Article II. On the Material Object of Faith

The material object of faith, concerning which alone we treat here, is that which we believe by divine and Catholic faith, or, as is clear from canon 1323, § 1, all those things which are contained in the written or handed-down word of God, and are proposed by the Church, whether by solemn judgment or by ordinary and universal magisterium, as divinely revealed and to be believed. - But it is not required that all revealed truths be believed explicitly, provided that all are believed implicitly. Indeed, among those truths themselves to be believed explicitly, those which are of necessity of means must be distinguished from those which are of necessity of precept. - Cf. Mazzella, disp. 2, art. 7, § 1.

I Say 1st. It is certain that these two things must necessarily be believed by necessity of means for salvation, namely that God exists, and that he is the Rewarder. The first is clear from the fact that it is impossible to obtain salvation, namely the ultimate end, unless we tend toward him; but we tend through faith, and this cannot be had unless before all things the existence of God is believed. The other is clear from proposition 22 condemned by Innocent XI, which holds thus: "Only faith in one God seems necessary by necessity of means, but not explicit faith in the Rewarder." But both are confirmed from the Apostle, Hebr. xi, 6: "One approaching God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder to those seeking him." - Cf. Mazzella, disp. cited, § 3, nn. 864 and seq.

I say 2nd. By necessity of precept all the faithful are bound explicitly to believe 1st. all those things which are contained in the Apostles' Creed, and 2nd. the divine efficacy of the principal sacraments, namely Baptism, Penance, and the Eucharist, and also of the other sacraments when they are proximately to be received. The reason for the first is that the very nature of Christian profession which is contained in the Creed demands this. It is clear also from the practice of all the faithful. - But the reason for the second is that the sacraments cannot be received worthily unless their divine efficacy is known, and this cannot be known by any other account except through faith, since they are of positive institution.

Question 1. Is explicit faith in the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation required by necessity of means?

Response. It is controverted, but the negative opinion is certainly probable. The reason is that before Christ implicit faith in these mysteries sufficed; therefore also after his advent it ought to suffice; for justification ought not to be said to have been made more difficult. Besides, only that faith is required which is necessary and suffices for justification, or for an act of love of friendship: but implicit faith in these mysteries suffices for this. Therefore. - Nor does the proposition condemned by Innocent XI, under n. 64, stand in the way, which lies thus: "A man is capable of absolution, however much he labors under ignorance of the mysteries of faith; and even if through negligence, even culpable negligence, he does not know the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and of the Incarnation of Our Lord Jesus Christ": it does not stand in the way, I say; for deservedly it could be condemned by reason of the first part, in which generally, or in every case, it is asserted that a man is capable of absolution, however much he labors under ignorance of the mysteries of faith. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 2. - Suarez, disp. 12, sect. 4. - Lugo, disp. 12, n. 91. - Mazzella, disp. 3, n. 875.

Question 2. Can a penitent invincibly ignorant of the mysteries of the Most Holy Trinity and Incarnation be licitly absolved?

Response. Negatively, outside a case of necessity, for example, danger of death. The reason is that the opinion affirming that explicit faith in these mysteries is required by necessity of means is probable, indeed to some, such as St. Alphonsus, it seems more probable; and therefore the confessor absolving a penitent of this kind would expose the sacrament to danger of nullity. Hence the confessor ought either to dismiss him until he has been sufficiently instructed, or, what in many cases would be better, to instruct him, at least as much as is enough for eliciting an act of faith here and now, namely by clearly proposing those two mysteries and seeking assent to them.

But if the penitent were certainly in a state of vincible ignorance of these mysteries and did not wish to learn them, or invincibly ignored those things which are certainly of necessity of means, he could in no way be absolved even in danger of death, because he would be altogether incapable of receiving justification. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 3. - Baller., (a) and (b), p. 165.

Question 3. Is there an obligation of believing explicitly the precepts of the Decalogue?

Response. Many affirm this, because the precepts of the Decalogue were revealed that they might be observed by all; but several rightly contradict it, both because precepts of this kind can be known in another way than through revelation, and because these precepts were given not for believing, but for acting. - Nor should you say that the sacraments also were given for acting rightly; for the response is that they cannot be received worthily unless they are first believed to have been divinely instituted.

For the rest, although these precepts need not necessarily be known through faith, nevertheless they must be known under grave obligation; not indeed in order and as to the individual words, but as to substance. The same must be said concerning the precepts of the Church and concerning the Lord's Prayer, and some add also concerning the Angelic Salutation.