On the Precept of Faith

What is faith, and how is it distinguished? - Supernatural faith, about which the speech is here, is defined: the most firm assent to things revealed by God on account of the authority of God revealing. Therefore the material object of faith is every and only truth revealed by God; the formal object is the authority of God revealing. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 1. Faith is one kind formal, another virtual. Formal faith is had when someone believes a truth revealed by God on account of the authority of God revealing. Virtual faith is had when formal faith has been had, and habitually endures, and actually influences another act of virtue, as, for example, when someone, without actually eliciting an act of faith, elicits an act of supernatural charity and contrition.

Likewise faith is one kind explicit, another implicit. Explicit faith is that by which some article of faith is believed in itself, under its own and particular terms, under which it is proposed to us; e.g., he who believes God to be one in nature and three in persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has explicit faith of the Trinity. True implicit faith is that by which something is believed not in itself, but in another in which it is somehow contained; e.g., he who believes in Christ, God and man, by that very fact implicitly believes in his twofold will, even if he is ignorant of it. - L. 2; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 1, aa. 1-7; q. 2, aa. 1, 2, 9, 10; q. 4, 6, 7; Prop. 25 condemned by Decr. S. O. Lamentabili, 3 July 1907; E. M. 345.

What are the sins and vices opposed to faith? - To faith is opposed unbelief, which generally is the lack of faith; and specifically it is the lack of faith in one not baptized; and this is threefold: negative, privative, positive. The first is lack of faith in one who has never heard anything about the true religion. The other is lack of faith in one who neglects to procure for himself knowledge of faith when occasion has been given. The third is lack of faith in one to whom faith itself has been sufficiently proposed, and who positively rejects it. - Although negative unbelief, as is clear, is not a sin, nevertheless it is a punishment of sin; because if he had done what was in him, God would not have hidden faith from him. But privative and positive unbelief is a most grave sin. The reason is that the former indirectly and virtually, the latter directly and formally, contains grave contempt and injury of the authority of God revealing. Faith besides is the beginning, foundation, and root of justification. Trid. s. 6, C. 8. Therefore he who voluntarily deprives himself of faith likewise deprives himself of justification, and accordingly sins very greatly.

Heresy is also opposed to faith, and it is twofold: formal and material. The first is a voluntary and pertinacious error against some truth of faith proposed by the Church, in one who has received faith. But the other is that by which someone adheres to error against faith, but without pertinacity. Moreover to err pertinaciously here is not sharply and tooth-and-nail to defend one's error, but to retain it knowingly and voluntarily, after the contrary has been sufficiently proposed; or when it is known that the contrary is held by the universal Church of Christ on earth, to which someone prefers his own judgment, whether this is done from vainglory, or from the lust of contradicting, or from another cause. Merely material heresy is not a sin, for that error proceeds from invincible ignorance of the truth. But formal heresy is a most grave sin, as unbelief itself, for the same reasons.

Finally apostasy is opposed to faith, which is total defection from the truth of the Catholic faith. Therefore it is not distinguished in species from heresy. For whether more or less of the material object of faith is rejected, the formal object is always rejected in the same mode. It is reduced to positive unbelief if someone, departing absolutely from faith, passes over to unbelief. And if someone passes over to a sect in which false worship of God is had, he also sins against religion. Non-Catholics are as many as are not Catholics. Their genus is threefold: schismatics, heretics, apostates. More broadly non-Catholics are also infidels.

Heretics and those suspect concerning the faith must be denounced to the Bishop or Inquisitor from C. Noveritis of Nicholas II, and from the natural law, since such a crime tends to common harm. L. l. 4, n. 249 seqq.; l. 7, n. 248. But the Bishop has the faculty of proceeding in a cause of heresy even against regulars, although exempt, C. 9, de Haeret. - Those who wish to be converted from heresy to the Catholic Church before absolution must abjure their heresy and make a public profession of faith, according to what is prescribed by C. Si qui voluerint 8, can. 1, q. 7, and the Roman Ritual. - An abjuration made privately before someone delegated by the Bishop, such as a notary, and some persons as witnesses, suffices. S. O. 8 Apr. 1786; 28 Mar. 1900; Struggl, q. 2, nn. 1, 9; Suarez, d. 16, s. 1; Lugo, d. 16, n. 187, 291 seqq.; d. 18, n. 3 seqq.; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 5, 10, 11, 12; L. 17 seqq.; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., ed. 1, nn. 1682, 1683, 1689, and ed. 2, nn. 1341, 1496, 2079; E. M. 346.

