The Question of Ecclesiastical Faith
Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton, American Ecclesiastical Review, April,1953.


In publishing their brilliant résumé of Bishop Fidel Garcia Martinez' article, “Ecclesiastical Faith: A Modern Misconception,” the editors of the new Theology Digest have given readers of American Catholic periodical literature a valuable introduction to one of the most ardently debated subjects of recent times.1 The “fides ecclesiastica” of which Bishop Garcia Martinez speaks is the absolutely firm and certain acceptance of a teaching on the authority of the Church which proposes that teaching and not on the authority of God Himself. It must be understood that what is accepted de fide ecclesiastica is always accepted with an absolutely certain assent. It is thus definitely distinct from the material accepted with that “true and inward religious assent” which is only morally or practically certain. And, still more, it is distinct from teachings which the authoritative magisterium of the Catholic Church imposes upon the faithful for acceptance merely as doctrina tuta. According to the theologians who uphold the validity of the concept of “ecclesiastical faith,” a doctrine which must be accepted with this assent is one which the Church's magisterium has proposed, not only authoritatively, but also infallibly.

As it is used and defended by the men who contradict the teaching of Bishop Garcia Martinez, this fides ecclesiastica differs from the fides divina et catholica in that the latter concerns only teachings which have been formally revealed by God and proposed as such by the infallible magisterium of the Catholic Church, while the former has to do with truths which, though not formally revealed in themselves, are so intimately connected with the actual divine message that the Church could not act as a living and infallible teacher and guardian of divine supernatural public revelation unless it had been empowered by Our Lord to pronounce infallibly on these connected questions also. Thus the supporters of the fides ecclesiastica represent it precisely as the assent which must he given to an infallible declaration or definition of the Church about one of these truths not revealed in itself but still intimately connected with the content of divine public revelation.

Within this category they list theological conclusions in the strict sense of the term (truths which are only virtually revealed, as distinct from those revealed formally, even though in an implicit manner), dogmatic facts, pertinent teachings within the field of philosophy, final approval of religious orders, and the canonization of Saints. Unquestionably the magisterium of the Church can issue and does issue absolutely irrevocable and infallible declarations and decisions on these subjects. These authoritative statements unquestionably demand from the faithful completely certain and irrevocable assent. A great number of the manuals of sacred theology current in our time assert that, in such a case, the assent due to these teachings is that of a strictly ecclesiastical faith.2 Bishop Garcia Martinez, and with him an ever-increasing number of contemporary theologians, believes firmly that the concept of a strictly or merely ecclesiastical faith has no validity, and that the assent actually due to infallible pronouncements of the Church's magisterium in such fields as those of the theological conclusion and the dogmatic fact is that of divine and Catholic faith itself.3

What Bishop Garcia Martinez has done in the article so brilliantly résuméd on the pages of Theology Digest has been to offer a rebuttal to the argument in favor of the fides ecclesiastica and to restate and develop one of the counter-arguments, that which had been previously offered by Fr. Blaise Beraza, S.J., in his Tractatus de virtutibus infusis, published in 1929.

The proof offered in support of the validity of the notion of a fides ecclesiastica distinct from the fides divina et catholica is always based on the fact that God has empowered the Church to teach authoritatively and infallibly in such fields as that of the dogmatic fact, and on the contention that such teachings have not been formally revealed by God, This contention or assumption carries with it the inference that the Church's infallible statements in the field of the dogmatic fact cannot therefore be proposed as God's teachings, and thus cannot legitimately receive or even claim the assent of divine faith from the faithful.

Bishop Garcia Martinez counters this argument with a development of a demonstration which had been elaborated previously by Fr. Beraza. In his Tractatus de virtutibus infusis, Fr. Beraza had reasoned, in what is by far the most effective of the four arguments he offers in favor of his conclusion, that

Whatever is revealed by God can be believed by divine faith. But it is revealed by God that the judgment of the Church, defining anything by its supreme doctrinal authority, is infallibly true. Therefore the judgment of the Church, thus defining something to be infallibly true, can be believed with divine faith.5

Fr. Beraza gave an exceptionally clear explanation of this process of reasoning. He taught that

The man who believes that the Church's judgment is true believes also that the object of that judgment is exactly what the Church judges it to be. For, to believe the Church's judgment to be true is the same thing as to believe that the object of the judgment is as it is represented in the judgment. If therefore you believe with divine faith that the judgment of the Church, here and now defining something, is infallibly true; by that same faith you would necessarily believe that the object of that judgment is exactly as it is asserted to be in that judgment by the Church.

