Palladium theologicum, Tomus quintus: De virtutibus

I PREMISE first, with Sanchez lib. 2. cap. 3., Valencia disp. 1. quaest. 2. p. 3. in calce, Azor tom. 1. lib. 8. cap. 7. quaestio 1., that the faithful are bound to learn those things which they must believe. Hence see how necessary the School of Christian doctrine is. The reason is, because it is a necessary means; for faith comes from hearing: Rom 10.

I PREFACE secondly, that Doctors and Pastors are bound to know not only the articles, but also other truths of FAITH, as D. Thomas teaches art. 5., D. Bonaventure de 6. aliis Seraphim, and de Eccl. Hierarch.

CONCERNING the question, the first opinion is that it is enough for rustics to believe the articles of faith implicitly, and consequently to know them, namely by believing what the Church believes; and therefore they are guilty of no fault if they ignore the Mystery of the Trinity. So Innocent in cap. Firmiter in fine de summa Trinitate. Jo. Andreas rubr. eo tit. num. 26. Abbas num. 6. Hostiensis num. 11. et 18. Imola num. 11. et 12. Ananias cap. firmissime, num. 7. de haeret. Bald. C. de Summa Trinit. in rubr. num. 7 et 8. Zanchinus de haeret. cap. 2. and Rosella verb. Fides, provided they believe that God exists and rewards. This opinion is proclaimed erroneous by Valencia quaest. 2. p. 4. Petrus Ledefma 2. Tom. summae, tract. 1. cap. 2. Sanchez lib. 2. cap. 3.; indeed it is proclaimed heretical by Bannes 2. 2. quaest. 22. art. 2. col. 3. and Eymericus in 2. p. direct. Inq quaest. 10. haeresi 8., condemned by Gregory II. See also de Lugo disp. 13. sect. 4. num. 60. For my part I do not believe that those Doctors spoke of all rustics, but only of certain ruder ones, nearly incapable, such as abound in desert places, as Vasq. notes 1 2 disp 121. cap. 2.

The SECOND opinion is that all are bound to believe all the articles of the Apostles' Creed. But they seem to rely on this, that the Holy Fathers say it was composed by the Apostles, as D. August. lib. de fide, et Symb. cap. 1., Cyril catech. 5., and this is supposed in many decrees which Gratian collected de consecr. dist. 4. So think Gabriel 3. dist. 25. quaest. un. art. 2., Marsil. 3. quaest. 14. art. 3. concl. 5., Castro lib. 1. de iusta haeret. punit. cap. 9., Bannes 2. 2. quaest. 2. art. 8. disp. 2., Aragon. eadem quaest. 2. art. 6., Valent. quaest. 2. p. 3. et p. 4., Sayr. in Claui Reg. lib. 2. cap. 9. num. 15., Suarez de fide, disp. 13. sect. 14., although not all say this absolutely: Becanus p. 2. cap. 12. n. 8., Bellarm. in Symbolo, §. 3. et 5., Laym. tract. 1. cap. 9., Caspens. disp. 3. sect. 6. num. 40., Tanner. quaest. 7. dub. 3., Lugo disp. 13. sect. 4., Fuliesc. lib. 3. cap. 5., Morandus quaestione 10., Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 2. num. 30., Nauar. lib. 5. Consil. tit. de paen. consil. 6. quaest. 1. In the second edit. consil. 10. quaest. 1. and Azor. p. 1. lib. 8. cap. 6. they say it is necessary to believe either the articles of the Apostles' Creed, or the Creed of 14 articles, which is called the children's catechism.

The THIRD opinion is that not all are bound to believe explicitly the articles of the Creed as they are contained in the children's Catechism, but those which the Church celebrates with solemn title and proposes as to be learned. So Scotus dist. 25. quaest. 1. § sed posito., Richard. art. 4. quaest. 7., Angel. verb. fides num 7., and there Sylvest. quaest 3., Tabiena v. credere, q. 3., Michaël Medina lib. 4. de recta in Deum fide, cap. 6., Albertus 3. dist. 25. art. 6., Dugand. quaest. 1. num 9., Almain. quaest. un. It is cited from Sanchez, Fagundez, and others commonly to D. Bonaventure dist. 25. quaest. 3., but undeservedly, as I shall say.

