Section I. On Necessity of Means

The act of faith (actual faith), as is clear, cannot be necessary except for adults. But a distinction must be made between adults not yet justified and adults justified. Now:

I. The act of faith is necessary for salvation by necessity of means for adults not yet justified. And indeed, the act of faith is necessary for obtaining justification. But justification itself is necessary for salvation by necessity of means. Therefore the same must be affirmed of the act of faith.

The major is proved: 1. From Sacred Scripture. "But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he who comes to God must believe."² That St. Paul here speaks of actual faith is clear both from the word believe and from the whole context. That the Apostle speaks of supernatural faith is clear from verse 1, where he calls it "the substance of things to be hoped for, the argument of things that appear not." But that the words must be understood of all men of all times is clearer than the sun from the context from chapter 10:38-39 through chapter 11:1-40 inclusive, where he is wholly concerned to prove, by examples adduced, that all the saints from the beginning of the world were justified by faith, and likewise that all still must be justified by it. 2. From Councils. The Council of Trent says thus: "Without it [faith] justification has never happened to anyone."³ That actual faith is to be understood you may deduce from the fact that the Council speaks of faith which, "conceiving from hearing, they are freely moved toward God, believing that the things divinely revealed and promised are true."⁴ The Vatican Council teaches the same.⁵ 3. It is confirmed by reason. For it is altogether fitting that, for the justification of an adult, it be required by necessity of means that he tend toward God as his supernatural ultimate end. But this cannot happen unless God is apprehended as the supernatural ultimate end; and this happens through faith.

Corollary. To the question how an adult not yet justified, who lacks a preacher, can elicit an act of faith, St. Thomas responds: "For if someone nourished in such a way⁶ followed the guidance of natural reason in seeking good and fleeing evil, it must most certainly be held that God would either reveal to him by internal inspiration those things which are necessary to be believed, or would direct some preacher of the faith to him, as Peter to Cornelius" (De veritate, q. 14, a. 11, ad 1).

II. The act of faith is also in some way necessary for justified adults by necessity of means, namely to the extent that salvation cannot be obtained without supernatural prayer by which the grace necessary for fulfilling the precepts is obtained. Now for prayer of this sort an act of faith is necessarily required. Hence the act of faith is also necessary for justified adults in this sense by necessity of means, so that they may arrive at salvation.

Corollary I. For justification, the desire of faith does not suffice, but a formal act of faith is required, as is deduced from the obvious sense of the documents which we have alleged.

Corollary II. For justification an act of faith strictly so called is required; but faith broadly so called does not suffice, that is, as those few explain who think this faith to suffice,⁷ faith which does not rest on the authority of God revealing, but on knowledge acquired from creatures, yet with supernatural help. The arguments adduced prove that true faith is required, of which sort faith broadly so called is not. There is added that the attacked opinion almost falls into proposition 23 condemned by Innocent XI: "Faith broadly so called from the testimony of creatures or a similar motive suffices for justification."⁸

III. The act of faith, necessary by necessity of means, must be explicit as regards certain dogmas; namely:

1. Explicit faith in God existing and rewarding is certainly required. This is clear from Sacred Scripture: "For he who comes to God must believe that He is, and is a rewarder to those who seek Him."⁹ Hence Innocent XI condemned proposition 22: "Only faith in one God seems necessary by necessity of means, but not explicit faith in a rewarder."¹⁰

In addition, explicit faith in God as rewarder in the supernatural order is more probably required; and according to many, also in God existing as author of the supernatural order. On this account the dogmatic theologians should be consulted.