Thus if you should believe by divine faith that the judgment of the Church defining the fact that the famous five propositions of Jansenius are really contained in Jansenius' book is infallibly true; you could not fail to believe in the same act of faith that those five propositions of Jansenius are contained in Jansenius' book. For a true judgment, as true essentially includes the object and its conformity with the judgment.6

Furthermore, Fr. Beraza makes the very telling point that “in the universal revelation [that all of the doctrinal pronouncements in which the Church uses its supreme apostolic teaching power are infallibly true], there are also revealed all the particular propositions contained in that [universal] revelation.” Furthermore, in establishing the fact that “all the things that can be the object of ecclesiastical faith are contained in the deposit of revelation,” he makes a uniquely valuable contribution to the study of sacred theology in bringing out the meaning of that connection by which the truths which fall within the secondary object of the Church's infallible magisterium are said to be joined to the doctrines which constitute the primary object of that same teaching activity.

Those things are said to be the object of ecclesiastical faith which are connected with the deposit of revelation, and without which this [deposit of revelation] could not be preserved in its entirety. But these things, despite the fact that they are said to be connected with the deposit of revelation, are really within the deposit of revelation. This connection is doubtless a relation of some kind. This, since it is mutual, is not only a relation of the other truths with the deposit of revelation, but also a relation of the deposit of revelation with these other truths. Consequently, the magisterium of the Church, as something spiritual and supernatural, has reference to the other truths, not considered absolutely in themselves, nor even according to the relations which they have to the deposit of faith, but rather according to the relations which the deposit of faith has to these [other] truths, If these are such that from their affirmation or denial there would follow an implicit affirmation or denial of some correlative truth contained in the deposit of faith, these things are themselves implicitly revealed; and thus, properly speaking, they are not outside but inside the deposit of revelation.7

Like Bishop Garcia Martinez, Fr. Beraza insists upon the fact that there can be no such thing as an absolutely certain assent of faith based on other than the divine authority itself. He likewise makes effective use of two documents of the magisterium, documents which have not usually been given sufficient consideration in the study of this particular question.

First, he points to a statement in the Vatican Council's constitution Pastor Aeternus. The Council declared that “The Holy Ghost has not promised to Peter's successors that, with Him revealing, they might make known any new teaching, but [He has promised them] that, with Him assisting them, they might guard in a holy manner and faithfully expound the revelation handed down through the Apostles, or the deposit of faith.”8

This is obviously a serious argument against the validity of the concept of a merely ecclesiastical faith. It would be idle to imagine that there could be any such thing as an infallible definition or declaration by the Church's magisterium apart from the assistance of the Holy Ghost. And, according to the teaching of the Vatican Council itself, that help or assistance is given to the Popes (who have the same infallible teaching power as the ecclesia docens as a whole) precisely for the sake of guarding and proposing the actual doctrines which have been given to the Church as divine revelation through the Apostles.

The second of the two documents to which Fr. Beraza appeals so successfully is the profession of faith ordered by Pope Pius IV. In this formula the Catholic asserts his profession of and belief in all the articles of the Apostles' Creed and in each one of these articles taken individually. Likewise he states his acceptance of “the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions and the rest of the observances and constitutions of the same Church,” and of the Church's own interpretation or explanation of the Scriptures. He asserts his belief in the existence of the seven Sacraments, in the character of the Mass as true and proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead, in the existence of purgatory, and in the primacy of the Roman Church. Then, in the final paragraph of the formula, the Catholic makes the following profession.