351 bis. Note: 1. The books of Sacred Scripture whole with all their parts, as the Holy Synod of Trent, s. 4, reviewed them, are divinely inspired, and are sacred and canonical. 2. The heresies of schismatics and Orientals are reviewed in the Epistle of Pius X, Ex quo, 26 Dec. 1910, Acta Apost. Sed., v. 3, p. 117 seqq. 3. Modernism is the collection of all heresies. - Bishops must be vigilant that it be extirpated, if it has been present, and must take precautions lest it be present.

Bishops should impede the writings of Modernists from being published and read; especially they should not be permitted to adolescents in Seminaries and to hearers in Universities. - They should establish a council of vigilance, to meet with the Bishop every other month and on a stated day. It will belong to it to investigate judgments of modernism in books and in teaching; likewise to keep watch over books and periodicals, lest dangerous questions be treated in them with weak arguments and prejudged questions; finally, over all writings concerning social matters. - By Modernism there are condemned rash and false novelties against the doctrine of Sacred Scripture and constantly handed down by the Fathers and Catholic Doctors; but by no means is there condemned any modern invention which is proved by solid reason. - Those who are prone to the errors of modernism are to be excluded from Sacred Orders. Pius X, Enc. Pascendi, 8 Sept. 1907.

4. Several errors of Americanism are condemned. Its fundamental and chief error consists in this: "It is opportune, for attracting the wills of those who disagree, if certain heads of doctrine, as if of lighter moment, are passed over, or softened so that they do not retain the same sense which the Church has constantly held." Brief to Card. Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, of Leo XIII, 22 Jan. 1899, Testem benevolentiae.

Is he a formal heretic who doubts concerning some article of faith? R. Affirmatively, if he doubts positively, by judging that a truth is uncertain which he knows to be revealed by God and proposed by the Church; for he voluntarily contradicts faith sufficiently proposed, and accordingly there is truly had voluntary and pertinacious error against some truth of faith, which is the definition of formal heresy. - R. Negatively, if he behaves negatively, and suspends assent, whether this is done from formal or virtual contempt of divine revelation, or whether it is done from negligence, or because he wishes to turn his mind to other things, etc. The reason is that since he judges nothing, and affirms nothing against the infallibility of faith, as is supposed, he does not err positively in faith and accordingly is not a heretic; although he sins gravely against faith, either from contempt of the word of God, or from negligence by omitting a commanded act of faith. - Struggl, q. 2, nn. 12, 13.

Is faith necessary? - The internal act of faith is necessary for all adults, using reason, for justification, by necessity of means. For, as the Apostle says, Heb. 11:16, without faith it is impossible to please God. For he who comes to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder to those who seek him. By necessity of means. Because faith positively influences justification, and if it is not had even inculpably, justification and salvation cannot be obtained. L. 1; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 2, aa. 3-5; E. M. 348.

What things must be believed by necessity of means? - There are two things certainly to be believed explicitly by necessity of means: 1. that God exists; 2. that he is a rewarder. This is established from the same text of Paul just cited and from propositions 22 and 23 condemned by Innocent XI. E. M. 345, 349.

Are the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation also to be believed explicitly by necessity of means? There is a twofold probable opinion: one affirms, the other denies. The reason of the former is that the Incarnation is an object most necessary on the part of the means of our salvation; the Trinity most necessary on the part of the end; and accordingly it is most necessary to believe that God is one and that in him there are three distinct divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and that the Son of God was incarnate, our Redeemer. The reason of the latter is: no argument of reason is present, and no positive document, from which that necessity can be drawn. For in order that man be converted to God, it suffices to believe that he exists, and to hope that he is propitious to him, and consequently to do penance for his own sins. The former opinion is favored in some way, especially for practice, by Resp. S. O. 25 Jan. 1703. Struggl, q. 1, n. 21; L. 2; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 2, aa. 7, 8; E. M. 350.

Can he be absolved who is ignorant of those things which are certainly of necessity of means? - R. Negatively, neither licitly nor validly. The reason is that he, from defect of a means necessary simply, is incapable of justification; therefore he is also incapable of absolution. Besides, no one can have hope of salvation unless he believes God to be a rewarder. Whence from defect of the acts of the penitent, the sacrament is null. - Bened. XIV, C. Etsi minime, 7 Feb. 1742.