2. It is disputed whether after the Gospel has been promulgated, explicit faith in the Most Holy Trinity and Christ the Redeemer is necessary by necessity of means. I said after the Gospel has been promulgated; for before that, that explicit faith in the aforesaid mysteries was not necessary is drawn from these passages of Sacred Scripture: "The mystery which had been hidden from ages and generations, but now is manifested to His saints";¹¹ "But before the faith came, we were kept enclosed under the law, unto that faith which was to be revealed."¹²

That after the Gospel has been promulgated explicit faith in those mysteries is necessary by necessity of means is taught by St. Thomas, as it seems (II-II, q. 2, aa. 7 and 8), and others. They rest first on these passages of Sacred Scripture: "But the justice of God, that is, our justification, by the faith of Jesus Christ, unto all and upon all who believe in Him; for there is no distinction."¹³ "Now this is eternal life: that they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom Thou hast sent."¹⁴ Add the responses of the Holy Office.¹⁵ Nevertheless, the contrary opinion also is probable, because the aforesaid doctrine is not necessarily deduced either from the nature of the thing, or from Sacred Scripture, or from the testimonies of the Fathers, or from the responses of the Sacred Congregations. Not from the nature of the thing, because in order that man tend toward God as his supernatural end, explicit faith in God existing and rewarding in the supernatural order suffices. But the texts of Sacred Scripture, the testimonies of the Holy Fathers, and the contrary responses are understood by the favorers of this opinion of implicit faith, or of necessity of precept, or of necessity considered according to common and ordinary providence (St. Alphonsus, II, 2).¹⁶

Corollary I. An adult (not perpetually insane) who certainly does not know God existing or rewarding, of himself cannot be baptized even in danger of death, because he certainly lacks faith, which in an adult is required for obtaining justification (under III). Thus theoretically; since practically either ignorance can be driven out or it will not be certain.

Corollary II. An adult (not perpetually insane) who does not know the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and of Christ the Redeemer, of himself cannot be baptized or absolved, not even in extremis, unless he is first instructed.¹⁷ But if, with extreme necessity pressing, instruction cannot be undertaken, Baptism and absolution should be conferred, provided the required intention is certainly, or at least with some probability, present.¹⁸ In the former case Baptism should be administered absolutely, in the latter conditionally; but absolution should not be granted except conditionally, because even if the required intention were certainly present, nevertheless supernatural contrition probably is lacking, when knowledge of the mysteries which probably must be believed by necessity of means is lacking.¹⁹

¹ Cf. Waffelaert, Annotationes in tractatum de virtutibus theologicis; Bouquillon, De virtutibus theologicis; Van der Moeren, Tractatus de virtutibus theologicis.

² Heb. 11:6. The same is taught at Heb. 10:38; Gal. 2:16; Mark 16:15 sq.

³ Session 6, chapter 7.

⁴ Session 6, chapter 6.

⁵ Session 3, chapter 3.

⁶ That is, in forests.

⁷ Thus Gutberlet, Dogmatische Theologie, VIII, 493 sq.

⁸ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1173.

⁹ Heb. 11:6.

¹⁰ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1172.

¹¹ Col. 1:26.

¹² Gal. 3:23.

¹³ Rom. 3:22.

¹⁴ John 17:3.

¹⁵ The response of the Holy Office, May 3, 1703 (Collectanea de Propaganda Fide, n. 254, ad 2, and n. 256, ad 2), causes the greatest difficulty. Asked whether an adult in the article of death could be baptized under a promise of learning the truths of Faith if he recovered, it responded: "That the promise does not suffice; but that the missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even one dying, who is not altogether incapable, the mysteries of Faith which are necessary by necessity of means, such as the principal mysteries of the Trinity and Incarnation." This response Benedict XIV also reports in the Constitution Postremo mense, February 28, 1747, n. 41; finally the Holy Office, March 30, 1898 (Collectanea de Propaganda Fide, n. 1993), again appealed to it.

¹⁶ Cf. note [16].

¹⁷ Cf. the responses of the Holy Office cited in note [16].

¹⁸ This doctrine is not opposed to the cited responses of the Holy Office, namely those of May 3, 1703, and March 30, 1898. These establish what generally must be done; this does not prevent an exception being admitted in an urgent case of necessity.

¹⁹ Nor is proposition 64 condemned by Innocent XI an obstacle to our doctrine: "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" (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1214). For here the speech concerns culpable ignorance, which certainly excludes valid absolution until the penitent grieves over it (St. Alphonsus, II, 2).