Article I: On the Material Object in Itself

St. Thomas, II-II, q. 1, a. 1 and 2; a. 6, ad 1; De Verit., q. 14, a. 8.

671. Thesis I. The material object of faith is all things revealed by God. - The material object of faith is that which is believed on account of the authority of God revealing. But this, as the Vatican Council teaches, sess. 3, c. 3, is all those things and only those things which have been revealed by God. - It is proved:

The material object of faith is everything which can be attained through the formal object, which is the authority of God revealing. Now the authority of God extends itself equally to all revealed things, and God is equally worthy of faith, whether He manifests truths of greater importance or things of lesser importance; on the other hand, the authority of God in speaking cannot extend itself to those things which He does not reveal. Therefore all those things and only those things which God has revealed are the material object of faith.

672. Thesis II. The primary or principal material object of faith is God Himself as supernatural end, or first truth in being. - The primary or principal material object is that which is believed per se and by reason of itself, and by reason of which the other things are believed. But this is God Himself as supernatural end; for all other things, such as the humanity of Christ, the sacraments, and other things contained in the Scriptures, "do not fall under faith except according as they have some order to God," so that we may know Him more fully as supernatural end and tend better to Him. Whence the primary material object is said to be God as He is first truth in being.

Although the object of faith is first truth, which is altogether simple, nevertheless because we do not see it in itself but conceive it in our mode according to a certain composition, it follows that the object of faith as to us is some proposition capable of being enunciated.

673. The secondary object of faith. - To this pertain:

1. those things which directly and per se conduce to the supernatural end, and which are called matters of faith and morals: these are the object of faith properly and per se;

2. those things which per se are indifferent to the supernatural end and without which Christian doctrine concerning faith and morals is complete, but which in fact together with that doctrine were attested in Sacred Letters for its manifestation, for example, the history of Abraham or of the captivity of the Jewish people, and other things of this kind which can be known by natural reason; these also must be believed, but they are not the object of faith except improperly and per accidens (q. 1, a. 6, ad 1).

674. Corollary concerning private revelations. - Since divine authority is equal in particular revelations directed to a private person and in public revelation, it follows that they are the object of divine faith, and can be believed provided that they are certainly established. In which case, at least the one to whom they were directed is obliged to believe; if he omits this, he commits the sin of infidelity, disbelieving the authority of God, which overturns faith in him; but for others it probably suffices that they do not contemn them.

For if private revelations are approved by the Church, they are not proposed to be believed by divine faith; but the Church only declares 1. that they contain nothing against faith and morals, 2. that there are sufficient indications so that they may be prudently, piously, and without superstition believed by human faith; from which it follows 3. that it is not lawful to contemn them.

675. The implicitly revealed object of faith. - Not only those things pertain to divine faith which are explicitly, that is, in themselves, in express and proper words, revealed, but also those things which are revealed implicitly and in another.

For certain things are said to be revealed:

1. Formally and immediately, although implicitly, that is, really and by their proper concept, although not in an expressed and distinct but in a confused mode, and not in proper but in equivalent terms: these are those things which are contained in things explicitly revealed as a part in the whole, for example, the definition and essentials of the defined thing in the defined thing (the metaphysical actual whole and metaphysical parts, for example, man = rational animal; sacrament = practical sign of grace); - or the particular in the universal (the potential whole and subjective parts, for example, every man, John); - or essential elements and properties in the whole (the physical or integral actual whole, and constitutive or integral parts, for example, man = body and soul; head, brain, heart; risible); - or essential powers and potencies in the essence (the potestative whole and potential parts, for example, soul, intellect and will); - or one correlative, contradictory, or contrary in the other (for example, John is the son of Zebedee; this man is the father of John). These are the object of faith because equivalently and as to the sense they are said by God, and therefore are truly, really, and properly contained in revelation: He who reveals the whole implicitly reveals the parts.

2. Those things are said to be revealed virtually and mediately implicitly which are contained in revelation as an effect in a cause, and as a consequence or conclusion in its principles. These are not the object of divine faith, since they are not immediately and in themselves revealed,¹ but only mediately, namely, in the medium from which they can be deduced: for they are not admitted because God said them, but only on account of another thing which God said, namely, not uniquely on account of the word of God but also on account of the nexus with those things which He said. He who enunciates a principle or cause does not enunciate the consequence or effect. Nevertheless these are the object of the assent of theological science; and if they are infallibly defined by the Church, they must altogether be admitted as true and are the object, not of divine faith, but of theological assent or even of ecclesiastical faith.² - Hence:

¹ That these are revealed and to be believed was formerly taught by many, among whom M. Cano, A. Vega, Vasquez, and Ripalda are customarily named. Thus also today Tuyaerts, L'Evolution du Dogme. - On the contrary is the far greater part of more recent authors. Cf. Schultes, Introductio in historiam dogmatum.

² Thus it is generally taught; nevertheless several hold that in the case they are to be believed not by ecclesiastical but by divine faith, as Suarez, Ripalda, Lugo, Schiffini, de Grandmaison, Gardeil, Marin-Sola, who thus hold a certain intermediate opinion.

a) A conclusion from one revealed premise and another naturally known is revealed and an object of faith if the second only shows that the conclusion is formally implicitly contained in the first, for example, Christ is man, therefore He has a body or is a rational animal; every man generated from Adam contracts original sin, therefore Peter contracts it; and also, as it seems, a conclusion whose knowledge depends on a contingent fact, for example, every legitimately elected pontiff is the vicar of Christ, therefore Pius XI is the vicar of Christ; - this child duly baptized has grace; this consecrated host contains Christ. Nevertheless in these examples there is not a true syllogism, because the process does not have illative force; it is not a conclusion properly so called through true demonstration and deduction of a new truth, but is a merely explicative conclusion and a simple declaration of those things which were already actually contained in the premises.