Can one ignorant of the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation be absolved? - He cannot licitly be absolved, outside a case of necessity, e.g., danger of death, because the confessor, absolving such a person, exposes the sacrament to danger of frustration of grace. - He probably can be absolved validly if he is in invincible ignorance. The reason is the very probability of the opinion denying the necessity of means for such mysteries. Hence, at least probably, the necessary acts of the penitent are not lacking.

Is the internal act of faith also necessary for adults by necessity of precept sometimes in life? R. Affirmatively. Proof 1. from 1 John 3:23: This is his commandment, that we believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ. 2. From proposition 1 condemned by Alexander VII, from propositions 17 and 65 condemned by Innocent XI; from C. Vineam Domini of Clement XI, 16 July 1703. If someone embraces not some heretical doctrine, but a doctrine proscribed, with a lower note, by the Roman Pontiff or by the Roman Congregations, he does not sin per se against divine faith; nevertheless he sins gravely against studiousness and obedience, which is owed both to the Roman Pontiff and to the sacred Congregations. But one can also sin by irreligion and scandal if, for example, propositions have been condemned because offensive to pious ears, because scandalous. Conc. Vatic., Const. de Fide Cath., c. 4; Props. 7 and 8 condemned by Decr. Lamentabili, S. O., 3 July 1907; Motu Proprio of Pius X, Praestantia, 18 Nov. 1907; Mazzella, Trutina Theol. Rosmin. Propos., Pref.; E. M. 353, 356.

Biblical Commission: All universally are bound in conscience by the duty of submitting to the sentences of the Pontifical Council on Biblical matters just as to Decrees of the Sacred Congregations approved by the Supreme Pontiff; nor can those avoid the note both of withdrawn obedience and of rashness, or therefore be free from grave fault, whoever by words or writings impugn such sentences. Pius X, M. P. 18 Nov. 1907.

When does the precept of faith oblige? - The precept of faith urges per se and by reason of itself: 1. After the completed use of reason, for beginning the Christian life, after someone has been sufficiently instructed concerning faith and its necessity. 2. When the truth of our faith has been sufficiently proposed to an adult infidel or heretic. 3. In the article of death, according to some, for tending more proximately to God. 4. Several times in life, at least according to many once a year, according to many others in each half-year, quarter-year, or even two-month period; and according to some, each month. But it urges per accidens: 1. When grave temptation is urgent, which cannot otherwise be overcome; and then the obligation arises from the very precept of faith if the matter concerns temptations against faith, but otherwise if it concerns other temptations. 2. By reason of another precept, when, for example, an act of contrition is to be placed in Confession, which, since it must proceed from faith, cannot exist without some act of faith, at least virtual and implicit, concerning its own proper object or motive. 3. After a lapse into heresy, or faith denied, and whenever an exterior profession of faith is to be made. - Struggl, q. 1, nn. 30, 33-35, 46; Suarez, d. 10, s. 2; Lugo, d. 13, n. 23; S. Th. 1. 2. q. 89, a. 6; L. 5-8, 11, 20; E. M. 353, 354.

Note: "Anyone in the first moral instant of the use of reason, if he is sufficiently instructed and adverts to this obligation, is bound by divine precept to elicit these acts..., so that, if he delays for a notable time, he sins gravely against this precept." Mazzotta, de Virt. theol., c. 1, § 1. In those who have already learned and believed the truths to be held by faith, generally acts of virtual and implicit faith suffice. Therefore this precept is sufficiently fulfilled by exercising other acts of religion. Hence he satisfies the precept who devoutly hears Mass, adores the Crucified, prays, makes the sign of the cross, receives the sacraments, and fulfills various obligations of Christian life, which also contain an external profession of faith.

By at least general and implicit faith it is necessary to believe all things revealed by God; namely, it is necessary that all those things be believed generally which have been revealed by God and proposed through the Church. For this the authority of God revealing requires. - Struggl, q. 1, n. 25; L. 7; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 2, aa. 5, 6; Bened. XIV, C. Etsi minime, 7 Feb. 1742, § 18.

What things are to be believed explicitly by necessity of precept? - "The object of faith per se is that by which man is made blessed. But all things which are contained in Sacred Scripture as handed down by God are related per accidens or secondarily to the object of faith.... As to the first credible things, which are the articles of faith, man is bound to believe explicitly, just as he is bound to have faith; but as to other credible things man is not bound to believe explicitly, but only implicitly, or in readiness of soul, insofar as he is prepared to believe whatever divine Scripture contains," S. Th. 2. 2. q. 2, a. 5; q. 1, a. 6 c. ad 1, or divine Tradition.