Without hesitation I accept and profess all the other things which have been proposed, defined, and declared by the sacred canons and by the oecumenical councils, and especially by the holy Council of Trent (and by the oecumenical Vatican Council, particularly with reference to the primacy and the infallible magisterium of the Roman Pontiff) ; and at the same time I likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize all the teachings opposed [to the above], and every one of the heresies condemned and rejected and anathematized by the Church.9

The formula of Pope Pius IV designates the sum-total of the doctrine listed and asserted within it as “this true Catholic faith, outside of which no one can he saved.” Thus, as far as the profession itself is concerned, the acceptance of the articles of the Apostles' Creed and the assertion of belief in the teachings of the sacred canons both fall within the limits of a statement of Catholic faith.

The “sacred canons” to which the formula refers are, of course, the various pontifical declarations and definitions in which the Sovereign Pontiff has spoken authoritatively and infallibly to the faithful. Many of these declarations and definitions had to do with truths which fell within the secondary, rather than within the primary, object of the Church's infallible magisterium. Obviously the “constitutions” of the Church, which the Tridentine profession of faith mentions, and which are likewise accepted in an act of “true Catholic faith,” may also contain some declarations about theological conclusions and dogmatic facts, as well as statements or judgments about formally revealed truths.

It cannot be denied that Fr. Beraza and Bishop Garcia Martinez have offered cogent and impressive arguments against the validity of the concept of a merely ecclesiastic faith. Yet by far the most formidable work in this cause has been done by Fr. Francisco Marin-Sola. His book, L'evolutión homogéne du dogme catholique, which appeared in 1923, will undoubtedly rank as one of the outstanding theological monographs of the twentieth century. What has actually proved to be the definitive edition of this book is the French translation, which was published a year after the printing of the Spanish original.

Fr. Marin-Sola brought out an imposing array of speculative theological arguments against the possibility of a strictly or merely ecclesiastical faith. Yet his outstanding contribution to the discussion is to be found in the field of the history of sacred theology. He brought out the tact that the concept of an ecclesiastical faith first appeared in Catholic theological literature towards the end of the sixteenth century. He likewise showed that the term “ecclesiastical faith,” as it is used in contemporary manuals, was first employed in an instruction issued by Archbishop Hardouin de Péréfixe of Paris on June 7, 1664.

The terminology used by Archbishop de Péréfixe had long been remarked by historians of sacred theology. Thus, to give one rather interesting example, Gianvincenzo Bolgeni wrote that

At that time there were an astonishingly large number of writings which the Jansenists published in defence of Jansenius' doctrine. In these sinister works they contended openly that Jansenism is only an imaginary heresy, and that the Jesuits are doubly heretics: because they assert that the fact and the law are inseparable in the case of the five condemned propositions, and again because they claim that the Church is infallible on a question of fact as well as on a question of law in such a way that one may believe with divine faith that the five propositions are taken from the book of Jansenius and condemned in his sense. Msgr. de Péréfixe, having become Archbishop of Paris, tried to make peace by publishing, on June 7, 1664, a Mandate in which he said that “the Constitutions of the Popes and the prescribed formula do not demand an assent of divine faith on what has reference to the fact, but only a human and ecclesiastical faith which obliges a man to submit his own judgment sincerely to that of his superiors.11

Fr. Marin-Sola was able to show how this expression, “human and ecclesiastical faith,” had entered into the literature of sacred theology out of this very mandate or instruction. The illustrious Spanish Dominican brought out the fact that, prior to the issuance of his instruction of June 7, 1664, Archbishop de Péréfixe had gathered some of the professors of theology of the Sorbonne into a conference. He believes that the expression “human and ecclesiastical faith” was chosen during the course of that conference as a designation of the type of assent demanded for the Church's definitive pronouncement on a question of dogmatic faith [sic. I suggest this was meant to be “dogmatic fact”]. He notes that the first theologians to make use of this expression in their manuals were the great professors of the Sorbonne, like Honoré Tournely, Charles du Plessis d'Argentré, and Martin Grandin, the last of whom certainly took part in the conference called by Archbishop de Péréfixe to prepare the text of his instruction. 12

As for the concept of a merely ecclesiastical faith (as distinct from the expression itself), Fr. Marin-Sola was able to trace it, clearly expressed, back as far as the early seventeenth-century writings of Granados and Becanus. It appeared in theological literature as the development of a somewhat singular teaching put forward by the great Luis de Molina, S.J., towards the end of the sixteenth century.

