Question — Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V · from Schola Thomistica
Question I: What unbelief is, and what kind of sin it is
It is TO BE NOTED, from St. Bonaventura on those words Lucas 19. Non relinquent in te lapidem super lapidem: eo quod non cognoveris tempus visitationis tuae — There shall not be left in thee a stone upon a stone: because thou hast not known the time of thy visitation — that Infidelity is the ruin of the spiritual edifice; just as faith, on the contrary, is the foundation of that edifice. But this is Infidelity, not that which is opposed to Fidelity, which is a moral virtue inclining toward faith, or a promise to be kept, of which Eccles. 5. Displicet Deo infidelis promissio — An unfaithful promise displeaseth God — as the holy Doctor warns on that passage; but it is the infidelity that is opposed to the Theological virtue, as I said, disp. 1. quaest. 1., with St. Bonau. That Infidelity is a sin, I showed in disput. 1. quaest. 14. and the following, where the obligation to believe the articles of faith, and other matters, were treated of; and therefore it can be sinned against by grave omission, in not learning the things of faith that have been sufficiently proposed.
Quid, et quale peccatum sit INFIDELITAS.
NOTANDUM ex D. Bonaventura ad ea verba Lucae 19. Non relinquent in te lapidem super lapidem: eo quod non cognoveris tempus visitationis tuae, Infidelitatem esse ruinam aedificii spiritualis; sicut fides e contra est fundamentum eius aedificii. Haec autem est Infidelitas, non quae opponitur Fidelitati, quae est virtus moralis inclinans ad fidem, seu promissum servandum, de qua Eccles. 5. Displicet Deo infidelis promissio, ut monet S. Doct. ad eum locum; sed est infidelitas, quae opponitur virtuti Theologicae, ut dixi disp. 1. quaest. 1. cum D. Bonau. Infidelitatem esse peccatum, ostendi disput. 1. quaest. 14. et sequentibus, ubi actum est de obligatione credendi articulos fidei, et alia; atque adeo peccari posse omissione gravi, non discendo res fidei, sufficienter propositas.
But Infidelity can be sinned against in TWO WAYS: either positively, by attacking and refusing the truth of faith once acknowledged, and this is called infidelity of contrariety; Or privatively, by lacking the due knowledge. Some add another negative lack, which is through invincible ignorance, but this the majority do not admit, with St. Bonavent. 3. dist. 21. art. 1. quaest. 3., of which I treated in Prima secundae, tract. de peccato, disp. 1. quaest 1.
DUPLICITER vero potest Infidelitate delinqui, vel positive, veritatem fidei agnitam impugnando, et recusando, et haec dicitur infidelitas contrarie: Vel privatime, carendo notitia debita. Aliqui addunt aliam carentiam negativam, quae sit per ignorantiam invincibilem, sed hanc non admittunt plurimi cum D. Bonavent. 3. dist. 21. art. 1. quaest. 3. de quibus egi Prima secundae, tract. de peccato, disp. 1. quaest 1.
Infidelity is DIVIDED, moreover, into Heresy, Judaism, and Paganism, by St. Thom. quaest. 10. art. 5. and St. Bonau. p. 1. Gentil. sect. 26. There the holy Doctor proves that infidelity is the greatest sin among sins, viz. Ioan. 16. Arguet mundum de peccato, etc. quia non crediderunt in me — He will argue the world of sin, etc. because they believed not in me. He calls this Sin antonomastically. And Ioan. 3. Qui non credit, iam iudicatus est: quia non credidit in nomine Unigeniti filii Dei — He that doth not believe is already judged: because he hath not believed in the name of the Only-begotten Son of God. And of Mark, at the end: Qui vero non crediderit, condemnabitur — But he that believeth not shall be condemned — as if the supreme punishment were prepared for the unfaithful. I said, with St. Bonau., that infidelity is the greatest sin among sins, because no one on the way hates God expressly, but only interpretatively, as St. Bonau. teaches on those words Ioan. 15. Et oderunt me, et Patrem meum — And they hated me, and my Father. Interpretatively indeed they hate, insofar as they are turned away from Him through sins, or would not be punished; but formal hatred is the proper possession of the damned.