b) A conclusion from one revealed premise and another naturally known, if it is equally contained in each and is equally and truly deduced from each, is not revealed nor an object of faith, because it is admitted not on account of the authority of God alone but on account of deduction, for example, Christ is God-man; but God-man can never lack grace or the beatific vision; therefore; - the Blessed Virgin is the Mother of Christ; but St. Anne is the mother of the Blessed Virgin; therefore she is the grandmother of Christ; - Christ died under Pontius Pilate, therefore under Tiberius. Then there is a true syllogism, true and properly so called deduction, and a true illative conclusion of those things which were contained in the premises only virtually and by force of connection; namely, a conclusion of a distinct truth, not revealed, but connected with revelation. The conclusion, logicians say, follows the weaker part.

c) A conclusion from two revealed premises, according to several authors,³ is revealed and an object of faith, both because the conclusion is formally contained in the two premises, which in the case are revealed; and because God knows their connection and conclusion, but he who enunciates two premises while he sees the conclusion intends to enunciate this and manifests it in a sufficient mode. These arguments, however, do not seem probative: not the first, because a conclusion properly so called is contained in the premises not formally but only virtually, which are the true cause of arriving at the conclusion; otherwise the conclusion would not express a new truth, nor would reasoning be a means of increasing knowledge;⁴ - not the second, because for a conclusion to be properly and formally enunciated, it is not sufficient that someone know it in the premises and intend to say it, but it is also required that he manifest the connection with them in some way by human speech, namely, that he enunciate the premises not indeed separately but as premises, insofar as they are compared to one another and lead to the conclusion. Therefore in order that God, who uses human speech to men, reveal a conclusion, it is not sufficient that He know the connection with the principles and see the consequence, but it is also required that He express that connection or consequence, and place one premise immediately after the other.⁵

³ Thus Lugo, the Salamancans, Franzelin, Mazzella, Brouwer, Bouquillon, Waffelaert, the Mechlinians, Mannens, Satolli, De Groot, Tanquerey, etc. The contrary is held by all who absolutely say that true and properly so called conclusions deduced from revelation are not revealed, speaking in the same way concerning all and in no way distinguishing among conclusions, whether they are deduced from one or from two revealed premises. Thus John of St. Thomas, Gonet, Billuart, Berthier, and generally Thomists; likewise Valentia, Molina, Turrianus, Lorca, Suarez, the Wurzburgenses, Dens, Schiffini.

⁴ Thus Mercier, Logique, 3rd p., ch. I, a. 2, n. 95; and Goudin, Philosophia Thom., t. I, de demonstr., a. 1, single paragraph.

⁵ Hence Berthier, de Loc. theol., p. 1, l. 2, ap. 1, n. 478: "The certitude of a conclusion drawn from two premises certain by faith is per se less than the certitude of a proposition certain by faith. For although God is judged to have included that conclusion in the premises, nevertheless God Himself in no way asserted that this was included in them, but the ingenuity of man found and collected it; to which the infinite knowledge and veracity of God does not belong."

Therefore conclusions of this kind, from two revealed premises, do not seem necessarily and always revealed; but if they were, others could be deduced from them, and from these again others, and thus revelation would extend itself as it were to infinity. In fact, nevertheless, they are often revealed and an object of faith, either because they too are expressly revealed, or because one premise only shows what is formally implicitly contained in the other, in which case there is no truly demonstrative syllogism, but a merely explicative one, as was said under a); for example, God is one; but Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God; therefore they are one God; - all the Apostles received the Holy Spirit; Peter is an apostle; therefore.

d) All the aforesaid conclusions, if they are considered as conclusions, that is, insofar as they have a nexus with premises even revealed and are deduced from them, are not the object of faith but of the assent of theological science, because then they are not admitted on account of the motive of faith, the authority of God revealing, but on account of the motive of science, namely, on account of the nexus with principles and rational deduction.

676. The object of faith as to itself and as to us; of divine and Catholic faith. - The object of faith can be distinguished:

1. The object of divine faith as to itself is that which in fact has been revealed and thus as to itself pertains to faith.

2. The object of faith as to us is that which in addition is sufficiently proposed as revealed and whose revelation is certainly known by us. Whence particular propositions whose knowledge depends on a contingent fact, for example, this host contains Christ, this child has grace, often will not be the object of faith as to us when the existence of the fact is not known by us with absolute certitude:1 for then the nexus with the revealed proposition does not appear.

3. The object of Catholic or universal faith as to all, and to be believed by all, is that which pertains to public revelation directed by God to all men and to the universal Church (contained in Scripture and Tradition), and in addition which the Church proposes as divinely revealed and commands all to believe. Hence private revelations cannot pertain to Catholic faith, and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin before the definition was an object of divine faith, but not of Catholic faith (Vatican Council, sess. 3, c. 3; Code of Canon Law 1323, § 1).

Whence something can a) be of faith as to itself, and not as to us, if we are not certain that it is revealed: thus today the question is posed concerning the universal mediation of the Blessed Virgin;

b) be of faith as to one person and not as to another, for example, a private revelation;

c) be only probably of faith, if there is doubt concerning revelation; indeed probably of Catholic faith, if there is doubt concerning the proposition of the Church;

d) begin to be of Catholic faith after definition; indeed cease to be of Catholic faith as to us, if the definition or its sense is no longer established.

Therefore explicit faith can grow.

1. These particular propositions are not revealed except insofar as they are contained in a universal proposition. Whence they are not revealed unless they are necessarily connected with it: if no necessary nexus exists, they are not revealed. But only strict certitude establishes the objective nexus between a particular and universal proposition.