"Explicitly, by necessity of precept, there must be known and believed, at least in substance: 1. The Apostles' Creed. 2. The Lord's Prayer and the Angelic Salutation. 3. The precepts of the Decalogue and of the Church. 4. The sacraments which are necessary to each one, such as baptism, eucharist, and penance; for concerning the others it suffices to have implicit faith, since explicit faith is necessary only to those who receive them." L. H. A. tr. 4, n. 3. Proof from common practice and the common authority of theologians. The reason is that these contain the substantial heads and foundations of Religion, which one must profess; and the necessary precepts according to which one must live. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 2, aa. 3-6; E. M. 356, 357.

Note: As to the Creed. Two things are proposed in the Creed to be believed: the Divinity and Humanity of Christ. Concerning the Divinity there are proposed to be believed: Unity of Divinity, Trinity of Persons, the works of God according to nature, grace, and glory; creation, sanctification, resurrection, eternal life. Concerning the Humanity of Christ there are proposed to be believed: Christ's Incarnation, Conception, Nativity from the Virgin, Passion, Death, Burial, Descent to hell, Resurrection, Ascension, Coming to judgment. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 1, a. 8. Suarez and Lugo think not improbable the opinion denying the necessity of explicitly believing the perpetual virginity of Blessed Mary. - Although the Passion of Christ is to be believed explicitly under grave sin, nevertheless that circumstance, under Pontius Pilate, does not pertain to faith to be held explicitly. - Crucified, crucifixion, expressing the genus of death, is to be believed explicitly; for thus 1 Cor. 1:23: We preach Christ Crucified. And indeed the Church constantly preaches to the faithful this genus of death. But the Burial of Christ is to be believed explicitly, but more probably only under light sin, because it is a light circumstance. He descended to hell; more probably this is not to be believed explicitly under grave sin, indeed not even under light according to Suarez, because it is not easily understood by the faithful. But Lugo contradicts him. - But although the Resurrection from the dead is to be believed explicitly under grave sin, because it is a substantial matter, as is established from Paul, 1 Cor. 15, nevertheless that circumstance of time, the third day, is not to be believed explicitly. He sits at the right hand of the Father; probably, according to many, this is not to be believed explicitly, because it is difficultly understood by the faithful; but others affirm that it is to be believed explicitly, as to honor, power, and supreme dominion. - Thence he shall come to judge the living and the dead; these words, the living and the dead, according to Lugo, are not to be believed explicitly, because of the variety of explanations. - I believe in the Holy Spirit; the procession from the Father and the Son is not to be believed explicitly, by necessity of precept, by individual faithful, even though it is of faith. For many things are of faith which ought not to be known by all. The Holy Catholic Church; concerning the Church three things must be known and believed, namely that it is: 1. one on earth under one visible head; 2. governed and conserved by the assistance of the Holy Spirit; 3. infallible in matters of faith and morals, and to be heard by all. Yet this last, although certain and of faith, is not explicitly contained in the Creed. As to its holiness, it suffices to know and believe that it is holy because of its head, doctrine, sacraments, and canonized Saints, because concerning the others diverse persons think diversely. But as to its catholicity, it suffices to profess obedience to it in the person of its visible head. For by this article the universality of the Church is commended, and unity, which is signified when not many but one Church is believed.

Communion of Saints: whether it must be believed explicitly, and as to some communication of prayers only, or only implicitly in the unity of the Church; whether under grave or under light sin, theologians do not agree. Whatever may be the case, in practice all seem to know it sufficiently, since they often say pray for me, and frequently invoke the Saints. Trid. s. 4; s. 6, cc. 4, 12-15; Decr. S. O. Lamentabili, 3 July 1907; Lugo, d. 13, s. 4; Suarez, d. 13, ss. 2, 4; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 1, aa. 6-9; E. M. 356, 357.

As to the Decalogue. It is to be believed explicitly, because the precepts of the Decalogue are revealed so that they may be observed by all; moreover, what is revealed is to be believed by divine faith; and what has been revealed for directing the acts of individuals must be explicitly known by all. Nevertheless several contradict this, because precepts of this sort can be known in another way than through revelation.