The FOURTH opinion is that all are bound to believe the fourteen articles contained in the children's Catechism; because the Holy Church opens them up so much by preaching and solemn expositions that no one can plead ignorance. This is the opinion of D. Bonaventure, who explains of which articles he speaks, and refers to the articles of the children's catechism: the Mystery of the Trinity and other articles, all of which, concerning God, are seven; and seven concerning Christ as man; and the effective remission of sins, resurrection, and glorification are reduced to the divinity; but meritoriously to Christ, who justifies through the Sacraments, especially Baptism and Penance; while through the Eucharist the worship of God is principally sustained. This is also the opinion of D. Thom. ad prim. Corinth. 11. lect. 4. There follow Armilla v. credere, num. 2., Eymer. p. 1. direct. Inq quaest. 3. ibi, Penna in com. 20. et 2. p. quaest. 10. com. 35., Tolet. lib. 4. summa, cap. 2., Pet. Ledefma 2. Tom. summae, tract. 1. cap. 2., Vasq. disp. 121. cap. 2., Manuel p. tom. summae, secunda edit. cap. 88., Ludov. Lopez p. 1. Instruct. cap. 41., Azor. t. 1. lib. 8. cap. 6. quaestio 2., Sanchez, citing others lib. 1. cap. 3. num. 6., Scotus 3. dist. 25. quaest. 1. et 4. dist. 5. quaest. 1. and the Scotists, especially Mastrius disp. 6. quaest. 16. num. 408. The fourteen articles, according to the common opinion of Theologians, I expounded in quaest. 8.: seven concerning the Divinity, and the same number concerning the Humanity of Christ and his works.

I ASSERT with D. Bonaventure first, that not all the articles must be believed by necessity of precept, but only those which the Church proposes and teaches in the Creed of the Catechism and of the Apostles.

It is PROVED from the Holy Doctor, because the Creed is handed down and composed for this purpose, as the Holy Fathers teach, especially D. August. serm. 130. de tempore, and the Councils to be cited shortly.

And the Catechism of Pius V. declares: Those things which Christian men must first hold are those which the Holy Apostles, breathing with the divine Spirit, distinguished in the twelve articles of the Creed.

It is PROVED indeed from St. Bonaventure that one is not bound to know all the contents of the Creed most distinctly, for there are some things in it, such as the Communion of Saints, and much more the emanation of the Holy Spirit from the Father, and from the Son through the way of the will, and of the Son through the intellect, which Theologians scarcely grasp; and if we were bound to know all these entirely distinctly, very few would be saved, which is incredible.

Therefore it suffices to believe explicitly indeed, and expressly, the seven Mysteries of the Godhead and the seven of the Humanity, to which are reduced the works of Creation, Justification, and Glorification, as the Holy Doctor concludes in corpore. But they must know the means to Justification, namely Baptism, Penance, and add also the Eucharist.

But all the rest they must believe implicitly, believing whatever the Holy Mother Church believes. And they must believe the Church itself united under the Roman Pontiff.

But the rule of the Holy Doctor is excellent, that those articles are to be believed explicitly which the Holy Church expounds in the Creed, asserts as necessary by preaching, and celebrates with solemnities. Here he does not wish to say that only those which are solemnized are to be believed, as Valencia, Fagundez, and Caspensis ascribe to him, who infer that the mystery of the Circumcision, of the Epiphany, etc. must also be believed as necessary in this way. For he does not say that all Mysteries are to be believed which are celebrated on feastdays; but those which are in the Creed; especially those which are more frequently handed down and expounded, such as the Incarnation, Nativity, Death, Resurrection, Ascension, etc. Hence it is clear that Tanner also spoke badly of the Holy Doctor num. 68.