Molina had contended (as the first to propose this teaching, according to Fr. Marin-Sola), that a truth which is properly a theological conclusion can never be proposed or defined by the Church as a dogma of the Catholic faith. He was convinced that a truth which was properly a conclusion deduced from revealed datum retained that status even after the infallible pronouncement of the Church itself. Once the Church had spoken, there were two ways in which the individual Catholic could accept this teaching: first by the use of the deductive process which the Church itself had employed in arriving at this conclusion, and second by the use of the following syllogism:

The Church cannot err in its definitions.
This or that proposition is defined.
Therefore it is certain and true.13

Molina held that the first process (the use of the deductive process which the Church itself had employed) was available only to theologians within the Church. The general syllogism, showing the acceptability of any conclusion defined by the Church as a true and certain statement was, in his opinion, within the competence of all the faithful.

The concept of a strictly and merely ecclesiastical faith took final shape, however, in the writings of Jaime Granados, one of the defenders of Molina. He wrote as follows:

There are two ways in which a man can assent to these propositions [theological conclusions] defined by the Church. One way is by deducing them from the revealed principles, as the Council or the Pontiff have done. The man who assents in this way elicits an act of theology, to which this assent belongs. The other way is to assent without any discursive process, but by reason of the authority of the Church itself. This is the act which is usually elicited, not only by the unlearned [in sacred theology] but also by experts [in this field]. Still, this is not elicited by means of an act of divine faith, as we have said. Nor [is it elicited by means of] the habitus of theology, since it is not discursive. It belongs, however, to a kind of most certain human faith, because it is based on the infallible authority of the Church. Faith of this kind is easily observed in the unlearned, as is that other by which they believe that those whom the Pontiff lists in the number of the Saints are actually resting in the Lord and are really enjoying the Beatific Vision.14

Martin Becanus distinguished three different kinds of faith. One was true divine faith, in which a man assents to a proposition on the authority of God who has revealed it. Another is a merely human faith, exemplified by the assent which a heretic might give to some teaching on the authority of Luther or Calvin. The third is neither purely divine nor purely human, but, as it were, mid-way between these. It is belief in or acceptance of some teachings on the authority of the Church.15

Fr. Marin-Sola asserts that Becanus, who died forty years before the issuance of Archbishop de Péréfixe's instruction, was one of the favorite authors of those Sorbonne theologians who were, with their Archbishop, responsible for the appearance of the term “ecclesiastical faith” in the literature of Catholic theology.16 And it is manifest from even a superficial study of the history of Catholic theology that the notion of a certain and absolutely firm acceptance of Catholic teachings, motivated by the authority of the Church and not by the authority of God as the Revealer, became accepted during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

In combatting the objective validity of this notion, Fr Marin-Sola made use of some interesting arguments. He employed eleven distinct demonstrations to support his conclusion that all the truths accepted as completely certain by reason of the Church's teaching are believed with an act of genuine divine faith. Several of these demonstrations are taken from the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. Some of them apply directly to theological conclusions, while others have reference to all the truths classified as within the secondary object of the Church's infallible magisterium.

Outstanding among these proofs are those based upon the following contentions:
1) There is no such thing as an infallibly certain and true faith other than that which is based on the authority of God.
2) What is revealed mediately or virtually is truly something spoken by God It is an explanation of His teaching.
3) The man who denies (obstinately) a truth proposed infallibly by the Church is a heretic, and the sin of heresy necessarily involves a contradiction of the divine message itself.
4) The infallible teaching of the Church cannot propose any new doctrine, but only an explanation of the deposit of public divine revelation.