As to the Precepts of the Church. These are not to be believed by divine faith, because they have not been revealed by God, at least insofar as they are precepts of the Church. This alone is to be believed, that the Church has the right of making precepts from divine authority. But the chief precepts of the Church must be known by all, whose observance pertains to all the faithful: namely the precept of observing feasts and hearing Mass on them, the precept of annual Confession, of Easter Communion, of fasting and abstinence. To the obligation of knowing the precepts is also reduced this, that individual persons must necessarily know the duties of their own state or condition.

As to the Eucharist. - All must know and believe the real presence of Christ in it. Likewise, according to the common opinion, it must be believed explicitly that Christ is whole under each species, and more probably also that he is offered in sacrifice, since all must assist at the sacrifice of the Mass. But transubstantiation is more probably not to be believed explicitly. Lugo, d. 13, n. 121.

As to the Lord's Prayer. - All must know under grave sin that God is to be prayed to with hope and confidence, and that all goods both of soul and of body, and graces for fleeing the evils of the soul, must be sought from him. In it God is believed as provident, helper, forgiving, rewarding. Likewise there is an obligation, at least under light sin, of reciting it sometime, according to the common opinion. - Lugo, d. 13, n. 133; Suarez, d. 13, s. 4, n. 12; L. 3.

Must the aforesaid things be known by memory? Not all are bound under mortal sin to know the aforesaid things by memory, or in that order, or in those words in which they are proposed, but it suffices to know them in a rough way and as to substance. For custom has explained that the obligation of learning them by memory is not beyond venial; as also it is not beyond venial not to know how to make the cross. And as to the Angelic Salutation, it must be known and recited only from fittingness. - Suarez, d. 13, s. 5, n. 8; de Relig., t. 2, l. 3, de Orat., c. 6, n. 8 seqq.; Lugo, d. 13, n. 132; L. 3; Gury 204.

Can those be absolved who are ignorant of those things which by necessity of precept and under mortal sin must be known? - R. Affirmatively, because although they have sinned by omitting to learn, nevertheless they can be sorry for this, with the purpose of learning. But the parish priest, like a parent his children, is bound under mortal sin, by himself or through another, to teach his sheep at least those things which they are bound under mortal sin to know. L. 3.

Pontifical Constitutions concerning the Chinese and Malabar rites are to be had as doctrinal, by no means as disciplinary; and therefore, except for censures, they still hold force. S. O. 5 Aug. 1891. The doctrine concerning Eschatological Renewal must be reproved. S. O. 2 Mar. 1910. It cannot safely be denied, or called into doubt, that the text of St. John in 1 Ep. c. 5, v. 5, concerning the three giving testimony in heaven, is authentic. S. O. 15 Jan. 1897. Those cannot be absolved who hold that the fire of hell is not real, but metaphorical. S. Poenit. 30 Apr. 1890.

With all reverence and submission of soul, all propositions condemned by the Holy See up to the year 1794, in which the propositions of the Synod of Pistoia were condemned, must be reproved. With like reverence and submission of soul must also be reproved: the Propositions condemned by Pius IX in the Encyclical Quanta cura, 8 Dec. 1864, and the Errors of our age, 80, condemned in the Syllabus transmitted to the whole Christian world; the 40 Propositions condemned from recently published works under the name of Antonio Rosmini Serbati, Decr. S. O. 7 Mar. 1888, Post obitum, approved and confirmed by Leo XIII; the doctrines of Americanism, condemned by the same Leo XIII, Brief of 22 Jan. 1899 to Card. Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore; the 65 Propositions condemned by the Decr. S. O. Lamentabili sane exitu, 3 July 1907, containing the chief errors of reformism or modernism, afterward proscribed by Pius X through the Encyclical Letter Pascendi dominici gregis, 8 Sept., and through the Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum, 1 Sept. 1904. E. M. 356, 357, 359.

Is there also given a precept of the external act of faith? As to the external act of faith, there is given a negative precept, prohibiting the denial of the true faith or the profession of a false one. Likewise there is given an affirmative precept, obliging sometimes to confess the faith even with danger to life. Proof of the first part. To deny the true faith, or to profess a false one, is to deny God and Christ. But Christ says: He who shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. Matt. 10:33. Proof of the second part. For ordered charity, which we owe to God and neighbor, requires that, when God's honor and the spiritual utility of the neighbor would be withdrawn privatively or contrarily, for professing the faith we should sometimes spurn temporal goods and even life. - Privatively, as if therefore great honor to God and great utility to neighbor would cease. Contrarily, as if otherwise God would be affected by injury, or the neighbor by grave evil, e.g., if the conversion or perversion of others, contempt of religion, scandal, depended on it. Suarez, d. 4, s. 2; L. 10; Laymann, c. 11, n. 2; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 3, aa. 1, 2; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., nn. 1647, 1648, 1653, 1657, 1683, 1827.

