§ 1. On necessary habitual and actual faith itself

495. Proposition 1. Habitual faith is necessary for all men by necessity of means, so that without it no one can be saved. It is of faith.

Proof 1. From Sacred Scripture. St. Paul says simply and without any restriction: "But without faith it is impossible to please God";¹ and at the beginning of the same chapter he defined faith: "Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for." But substance signifies the beginning or foundation, and the things to be hoped for are eternal salvation. Therefore if faith is lacking, the foundation of salvation must be lacking, and therefore salvation itself.

Proof 2. From the Councils. The Council of Trent, session VI, c. 7, asserts: "The sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which justification has ever happened to no one." The Vatican Council² defined: "Since without faith it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of his sons, therefore justification has never happened to anyone without it; nor will anyone obtain eternal life unless he has persevered in it unto the end."³

Proof 3. By reason of fittingness. Indeed intrinsic natural reasons of this complete necessity cannot be assigned, since it arises from the free ordination of God, who certainly could save man even without previous faith; but this necessity is very fitting. For our life is the way to blessed union with God in the other life. But it is very fitting that this union already be begun in earthly life; this indeed happens through faith.

For infants and all others lacking the actual use of reason (such as baptized insane persons who never had the use of reason), this habitual faith, which is infused together with sanctifying grace in baptism, suffices for justification and for eternal salvation; for adults, i.e. those enjoying the use of reason, actual faith is necessary in addition. Hence there is posited:

¹ Hebr. 11, 6.

² Sess. 3, Const. de fide cath. c. 3 (Denz. n. 1793).

³ Cf. also Conc. Trid. sess. 6, c. 7 de iustif. (Denz. n. 799 sq.).

496. Proposition 2. For all adults (capable of reason), actual and explicit faith is necessary in addition by necessity of means.

It is certain. Andrew Vega alone (+ 1560) taught that in a case of necessity man is justified without supernatural faith, but by natural cognition of God alone.⁴ There does not seem to be a great difference between Andrew Vega and those authors who think that faith broadly so called sometimes suffices for salvation.⁵

Proof 1. From Sacred Scripture. "But the justice of God through the faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all who believe in him; for there is no distinction."⁶ Christ commands the Apostles: "Preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe shall be condemned."⁷ Explaining this text, St. Bernard says that "faith alone sometimes suffices for salvation, and without it nothing suffices."⁸ St. Paul says: "We judge that man is justified by faith without the works of the law";⁹ and: "But knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law, except through the faith of Jesus Christ."¹⁰ In these and other texts of Sacred Scripture, not only habitual faith, but also actual faith is clearly prescribed. For the discussion is about the act of faith, namely to believe.

Proof 2. From the Council of Trent, which, explaining the words of St. Paul, says: "But when the Apostle says that man is justified by faith and freely, those words are to be understood in that sense which the perpetual consensus of the Church has held and expressed; namely, that we are therefore said to be justified by faith because faith is the beginning of human salvation, the foundation and root of all justification, without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the fellowship of his sons."¹¹

Proof 3. By reason of fittingness. The beatitude of man consists in the vision of the divine essence, and an adult man is bound to attain that beatitude by his own acts. But no one can tend toward some end unless he knows it. Therefore an adult man must know his supernatural end; moreover, this is impossible by natural reason alone. Therefore a supernatural illumination of the intellect, which is faith, is required.¹²

⁴ De iustif. l. 6, c. 10 sq.

⁵ Cf. below n. 498.

⁶ Rom. 3, 22.

⁷ Mark 16, 15 sq.

⁸ Tract. de baptismo c. 2, n. 8 (Migne, Patr. lat. 182, 1036).

⁹ Rom. 3, 28.

¹⁰ Gal. 2, 16.

¹¹ Sess. 6, c. 8 de iustif. (Denz. n. 801).

¹² Cf. S. theol. 2, 2, q. 2, a. 3.

497. Certain less correct opinions on the necessity of faith. a) The opinion of Lugo. Actual faith is indeed necessary for all adults for justification, but not always for eternal salvation. Hence Lugo¹³ writes: "The question proceeds only concerning an adult sinner who must be justified in order to be saved." Elbel¹⁴ asserts the same: "If a baptized infant should die shortly after having attained the use of reason, or if one baptized already as an elderly man, blind, deaf, and mute from birth, should invincibly be ignorant of the existence of God and depart from this life without mortal sin committed, without doubt as a friend and adoptive son of God, on account of the grace of baptism, he will obtain eternal beatitude as owed to him by hereditary right, even if it is supposed that he never elicited an act of faith." We deny that this can be admitted, because every adult capable of reason (and not only an adult sinner who wishes to be justified) is bound to obtain beatitude as a reward for good works. But no salutary work can be done without actual faith, at least implicit.¹⁵

The possibility of eternal salvation granted by God to all men seems to fight against the absolute necessity of faith. For since by far the greater part of men do not receive the sacrament of baptism, and since very many men never hear the preaching of true faith and therefore can elicit the act of faith only with such difficulty, it seems to follow that this whole crowd of men perishes and falls as a mass of damnation into hell. To avoid this very harsh consequence, some theologians devised diverse modes for establishing the possibility of salvation for all men.

b) The opinion of Ripalda. The desire of faith suffices, and an act of faith explicitly elicited is not required. For just as baptism received in reality or in desire suffices for salvation, so it seems that faith had or desired in desire also suffices.¹⁶ Few theologians admitted this doctrine, but very many rejected it, requiring explicit faith and not faith in desire alone. For nowhere, neither in Sacred Scripture nor in Tradition, is there a foundation for this opinion; hence it cannot be admitted. Moreover, when it is said: He who comes to God must believe, those words must be taken as they sound, for explicit faith and not only for wishing to believe, unless an authentic interpretation admits another sense; and this indeed has not been made.

