Article IV: On the Church Proposing the Object of Faith

St. Thomas, II-II, q. 1, a. 8, 9, 10.

685. Principle I. The Church infallibly proposes the object of faith. - In order that those things which truly and really are in revealed doctrine might become known to all, Christ instituted the Church, which could be recognized by all as His own, and which would be the authentic organ of infallibly proposing all things which, as divinely revealed, are to be believed by divine and Catholic faith (Vatican Council, sess. 3, c. 3; Code of Canon Law, can. 1322, § 1).

Moreover, there is a twofold mode which the Church uses in infallibly proposing or defining truths of faith: one extraordinary and solemn, which she employs in the definitions of Ecumenical Councils and of the Supreme Pontiffs speaking ex cathedra; the other ordinary and daily, which the Church diffused throughout the world uses insofar as, by the ordinary and universal magisterium, that is, by the daily and universal preaching and doctrine of the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops, she proposes and defines certain truths as revealed and to be believed (cf. treatise on the Church; Vatican Council, l. c.; Code of Canon Law, can. 1323).

686. Principle II. The Church is infallible in defining not only the object itself of faith but also connected truths and facts, and she proposes sacred doctrine in varying degrees. - The Church is not only infallible in defining revealed doctrine itself; for more perfectly guarding it she also infallibly proposes truths (and facts) necessarily connected with it insofar as they are connected; yet without commanding that they be believed by divine faith; - besides, she does not always at once from the beginning define revealed truths themselves as revealed and to be believed, but sometimes as certain and true, or only as safe and to be held. Hence sacred doctrine can be proposed in various degrees:

1. Of defined and to-be-believed faith, or dogma of faith, when the infallible Church explicitly proposes it as revealed and to be believed; to this a heretical proposition is directly opposed.

2. Certain, when the Church only proposes or defines it as certain; to this erroneous doctrine is directly opposed. But doctrine is certain:

a) either certain by faith, if it is revealed; and to this is opposed error in faith or in revealed doctrine;

b) or theologically certain, if it is not revealed but has been deduced from another revealed truth; and to this is opposed theological error.

3. Common and safe, if it is admitted by all and is held as alone conformable to revelation, but is not proposed as certain; to this a temerarious proposition is directly opposed.

4. Probable or more probable, when it is verisimilar, that is, when a grave or graver reason for judging is present, that it is revealed or deduced from revelation; and to this is opposed an improbable or less probable opinion.

By some, certain doctrine is sometimes called proximate to faith (to which proximate to heresy is opposed), namely, when it is already so commonly and certainly proposed as revealed that it is proximately definable as a dogma of faith, for example, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin in the last state before the definition; - or also, according to others, when it has been declared by the Church at least as certain, but there is doubt whether it is of defined faith.

687. Principle III. The Church is also infallible in condemning and rejecting propositions opposed to the doctrine of faith. - The Church teaches not only positively by proposing or commending doctrine on account of its conformity with the doctrine of faith; but also negatively by condemning or censuring on account of some opposition with the doctrine of faith. But propositions are opposed to the doctrine of faith in diverse ways:

A. Some are opposed directly on account of the doctrine itself asserted:

1. A heretical proposition, which is directly opposed (contrarily or contradictorily) to defined revealed doctrine, for example, Christ is not God.

2. Erroneous, which is opposed directly and immediately to certain doctrine, whether it is revealed but proposed by the Church not as revealed but as certain, and then it is error in faith, for example, Christ does not have grace; or whether it has been deduced from revealed doctrine, and then it is theological error, for example, Christ is not impeccable; the Son does not proceed from the Father by the intellect.

3. Temerarious, not only negatively because it affirms without any reason and authority, but positively and contrarily because it thus affirms directly against common and safe doctrine, which is admitted by all as alone conformable with revelation (not however by necessary connection), for example, the Church is not infallible in the canonization of saints; God does not will to save all children.

4. Improbable, which does not have grave reasons for itself, and is directly opposed to probable doctrine, for example, Blessed Joseph was immaculately conceived; a child can be saved without Baptism.

To these can be added a proposition proximate to heresy, in the manner explained in the preceding number.

B. Others are opposed to the very expression of Catholic doctrine, on account of the form of enunciating:

1. Savoring of heresy is a proposition, or one suspected of heresy, which can have a true sense, but nevertheless from the circumstances offers occasion for opining or suspecting that some heresy is in the mind of the one enunciating, for example, faith justifies; it is ridiculous to carry the Eucharist in procession; Christ is less than the Father; Christ is a most perfect man.

2. Savoring of error or suspected of error: for example, the Congregation of the Index is evil.

3. Ill-sounding, which has a true sense, but words not fitting, insofar as it expresses doctrine against the common and ordinary mode of speaking, for example, in God there are three relative essences; the Blessed Virgin is divine mother.

4. Offensive to pious ears, which, although it is neither false nor ill-sounding, nevertheless says something unbecoming and unworthy, which diminishes the piety and reverence of the faithful, for example, a proposition explaining the shameful members of Christ or speaking unbecomingly of the parturition of the Blessed Virgin, or this one: St. Mary Magdalene, prostitute, pray for us.

688. Principle IV. The Church employs the Symbol as the practical mode of proposing faith by the ordinary and universal magisterium. - This Greek word signifies both a contribution or collection of many things, and also an indication, a distinctive sign, a token. Therefore the brief collection or summary of the articles of faith, which is proposed to all to be believed as the sign of their profession, was rightly so called. Moreover, symbols were composed for three ends: principally a) that by the profession of the symbol the faithful might be distinguished from infidels and heretics; also b) for the easier instruction of the faithful; and c) that uniformity in faith might be preserved throughout the whole world.

There are three more celebrated symbols of faith in the Church, of which one declares another, and proposes the same doctrine explicitly, more distinctly, and more fully according to the necessities of diverse times, and diverse errors, so that the faithful might be fortified against them:

The first, of the Apostles,¹ which by some is divided into 14 articles, by others into 12; this latter division became common among the faithful, and was preserved in the catechism of the Council of Trent.

¹ At least it already existed at the beginning of the second century, as having already been spread everywhere in that century; indeed probably in the first century, as seems to be established from the simplicity of the speech, which is in no way theological. It is the evolution of the baptismal form and of the primitive instruction to be handed down to catechumens, and in this sense it is rightly called apostolic doctrine. The evolution took place in various parts of the Church, both Western and Eastern, and under various forms, which exercised a mutual influence among themselves. The Roman form of the Symbol is the fruit of a progressive evolution, whose first stage is to be placed at least at the beginning of the second century.

The second, of the Fathers, which was composed in the First Council of Nicaea, but in the First Constantinopolitan Council and in the succession of times was increased.

The third is called of St. Athanasius, because it was once erroneously thought to have been composed by him;² it is not a symbol except insofar as it was received by the authority of the Roman Pontiff.

² It was composed in the fifth or sixth century.