By positive law all to be baptized are bound to profession of faith, either by themselves or through sponsors; converted heretics; Bishops before consecration, and before the dispatch of letters of their own provision, Trid. s. 25, C. 2, de R.; Sixtus V, C. Romanus; Gregory XIV, C. Onus Apostolicae; all regular Prelates, Pius IV, C. Iniunctum nobis, id. Nov. 1564; nevertheless this Constitution has not been received in use as to those regular Prelates who are not immediately set over government by the Holy See, but either by chapter or by a higher superior, Thesaurus, de Poenis, c. 1, v. Fides, cf. 550; those about to have ecclesiastical benefices, and those who must assemble in a diocesan synod, Trid. l. c.; likewise those provided with a benefice with care of souls, within two months from possession obtained, before the Bishop himself, or if he is impeded, his vicar general, otherwise they do not make the fruits their own; canons and dignities of a cathedral church, who likewise within two months from begun possession are bound to do this also in chapter; otherwise neither do they make the fruits their own, although they can gain distributions for their choir assistance, S. C. C. 1726; Trid. s. 24, C. 12, de R.; Primates, Archbishops, Bishops in the first provincial synod which they attend, Trid. s. 25, C. 2, de R.; those to be chosen for the government and chairs of Universities and public gymnasia; and also those to be promoted to scholastic degrees of doctor, master, etc., Pius IV, C. In Sacrosancta, 13 Nov. 1654, § V. But Doctors and Masters of Universities at the beginning of any year must issue a solemn oath by which they are bound to hand down orthodox doctrine, Trid. s. 25, C. 2, de R. It belongs to the Rector or Prefect to see that this is observed. - Profession of faith can be emitted immediately after institution or collation of a benefice, and before possession, S. C. C. 11 May 1782; but cf. here below, paragraph Non manet, and it must altogether be made in the form proposed by Pius IV, C. Iniunctum nobis. But a few things are to be added, so that account may also be taken of the Decrees of the Vatican Council, S. C. C. 20 Jan. 1877. Made otherwise, it will not profit toward avoiding the canonical penalties laid against those who omit this profession. Conc. Rom. Bened. XIII, tit. 1, c. 1; Bened. XIV, Inst. 60; Ferrar., v. Fidei professio; L. 41; Collectan. cit., n. 1670; E. M. 364.

Those who are announced as doctors in Sacred Scripture are bound to furnish an oath according to the prescribed formula approved by the Motu Proprio of Pius X, 29 June 1910. Likewise an oath, according to the prescribed formula, must be furnished by all those who are listed in the Motu Proprio of Pius X, Sacrorum antistitum, 1 Sept. 1910, a profession of faith having been premised; - and also, by reason of office, synodal examiners and parish-priest consultors and those who are listed in C. Sapienti consilio, Order of Service in the Roman Curia, and others, concerning all of whom cf. below n. 550. This obligation of profession of faith seems grave, unless it has been derogated by legitimate custom. The penalty of restoring the fruits probably needs a declaratory sentence of the delict. Sanchez, l. 2, c. 5; Tamburini, l. 2, c. 1, D. 12, n. 4. The faculty made by the Council of Trent no longer remains, by which those provided with any benefices whatever can emit profession of faith within two months from the day of possession obtained; and consequently in the future profession of faith must be emitted before possession of the benefice. S. C. Cons. 1 Mar. 1911.

In external confession of faith and divine worship, the rite of one's own church, Latin or Oriental, is to be observed. Cf. for the Ruthenian rite constituted in the United States of North America, Apostolic Letter of Pius X, 18 Kal. 1907, and for the same rite constituted in the Canadian region, Decr. S. C. de Pr. I., 18 Aug. 1913. E. M. 365.

Blasphemy is opposed to confession of faith. For by it man in heart or mouth, according to intellect or affection, attributes to God things which do not befit him, or denies things which befit him. The vice of blasphemy thus pertains to unbelief. Speech concerning it will occur in the second precept of the Decalogue. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 13.