The validity of the third of the reasons I have just mentioned has been brought out with special clarity in a recent and very valuable book which, incidentally, defends the concept of a merely ecclesiastical faith. Fr. Sisto Cartechini, in his brilliant work, De valore notarum theologicarum, lists, as the censures applicable to a contradiction of a teaching de fide ecciesiastica definita, the qualifications of anathematization and of haeresis circa fidem ecclesiasticam. The same distinguished author holds that the censures applicable to a teaching that contradicts a dogma of the faith are the qualifications of anathematization and haeresis circa fidem divinam.17

I do not believe that there can be any serious quarrel with Fr. Cartechini on this matter. It would seem that the basic reason that constituted the Jansenists as heretics was their refusal to accept the authoritative and infallible decision of a Sovereign pontiff about a dogmatic fact. The men of Port Royal claimed that they rejected with the Church the five propositions condemned by Pope Innocent X in the Constitution Cum occasione. What they would not admit, however, was the fact, likewise taught authoritatively and infallibly by the Sovereign Pontiff, that these propositions expressed teaching actually contained in the book, Augustinus. That refusal gained them the designation of heretics.

Thus, the argument of Fr . Marin-Sola is quite apposite. If he can show (as I believe that he has shown), that it is impossible to have the sin of heresy apart from an obdurate contradiction of divinely revealed truth proposed as such by the Catholic Church, he has won his point.

The argument based on the first of the four reasons I have cited as used by Fr. Marin-Sola is obviously powerful, and, it would seem, ineluctable. That based on the fourth of these reasons is likewise convincing. Actually, it is substantially the argument based on an appeal to the text of the Vatican Council and of the Profession of Faith of Pope Pius IV.

The second of these contentions, however, seems to form the basis not only for a proof, but also for a highly acceptable statement or exposition of Fr. Marin-Sola's teaching. In the last analysis, if statements set forth in an authoritative and infallible manner by the magisterium of the Catholic Church are to be accepted on divine faith, it can only be by reason of the fact that God Himself has taught these truths. And, in order to see how a teaching like a dogmatic fact can really enter and has really entered into the fabric of divine public revelation, we must carefully examine the very nature of the revealed message itself.

Always adverting to the fact that we are using the term “spoken” analogously (though not metaphorically), we must remember that divine public revelation is a spoken message. Formally considered, it is the locutio Dei ad homines per modum magisterii.18 God spoke of old to the fathers in the Prophets, and He has spoken to us in His Son.19 This teaching was handed over or delivered by the Apostles to the Church. They handed it over through the process of teaching it. The message thus delivered (traditio divino-apostolica) has been taught continuously by the Church since the Church received it, and will be taught authoritatively and infallibly by the Church militant of the New Testament until the end of time.

Now the Church does this work as a living and infallible teacher. It acts as an infallible teacher by reason of the fact that, through the continuing assistance of the Holy Ghost, it presents that divine message inerrantly. It acts as a living teacher in so far as it presents this truth effectively to the faithful, in every age and in every part of the world. As a teaching agency, the Church, the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, acts as the intimately conjoined instrument of Our Lord, who dwells within it and rules over it.20

The Church, with Our Lord Himself within it, acts as a true teacher, and not as a mere repetitor, of the divine teaching which the apostles delivered to it. It is the function of the teacher to understand and to recognize the doctrine he is commissioned to set forth. It is likewise the work of a teacher to answer questions about the meaning of the doctrine he is engaged in presenting.

The Church, then, would not be a living teacher of the divine message if it could not recognize a contradiction to that message in some oral or written declarations. It would not be a living and infallible teacher unless it could assert definitely and infallibly that some of the statements in its teaching were contradicted in a definite book.

Such was the case when Pope Innocent X condemned five propositions contained in the book Augustinus by the Bishop Jansenius. Such was also the case when Pope Alexander VII declared and defined the fact that “the five propositions were taken from the book entitled Augustinus and written by the aforesaid Cornelius Jansenius, Bishop of Ypres, and that they were condemned in the sense intended by that same Jansenius.”21 If the Church's teaching power was not competent to make that infallible declaration, then the Church itself would not have been a living and effectively infallible teacher of God's revealed message. And, in the final analysis, the declarations of the Church on the subject of this dogmatic fact were nothing else than parts of the process of setting forth God's revealed message as a living and infallible teacher.