It is proved by the third argument 2. against the objection with a reply; As obedience stands with respect to precepts, and charity with respect to things to be loved, so faith with respect to the articles. But obedience is not true unless one is ready to obey all precepts, and accepts what is imposed according to place and time; nor is there charity unless one is ready to love God and neighbor explicitly, when it is enjoined on him: Therefore also faith is not whole unless all things necessary for one's state are believed.

I assert secondly: As those things which are in the Creed are necessarily to be believed with respect to knowledge, so with respect to action those things are necessarily to be known and believed which are necessary for exercising the Christian life: this is clear from the argument cited above.

But these are: the Sacrament of Baptism, necessary for professing the faith and for fulfilling the obligations owed to the Christian name; the Sacrament of Penance as the necessary means of salvation to be had after Baptism by those who have fallen mortally: And the Eucharist, because we are bound to receive it; and it is the chief Sacrament of faith, by which we venerate the Lord Jesus.

As to the other Sacraments, some, according to Suarez disp. 13. sect. 4., think they must be believed as necessary; but Suarez loc. cit., Sanchez lib. 2. cap. 5. and Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 2. num. 40. deny it, because they are not simply necessary. As to the other three, these assert with Henriquez lib. 6. de Poenit. cap. 28., Valencia disp. 1. quaest. 2. p. 5., Becanus p. 2. cap. 12. n. 111., Bannes quaest. 2. art. 8. disp. 2., Petrus Ledesma tom. 2. summae, tract. 1. cap. 2. But this is the opinion of D. Bonaventure dist. 25. quaest. 1. ad 3., who says that this knowledge is reduced to the article of the Church and the remission of sins: the Eucharist indeed is the Sacrament of union, by which we are deeply joined to Christ: but Baptism and Penance are the Sacraments of justification; therefore, as the Holy Doctor observes, it is said in the Nicene Symbol: I confess one baptism for the remission of sins.

I add that faith in the Decalogue is also necessary for its observance. So Suarez disp. 13. sect. 4. num. 11., Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 2. num. 41. And as to knowing it, Sylv. verb. scientia, num. unico asserts it, Angelus there num. 1., Tabiena ad fin., Armilla num. 2., Bannes quaest. 2. art. 8. disp. 2., Ledesma tom. 1. summae, tract. 1. cap. 2., Clavis Reg. lib. 2. cap. 9. num. 30., Sanchez lib. 2. cap. 5. num. 10., Valencia disp. 1. quaest. 2. p. 5., Fuliensis lib. 3. cap. 5.

But the Holy Doctor notes serm. 2. Decalogi that the first three precepts are referred to the articles of the Godhead; but the others to the unity knit together among men in charity.

It is proved by D. Bonaventure arg. 5. with the reply added, for the reason which Sanchez, Fagundez, and others use. That which is simply necessary for observance cannot be observed unless it is known; and if it is for a supernatural end, it cannot be sufficiently known unless it is believed by faith: But the precepts of the Decalogue must necessarily be observed on account of the supernatural end; nor is invincible ignorance of them possible in those who are educated among Christians: Therefore. And indeed that invincible ignorance of these is not given, they assert with D. Bonaventure, D. Thom. 1. Corinth. 11. lect. 4., Durand. 3 dist. 25. quaest. 1., Gabriel quaest. enarrat. 2., Manuel tom. 1. summae, secundae edit. cap. 88. num. 4. The reason of St. Bonaventure is in corpore, because with such an abundance of instructions no one can be excused, since he can easily learn them by heart.

But that there may be some rustic folk in whom there is some invincible ignorance, I would almost grant to Navarro, Bannes, Ledesma above, Azor lib. 8. cap. 6. quaestio 7. et cap. 7. quaestio 3. et cap. 8. quaestio ult., Vasquez disp. 121. cap. 2., Sanchez lib. 2. cap. 5. num. 20., Fagundez lib. 1. cap. 2. num. 67. But the opposite is more certain, as I said 1. 2. tract. 3. disp. 3. quaest. 2.