Resolves: - He who, when asked by private authority, either is silent, or responds obscurely, or says that he does not wish to respond, that he is not being asked by right, that he is not bound nor does he wish to tell others what he himself believes, and evades in a similar way, unless the circumstances of things demand otherwise, does not seem to deny the faith, but to be unwilling to betray it. Whence, if he can thus be freed from a troublesome inquiry, it is licit. By private authority; for as to public power, regularly it is not licit. Cf. proposition 18 condemned by Innocent XI; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 3, a. 2; Suarez, d. 14, s. 3; Lugo, d. 14, nn. 37, 39; Kenrick, tr. 13, n. 30. - He does not deny the faith, but shows it, who flees; and although this is licit, nevertheless not for a Pastor when his sheep need his work; as, on the contrary, if it is more expedient for them that for a time he withdraw himself and reserve himself for their good, he is bound to flee. Lugo, d. 14, nn. 42, 43, 96. When you are not asked about the faith, it is not only licit, but often better, for the honor of God and the utility of neighbor, to hide the faith than to confess it: as if, coming among heretics, you would do more good; or if from confession more evil would follow, e.g., disturbance, killings, exacerbation of a tyrant, danger of defection if you were tortured. Whence it is generally rash to offer oneself of one's own accord. Struggl, q. 1, n. 41; E. M. 364.

He does not sin against faith who visits the temples of heretics or infidels from mere curiosity, scandal, danger of perversion, or a command prohibiting this being absent, and provided it is not a protestative sign of false religion. At Rome there is a command not to enter the temples of heretics during the time of conferences and offices. - Likewise he does not sin who is present at a wedding banquet or burial of heretics, because these things do not properly pertain to faith, and the aforesaid assemblies are held as merely civil. Likewise he does not sin against faith who, passing through places of heretics, from fear of grave danger eats flesh-meat on a forbidden day, lest he be recognized as a Catholic, because this per se is not a sign of heresy; otherwise, however, if he ate flesh-meat even from fear of death, being impelled to this in hatred of the faith. - Collectan. cit., nn. 1829, 1833, 1843, 1855; Struggl, q. 1, nn. 44, 45; Lugo, d. 14, n. 156 seqq.; E. M. 364, 365.

It is licit to use the signs or clothing of infidels if they are clothing or signs proper to some region and distinctive of nation from nation, although that whole region is infidel, because these things per se are not referred to religion. More probably it is still licit, yet from a grave cause, if the clothing is distinctive of sect from sect, because then their primary use is for covering the body, and only secondarily for distinguishing a sect. Hence it is licit for a missionary, in order to conceal himself, to put on the garments of ministers of a false religion, so that he appears as one of them. Gur., Cas. 196; L. 15; Struggl, l. c., n. 43; Lugo, d. 14, nn. 70-97. But otherwise, if the clothing or signs are protestative of false religion, as are the garments and ornaments which priests use in the exercise of their functions. Hence neither is the burning of incense licit, nor genuflection before an idol, nor taking a heretical supper, etc., even if these things are done only externally. Collectan. cit., nn. 1640, 1649, 1650, 1651, 1653.

Catholics living among heretics, if by command of the magistrate they contract marriage before a heretical minister, sin against faith, even if they have contracted before or afterward will contract before a Catholic priest; for the contracting person testifies by that ceremony that he recognizes him as a minister of the true faith. This is intrinsically evil, because the authority of the minister, and consequently his doctrine, is increased, and there is concurrence in the heretical rites which the minister exercises in that act. Nevertheless they licitly contract before a civil magistrate, or rather testify that they wish to contract, provided they contract before or afterward in the Catholic rite; because this action has been instituted for a political end, so that they may be held as spouses, and offspring may not be judged illegitimate. - Bened. XIV, C. Ex quo singulari, 1742; L. 12 seqq., 18; Lugo, d. 14, n. 156 seqq.

It is licit per se to attend a merely civil funeral, by reason of office and from a grave cause, and scandal being removed. Yet by a general rule it is illicit to attend funerals of this sort in which, by design and out of contempt for religion, the attendance of priests is excluded. Masonic or anti-Catholic banners can in no way be admitted to funerals and in churches. Indeed in churches only blessed banners are to be admitted, unless otherwise disturbances and dangers are feared. S. R. C. 14 July 1887, ad 1, n. 3679; S. Poenit. 3 Apr. 1887; S. O. 4 Apr. 1887; E. M. 365.