Likewise the Church is able to answer questions about the meaning or the import of the message which God has confided to it. The theologian can answer these questions (though obviously not in an infallible manner), through the use of the theological proof. When the Church feels that the proper time has come, it is competent to answer those questions, definitively and infallibly if it wishes to do so. The definitive and infallible answers of the Catholic Church in this particular field are those theological truths which are classified as within the secondary object of the Church's infallible magisterium. These truths are taught by the Church, and should be received by the faithful, as part of the process of teaching the revealed message itself.

As a living and infallible teacher, the Church is certainly competent to judge and to recognize that a definite man has exemplified in his own life the following of the divine message. The Church, with the assistance of the indwelling Holy Ghost, and with the aid of the divine signs or miracles which God deigns to attach to the cause of this man, can infallibly declare him a Saint in the performance of its task of teaching the divine message. Furthermore, by reason again of its competence to act as a living and infallible teacher of divine public revelation, the Church can recognize the suitability or non-suitability of a rule of life calculated to lead its children to the heights of sanctity. Thus the Church, in the course of teaching the divine message, can judge infallibly in the approval of religious orders.

In every case the key principle is the same. The Church teaches and acts as a living and infallible teacher of divinely revealed truth. It translates, always correctly and effectively, the message which it has received from Our Lord through His preaching and that of the Apostles so as to bring that message to men of every age and of every culture. Thus it expresses its divine communication accurately and effectively in the vernacular of every age and of every culture.

In the accomplishment of this task, it is obviously able to say when this message has been contradicted in a definite way in a definite book. It is likewise competent to answer questions inevitably connected with the process of preaching the perennial Christian truth to new peoples and to new civilizations. Always it is engaged in the work of setting forth its one message, the divine teaching revealed through Jesus Christ Our Lord. And, for the infallible statements of its teaching, the Church demands the assent of divine faith.

Sometimes, it must be admitted, the arguments adduced against the validity of a notion of a fides ecciesiastica really distinct from the fides divina leave something to be desired. Such is the case, I am convinced, with the arguments advanced in this direction by Fr. Guérard des Lauriers in his recent work Dimensions de la foi.22 Such, also, is the case in the explanation given by the learned editors of Theology Digest in their introduction to Bishop Garcia Martinez' article.

The following statement is prefixed to the résumé of Bishop Garcia Martinez' article in Theology Digest.

Protestants frequently object that Catholic dogma is totally unlike the belief of primitive Christianity. Catholics reply that their doctrine is the growth, the development, of the seed planted by the preaching of the Apostles. Bishop Martinez maintains that the notion of “ecclesiastical faith” as an assent distinct from “divine faith” renders impossible any explanation of this development of dogma.23

The statement that our Catholic dogma or doctrine is the growth or the development of the seed planted by the Apostles would seem to be seriously objectionable. According to the Vatican Council, the Holy Father has been empowered to teach infallibly, not the growth or the development of the primitive Christian teaching, but the “revelation delivered through the Apostles, or the deposit of faith” itself.24 What the Church teaches to the faithful in this year of grace 1953 is not a mere development of the teaching delivered to the Church by the Apostles. It is that very message, which has been proposed and guarded infallibly by the ecclesia docens since the beginning, and will continue to be thus proposed and guarded until the end of time.

It is true, of course, that there has been an increase of knowledge of the deposit of faith on the part of the Church itself throughout the years.25 It is the kind of increase which comes to the Church as the perpetual teacher of the same divine revelation. As the years go by, and as the Church accurately and effectively translates that divine message into the vernaculars of divergent peoples and cultures, it is obvious that there must come a genuine increase in knowledge on the Church's own part. The Church, through answering the questions raised about the meaning of God's message, has come to know the implications and the consequences of that message much more perfectly over the course of the centuries. But the Church never wants us to forget that what it teaches now as God's message is not merely the outgrowth or the development of the original message. It is the original deposit of divine public revelation, for which, as a whole and in each one of its parts, the Church demands of the faithful acceptance with the absolutely certain assent of divine faith.

JOSEPH CLIFFORD FENTON
The Catholic University of America, Washington, D. C.