I add with D. Bonaventure ad 5. that we are bound to know also the Lord's Prayer, by which we must know to ask all things from God. The Holy Doctor indicates this more clearly 4. dist. 16. p. 2. dubio litt. et S. p. Breviloq. in fine, et S. p. Centilog. sect. 46. et p. 3. Stimuli Divini Amoris, cap. 17. et in cap. 3. Regulae nostrae, and it is the opinion of D. Aug. lib. de fide, et operibus, cap. 6. et 9. lib. de fide, et Symb. et in serm. in vig. Paschae, et Pentecost. The Councils prescribe this: Brach. II. and Cabil. cap. 46. relata de consecr. dist. 4. c. 20. et seq., Mogunt. cap. 46., Foroliense, and Rhem. according to Fagundez num. 59., Autel. cap. 10. et 19., Later. under Leo sess. 9. et, Trid. sess. 6. cap. 7. et sess. 24. cap. 4., according to Tanner num. 66. So also Fuliensis.

The reason of these Councils, which is frequent and familiar to St. Bonaventure, is, because this is the mark of a Christian, and without this prayer one does not know how to ask what is necessary for salvation.

But the Councils cited teach that all should commit the Creed and the Lord's Prayer to memory faithfully. And the VII. Synod can. 7. says that he who does not know the Creed is not to be reckoned a Catholic.

The Holy Doctor adds in Confessionali, cap. 2. particula 9. that the Confessor ought to ask penitents whether they know the aforesaid, as often as he rightly suspects it: For it is a sin not to know these things, as I said. So also Bannes loc. cit., Azor. lib. 8. cap. 8., Sanchez lib. 2. cap. 5. n. 21., Fagundez n. 68.

From the Councils cited Fagundez, Sanchez, Suarez, and others with them add that even the words ought to be learned by memory, and that absolution is to be suspended for those who, though admonished repeatedly, refuse to learn them.

You will ask at what time the precept of believing and knowing the aforesaid Mysteries begins to bind.

It is answered, that the obligation begins in the seventh year. So Suarez de fide disp. 13. sect. 5. num. 6., Azor. T. 1. lib. 8. cap. 7. quaestio. 1., Sanchez lib. 2. Decal. cap. 3. num. 12., with D. Bonaventure here quaest. 3., where Fagundez cites num. 57. and others with him. Nevertheless they are not bound at once to know, but to begin to learn, and to apply moral diligence, that they may learn those things which I have mentioned, and the five precepts of the Church. These are the obligations of all the faithful.

But indeed the Holy Doctor notes ad 1. et 2. that Doctors and Pastors ought to know all things which are to be taught in the Church: but the others ought to know those which belong to their state. See also Azorius lib. 2. cap. 2. quaestio 3., Sanchez num. 11., Fagundez num. 48., where he says it is the common opinion, with D. Thom. quaest. 2. art. 6.

Therefore the Holy Doctor dist. 25. quaest. 1. expounds the Creed divinely, and ad 2. says that many things are drawn from the Creed which are to be discussed by Theologians.

But in the reply ad 5. he explains why other things were added to the Creed of the Apostles, namely the Nicene and that of Athanasius: namely to uproot heresies. Therefore it is said: I believe in one God, to confound the Manichaean, who posited two principles. One the origin of corporeal things, that is, an evil God: the other the good one, of spiritual things; but this is blunted by those words: Creator of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible. To confute the Arians it is said: And in one Lord Jesus Christ the only-begotten Son of God, and born of the Father before all ages, God of God, Light of light, true God of true God, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made. But for the confutation of Macedonius, and of Nestorius, and of Eutyches, who said the Holy Spirit was a servant; it is said: and in one Holy Spirit the Lord and life-giver, who proceeds from the Father. The Church added: who proceeds from the Son (Filioque) to refute the error of the Greeks. It is added: Who spoke through the prophets to eliminate some who said they spoke like phantoms. See the Holy Doctor distinguishing excellently why these Creeds are employed at various times.

But it is a divine precept to know these things, as I said with D. Bonaventure quaest. praecedenti, since Christ commanded, Matth. ult. Teach all nations, etc.