What communication is prohibited to the faithful with Jews? "To the faithful, besides communication in matters of Religion and marriage, with Jews it is prohibited: 1. to dwell; 2. to use their physicians or medicine; 3. by agreement and association, to be present at a banquet or the same bath; 4. to act as servant or nursemaid in their houses; 5. to leave legacies to them in a testament; 6. to commit to them public offices among Christians. Thus from Canon Law. - Moreover, the end of these prohibitions is partly the dignity of the Christian Religion, partly the danger of subversion. Therefore when some communication from those listed is gravely opposed to this end, it is a mortal sin; but when only lightly, it is a venial sin. Besides, because of necessity and another reasonable cause it can happen that some communication with Jews is not even venially sinful," Struggl, q. 2, n. 5; La-Croix, l. 3, n. 89, especially with custom intervening, which today obtains almost everywhere. Scav., l. 2, n. 809; C. Nullus, C. Omnes, caus. 28, q. 1; C. Iudaei de Iud. Sarac. etc.; L. 18; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 10, aa. 7, 9, 10; E. M. 366.

What communication is prohibited with heretics? - Communication is simply prohibited with heretics if they are excommunicated persons to be avoided. - Communication is prohibited with them in divine things, namely by communicating in their rites proper to a heretical sect, but by no means by communicating with them in our rites, if they are tolerated, for example, by hearing Mass in a church with a heretic. The reason is that the former communication in divine things is a certain profession of a false sect, containing scandal and danger of perversion. And since these reasons are scarcely ever absent, therefore it is very rare that the aforesaid communication is licit, although it is not intrinsically evil. It has always been prohibited by the Holy See, which tolerates it only when there are very grave evils which cannot otherwise be avoided. Collect. S. C. de P. F., n. 1797 seqq., 1814, 1845, q. 6.

The latter communication often contains no grave inconvenience, but sometimes it contains scandal and danger of false opinion and error concerning the truth and necessity of the Catholic religion. And thus heretics can be admitted to sacred functions, provided nevertheless that they do not mix themselves into the sacred rites. At Rome they assist at them without any difficulty. But it would not be licit to administer the sacraments to them, nor the sacrament of penance, except in the article of death, and then scandal having been efficaciously removed. It is illicit for Catholics, in the temples of heretics, when false worship is exercised there, to play the organ. S. O. 8 July 1889. But if a Catholic man is lacking to play the organ, a non-Catholic musician can be temporarily admitted to that function in church, scandal or danger of scandal nevertheless being removed. S. O. 23 Feb. 1820.

Communication is prohibited with them also in civil matters, although they are tolerated, whenever scandal and danger of perversion are had from it. Concerning workers' associations, Catholic and mixed, cf. the Encyclical Letter of Pius X, Singulari quodam, 24 Sept. 1912, by which mixed associations of Catholics and Protestants are tolerated and permitted in Germany because of the great inconveniences which otherwise would be had, but in such a way that suitable precautions are used for avoiding the dangers which are present in these associations. - Public disputation with heretics is prohibited to all. S. C. C. 8 Mar. 1658. To laypersons especially it is prohibited to dispute publicly or privately with heretics. C. Quicumque 2, § 1, de Haeret., in 6. Struggl, q. 2, nn. 32, 33; Lugo, d. 22, n. 1 seqq.; Suarez, d. 20, s. 1; d. 21, s. 3, n. 4; Bened. XIV, de Syn., l. 6, c. 5, n. 2; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 10, a. 7; Quodl. 10, a. 15; E. M. 367.

What communication is prohibited to the faithful with pagans? - "By law both positive divine and ecclesiastical, under mortal sin communication is prohibited: 1. in those things which pertain to Religion, e.g., in their dogmas, ceremonies, and rites.... The reason... because one communicating in such a way uses signs and exercises actions which per se signify the profession of a false Religion, and accordingly at least externally denies the true faith. - 2. Likewise by divine and ecclesiastical law, it is prohibited to the faithful to enter marriage with pagans, indeed also with Jews. C. Cave 28, q. 1.... 3. - On the contrary, in civil actions by no law is it prohibited to the faithful to communicate with pagans, when danger of perversion is absent." Struggl, q. 2, n. 4; 1 Cor. 10:27. Since the worship of infidels is wholly false, communication in divine things with them in it is intrinsically evil. Collect. S. C. de P. F., n. 1775; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 10, aa. 7, 9, 10; E. M. 368.