DIVIDITUR autem Infidelitas in Haeresim, Iudaismum, et Paganismum a D. Thom. quaest. 10. art. 5. et D. Bonau. p. 1. Centil. sect. 26. Ibi probat S. Doct. infidelitatem esse peccatum, maximum inter peccata viz Ioan. 16. Arguet mundum de peccato, etc. quia non crediderunt in me. Vocat hoc Peccatum antonomastice. et Ioan. 3. Qui non credit, iam iudicatus est: quia non credidit in nomine Unigeniti fily Dei. Et Marci ultimo: Qui vero non crediderit, condemnabitur, quasi poena summa infidelibus praeparata sit. Dixi, inter peccata viz infidelitatem esse peccatum maximum, cum D. Bonau. quia nullus in via odit Deum expresse, sed solum interpretative, ut docet D. Bonau. ad ea verba Ioan. 15. Et oderunt me, et Patrem meum. Interpretative quidem oderunt, quatenus ab eo avertuntur per peccata, vel nollent puniri; odium vero formale, est damnatorum proprium.
St. THOMAS compares infidelity with the hatred of God, and says that this is worse, because it is opposed to Charity, which is greater, 1 Corinth. 13. But that Infidelity is greater, he says, than Despair, as I shall say in disp. 6. quaest. un., although the latter is more perilous. See also Tannerus T. 1. quaest. 8. dub. 1.
D. THOMAS comparat infidelitatem cum odio Dei, et ait, hoc esse peius, quia opponitur Charitati, quae maior est prima Corinth. 13. Infidelitatem vero maiorem, ait, Desperatione, ut dicam disp. 6. quaest. un. tametsi haec sit periculosior. Vide etiam Tannerum T. 1. quaest. 8. dub. 1.
Furthermore, the holy Doctor places infidelity in the intellect, in 3. dist. 5. quaest. 5. ad 4.; for it is opposed to faith, which is in the intellect and the will, or in free choice, as I said, disp. 1. quaest. 18. Of this treat Suarez disp. 16. sect. 3., Hurtado disp. 67., Lugo disp. 18. sect. 1. They ask especially: whether the sin of infidelity is always consummated in the intellect; whether sometimes in the Will alone.
PORRO infidelitatem in intellectu ponit S. Doct. in 3. dist. 5. quaest. 5. ad 4. opponitur enim fidei, quae est in intellectu, et voluntate, seu in libero arbitrio, ut dixi disp. 1. quaest. 18. De quo agunt Suarez disp. 16. sect. 3. Hurtado disp. 67. Lugo disp. 18. sect. 1. Quaerunt praecipue: an peccatum infidelitatis semper consummetur in intellectu; an in sola aliquando Voluntate.
Suarez loc. cit., Coninch. disp. 18. dub. 3., Tannerus 2. 2. disp. 1. quaest. 8. dubio secundo, Fuliens. lib. 3. cap 6. DENY it.
NEGANT Suarez loc. cit. Coninch. disp. 18. dub. 3. Tannerus 2. 2. disp. 1. quaest. 8. dubio secundo, Fuliens. lib. 3. cap 6.
Valentia disp. 1. quaest. 10. p. 1., Hurtado disp. 68. sect. 2. ASSERT it, which opinion, understood Metaphysically, pleases Lugo, num. 9, although, speaking commonly, he adheres to the former. Fuliens., however, says that the objective malice is in the intellect, which fails from faith; but the formal [malice] in the will, from which the perverse act of the intellect freely goes forth.
ASSERUNT Valentia disp. 1. quaest. 10. p. 1. Hurtado disp. 68. sect. 2. quae sententia Metaphysice intellecta placet Lugo num. 9 licet communiter loquendo, priori adhaereat. Fuliens. vero malitiam obiectivam in intellectu ait, qui deficit a fide; formalem vero in voluntate, a qua libere exit actus intellectus pravus.