1. Theology Digest I, I (Winter, 1953), 59-63.
2. Thus Tanquerey-Bord, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae fundamentalis (Paris, Tournai, Rome; Desclée, 1937), p. 638; Pesch, Institutiones propaedauticae ad sacram theologiam, 7th edition Friburg in Bresgau: Herder, 1924), p. 393; Msgr. Caesar Manzoni, Compendium theologiae dogmaticae, 4th edition (Turin; Berrutti, 1928), I, 235; Bishop Hilarinus Felder, O.F.M.Cap., Apologetica sive theologia fundamentalis, 2nd edition (Paderborn; Schoeningh, 1923), II, 270; Canon J. M. Hervé, Manuale theologiae dogmaticae, 18th edition (Paris; Berche et Pagis, 1934), I, 520; Joachim Salaverri, S.J., in his Tractatus de ecdesia, nn. 898-902, in the Sacrae theologiae summa, 2nd edition (Madrid; Biblioteca de autores cristianos, 1952), I, 786 ff.

It is to be noted that Fr. Salaverri does not use the term “de fide ecclesiastica,” but employs as an equivalent the expression “de fide catholica stricte.”
Pesch teaches loc. cit.) that ecclesiastical faith is reducible to divine faith,

3. Cf. Archbishop Valentine Zubizarreta, Theologia dogmatico-scholastica ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis, 3rd edition (Bilbao: Eléxpuru, 1937), I, 411 ff,; Blaise Beraza, S.J., Tractatus de virtutibus infusis (Bilbao: Mensajero del Corazón de Jesús, 1929), pp. 233-246; Francisco Marin-Sola, OP., L'evolutión homogéne du dogme catholique, 2nd edition (Fribourg, Switzerland: Oeuvre de Saint-Paul, 1924), 1, 226-421; Guérard des Lauriers, OP., Dimensions de la foi (Paris - Cerf. 1952) II, 285 f.
4. Cf. Beraza, op. cit., especially pp. 235 f.
5. Beraza, op. cit., p. 234.
6. Ibid. pp. 234 f,
7. Ibid., p. 239.
8. DB, 1836.
9. DB, 1000.
10. The content of this book first appeared in the form of articles in the Spanish periodical Ciencia tomista. The publication of these articles, and of the book into which they were gathered, led to a highly enlightening, though sometimes rather heated, controversy. Fr. Marin-Sola's conclusions were disputed by Fr. Reginald Schultes, OP., of the Angelico. His definitive publication on this subject is the book Introductio in historiam dogmatum (Paris: Lethielleux, 1922).
11. Bolgeni, Fatti dommatici ossia della infallibilita della Chiesa nel decidere suIla dottrina buena o cattiva de' libri (Brescia, 1788), pp. 55 f.
12. Cf Marin-Sola, op. cit., I, 407 f.
13. Cf. Molina, Commentaria in Primam Divi Thomae partem, q. 1, art. 2. The text is given in Marin-Sola, op. cit., 1, 413.
14. Granados Commentarii in summam theologicam Sancti Thomae, Vol. 1, q. 1, disp. 3, n. 24. The text is in Marin-Sola, op. cit., 1 415.
15. Cf. Becanus, Summa theologiae scholasticae, De fide, cap 9, q. 8, n. 8. The text is in Marin-Sola, op. cit., I, 416.
16. Cf. Marin-Sola, op. cit., 1, 417.
17. Cf. Cartechini, De valore notarum theologicarum, pp, 134 f.
18. Cf. Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, De revelatione per ecclesiam catholicam proposita, 4th edition (Rome: Ferrari, 1945), I, 143.
19. Cf. Heb. 1: 1. This verse is used by the Vatican Council in its statement of the fact of supernatural revelation. Cf. DB, 1785.
20. Cf. Fenton, Christ the Teacher and the Stability of Catholic Dogma,” in AER, CXXV, 3 (Sept. 1951), 208-19.
21. Cf. DB, 1098.
22. Cf. Guérard des Lauriers, op. cit., II, 294.
23. Theology Digest, I, 1 (Winter, 1953), 59.
24. Cf. DB, 1836.
25. Cf. the Vatican Council's citation of Vincent of Lerins in its constitution Dei Filius, DB, 1800.


Home