497. c) The opinion of Gutberlet. Faith broadly so called suffices. What faith broadly so called is has already been said above, n. 491, where the divisions of faith were enumerated. The chief modern defender of this faith broadly so called was the illustrious Gutberlet,¹⁷ professor at Fulda. - But this opinion cannot be admitted, and seems openly to be opposed to the doctrine of St. Thomas,¹⁸ who says: "Faith adheres to all the articles of faith on account of one medium, namely on account of the first truth proposed to us in the Scriptures according to the teaching of the Church understanding rightly. And therefore he who falls away from this medium totally lacks faith." Therefore St. Thomas recognizes only one medium or intrinsic motive of faith, namely the first truth revealing, or divine revelation, and therefore rejects the light of reason as a sufficient motive for believing. But the reason why the light of reason is an insufficient motive of salvific faith is taken from this, that the act of salvific faith must be altogether supernatural; which certainly it would not be if the intrinsic motive were natural reason, even under the influence of actual grace. - Moreover, this opinion seems to be little safe, since Innocent XI condemned the proposition: "Faith broadly so called, from the testimony of creatures or a similar motive, suffices for justification,"¹⁹ and the Vatican Council²⁰ defined: "If anyone says that divine faith is not distinguished from natural knowledge about God and moral things, and therefore that for divine faith it is not required that revealed truth be believed on account of the authority of God revealing, let him be anathema."²¹

¹³ De fide disp. 12, sect. 1, n. 3. Thomas Bouquillon teaches the same (De virt. theol. n. 165), who also adds: "it can happen that some adult is saved who never actually loved God with a love of friendship, but only had habitual charity annexed to grace." This opinion indeed seems to be improbable.

¹⁴ De fide n. 13.

¹⁵ Cf. St. Thomas, De verit. q. 14, a. 11.

¹⁶ Ripalda, however, speaks not by assenting but by doubting (De ente supern. lib. 1, disp. 20, n. 123); cf. Schiffini, De virt. infus. n. 168.

¹⁷ Dogmat. Theologie VIII 403 sqq.: "In general faith must be proper faith; it is necessary necessitate medii; but in particular only the two truths: God is, and God is a rewarder, are certainly necessary necessitate medii; these two truths must be believed explicitly, but not always in the proper sense. Thus it would be conceivable that the pagan, to whom the motives of faith are unknown, could also come to a true faith through motives of reason." - This author proposed this opinion with the best intention; for he adds: "Precisely from apologetic interest, in order to reject the often-heard reproach that the Catholic Church condemns all unbelievers and pagans to hell, we have occupied ourselves so thoroughly with this question. But if indeed we have now shown the sufficiency of improper faith for salvation as very probable, it would be wrong, on the basis of this probability, in practice to be content with improper faith" (l. c. p. 503).

¹⁸ S. theol. 2, 2, q. 5, a. 3 ad 2.

¹⁹ Denz. n. 1173.

²⁰ Sess. 3, c. de fide cath. 3, 2 (Denz. n. 1811).

²¹ Martin, O.P., wrote at length on this matter, De necessitate credendi et credendorum (1906), p. 56 sqq. Likewise F. Schmid, Die ausserordentlichen Heilswege für die gefallene Menschheit (1906), and Wilh. Liese, Der heilsnotwendige Glaube (1902), rejected the opinion defended by Gutberlet.

498. The opinion of St. Thomas on the salvation of unbelievers. St. Thomas, and after him almost all theologians, explain the proposed difficulty concerning the salvation of unbelievers in this way: "Do those to whom [the Gospel] has not come, as being brought up in the woods, have an excuse for the sin of infidelity? - To this it must be said that according to the opinion of the Lord, which is had in John 15:22, those who have not heard the Lord speaking through himself or his disciples have an excuse for the sin of infidelity, yet they will not obtain the benefit of God, namely that they be justified from other sins which they either contracted by being born or added by living badly; and for these they are deservedly damned. If, however, any of them had done what is in himself, the Lord according to his mercy would have provided."²² Indeed he says: "For if one so brought up followed the guidance of natural reason in desiring good and fleeing evil, it must most certainly be held that God would reveal to him, either through internal inspiration, those things which are necessary to be believed, or would direct some preacher of the faith to him, as he sent Peter to Cornelius."²³ But the reason is that God sincerely wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth, and because he enlightens every man coming into this world.

Scholion. On the salvation of infants dying without baptism. Since, with all theologians agreeing, faith at least habitual is necessary for salvation, a most difficult question arises: How do infants dying without baptism have sufficient grace for that habitual faith? No certain response can be given to this question, nor has the Church determined anything on this matter. See the diverse opinions of theologians concerning this question, which pertains rather to dogmatic theology, in Billuart.²⁴

²² In Rom. c. 10, lect. 3.

²³ De verit. q. 14, a. 11 ad 1.

²⁴ De voluntate Dei diss. 2, a. 1.