Question XVII: Whether it is lawful to dispute about faith, and when

It is CERTAIN that disputation about the faith is licit, as all concede with D. Bonaventure in 4. dist. 11. dub. 1., where he says: disputation about the things of the faith is licit for their defense; for so the Holy Fathers also disputed, and Act. 6. et 7. Stephen: and Act. 9. Paul with the Jews.

But it is ILICIT to dispute so that by reasons and arguments we attain something above reason, or that the faith, already sufficiently proposed, be tested by way of argument. So also D. Thom. quaest. 10. art. 7., Bannes ibi, Sanchez lib. 2. cap. 10., Becan. cap. 15. quaest. 7., Suarez disp. 20. sect. 1., Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 8. Nevertheless it will not be illicit for him to whom the faith has not yet been sufficiently proposed. So Suarez, Sanchez, Fagundez, and Valencia disp. 1. quaest. 4. p. 1.

OBSERVE that it is forbidden to Laymen to dispute about the faith, by the decree of Alexander, cap. quicunque §. Inhibemus, etc., and it is defined there: Whoever acts against this shall be entangled in the snare of excommunication, where even learned Laymen are understood, as the Doctors commonly say, fourteen of whom are cited by Fagundez cap. 8.; although Cajetanus, and Bannes 2. 2. quaest. 10. art. 7., Petrus Ledefma 2. Tom. tract. 1. cap. 5. exclude the learned, since also Albertus Pighius Comes, and Ioannes Echius, and Henry VIII. King of England, while he was a Catholic, disputed against Luther, and were praised; Fulsensis adds lib. 3. cap. 6. that this is licit to an erudite Layman, if necessity or great utility is present.