rebels, that they may guard the violated rights of the Church and defend the innocent, both those who have the right of preaching and those who have the right of hearing.]
Secunda pars etiam patet. Ecclesia enim habet a Christo mandatum et consequenter ius praedicandi Evangelium in universo mundo, Matth., XXVIII, 19. Si ergo barbari praedicationem hanc impediant, possunt principes christiani et aliquando debent bellum contra eos movere, rebelles domare, ut tueantur iura Ecclesiae violata et innocentes defendant, tam eos qui ius habent praedicandi, quam eos qui habent ius audiendi.]