Section — Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)
§ I. On Things Necessarily to Be Known and Believed by Necessity of Means
- It is certain that two things are to be known and believed by necessity of means: 1º that God is: He who approaches God must believe that he is. Hebr. 11. - 2º That he is a rewarder: He must... believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder to those who seek him. Ibid. - But whether other things must be believed explicitly by necessity of means for salvation is controverted: hence concerning them:
- Questions. - Q. 1º Is explicit Faith in the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation required by necessity of means?
Resp. A twofold probable opinion is given.
I. The OPINION altogether affirms. The reason is:
1º With regard to the Incarnation, because salvation is not given except through Christ; therefore that means must necessarily be explicitly known and believed.
2º With regard to the Most Holy Trinity, because Faith in this mystery is the foundation of our salvation; for Baptism, which is the Sacrament of Faith, must be conferred in the name of the Father, etc. Now that which is the foundation of salvation must be the primary object of Faith, and therefore believed according to itself and explicitly. - Thus Collet, Decal. c. 1. art. 1. - Antoine, c. 1. - St. Lig. says this opinion is more probable, n. 2. 1.
1 ** St. Alphonsus does not call this opinion absolutely more probable, but says that it seems more probable.
II. The OPINION which seems more probable denies. The reason is that before Christ implicit Faith in these mysteries sufficed; therefore even after his advent it ought to suffice. For Christ did not change the means. - Thus Suarez, disp. 12. sect. 4. - Lugo, De Fid. disp. 12. n. 91. 2. Nor is there an obstacle in the proposition condemned by Innocent XI, under n. 64, which has itself thus: A man is capable of absolution however much he labors under ignorance of the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity and the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ; it is not an obstacle, I say; for it could deservedly be condemned by reason of the first part, in which it is asserted that a man is capable of absolution, however much he generally labors under ignorance of the mysteries of Faith.
2 Cardinal De Lugo (l. c.) calls this opinion the more probable, the common one of the more recent doctors, and, as it seems, also of St. Thomas, P. 3. q. 69. art. 4. ad 2.
** VV. (Pag. 914. n. 23.) produce the response of the Congregation of the Holy Office, 28 Febr. 1703, in which it is said that a Missionary is bound, even to a dying adult who is wholly incapable, to explain the mysteries of faith which are necessary by necessity of means, as are ESPECIALLY the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation.
Resp. Let that word Especially be noted: for it is inferred that there are therefore other mysteries of faith necessary by necessity of means, which nevertheless it is not necessary to propose to that dying person. Therefore in a certain broader sense mysteries of faith are here called necessary by necessity of means.
Q. 2º Can he be absolved who is ignorant of those things which are certainly of necessity of means?
Resp. Neg. Neither licitly nor validly. Thus all. The reason is that he, on account of the defect of a simply necessary means, is incapable of justification; therefore also incapable of absolution. Besides, no one can have hope of salvation unless he believes God to be a rewarder.
- Q. 3º Can one who is ignorant of the mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation be absolved?
Resp. 1º He cannot licitly, outside a case of necessity, for example, danger of death; the reason is that a Confessor absolving such a one exposes the Sacrament to the danger of nullity, as is plain from the preceding Question 1. - Hence the Confessor must either first instruct the penitent 3, or dismiss him until he has been sufficiently instructed. - St. Lig. n. 3.
3 Before absolving a penitent, it would be enough that this one, while the Confessor proposes those mysteries, elicit an act of faith, although he cannot learn them here and now. St. Alphonsus (In Prax. Confess.) reports these words of Bl. Leonard: It is not good counsel to dismiss such ignorant persons, that these things may be taught by others, because no other fruit will be hoped for, except that in this way the ignorant remain ignorant; and therefore it is expedient briefly to teach them the aforesaid principal mysteries, likewise bringing it about that they elicit with him acts of faith, hope, charity, and contrition, yet obliging them that hereafter they have themselves instructed perfectly concerning the other mysteries necessary to be known by necessity of precept.
Resp. 2º More probably he can be absolved validly, if he is in invincible ignorance. The reason is drawn from what was said in the II Opinion of the first Question 4.
4 St. Alphonsus observes (Lib. 2. n. 2.) after Tanner, that even if you hold that explicit faith in these mysteries is now necessary by necessity of means, nevertheless if there are any of such rude intellect that they can in no way conceive those mysteries under some proper notion, these with regard to this are to be compared with infants and the foolish. And indeed if they have already been baptized, and are not instructed, shall we say that sanctifying grace flies away from them because they do not do what they cannot do?
Moreover, if it is more probable that those ignorant of these mysteries are validly absolved, therefore previous confessions made in that state of ignorance are not necessarily to be repeated. It must be carefully noted (says St. Alphonsus Lib. 6. n. 505.) that penitents are not to be compelled to repeat confessions, unless it is morally certain that they were invalid. Now confessions which more probably are valid cannot be said to be morally certainly invalid.