The Church’s authority is indispensable for every act of divine faith – Fr Marín-Sola and St Thomas
“Anyone who rejects this means totally lacks faith.”
Abstract: This is part two of an extract from Fr. Francisco Marín-Sola’s work, The Homogenous Evolution of Catholic Dogma. It discusses key points surrounding Catholic faith, the role of the Church, and the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas. Fr Marín-Sola states that in mediate revelation, the proposition and explanation must be divine and therefore come from the Church, establishing the Church’s authority as an integral part of faith.
This is Part II. Click here for Part I:
Editors’ Notes
This is the second part of an extract of Fr. Francisco Marín-Sola’s work The Homogenous Evolution of Catholic Dogma, which was first published in 1923 and very well received. Critics went as far as calling it a theological masterpiece, and comparing it to Melchior Cano’s De locis theologicis. This book is almost completely unavailable in English today. (For now…)
Fr. Francisco Marín-Sola was born in the Spanish province of Navarre in 1873. He received his habit in the Order of Preachers in 1897.
This extract has been translated by a friend of The WM Review, and falls in our ongoing discussion of issues surrounding the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus, (‘outside the Church, there is no salvation’ – sometimes referred to with the acronym ‘EENS’).
In the previous part, Fr Marín-Sola sets out key distinctions about the virtue of faith, which is necessary for salvation. It is important to understand that when he refers to ‘our faith’, he is not speaking in a sort of communitarian way, but specifically referring to the faith quoad nos – i.e., not divine faith in itself, or as it is divine – but as it pertains to us.
He explained how theologians such as Suarez and Vasquez began to conceive of these matters in a way that was, in his view, “a deviation from the true theory of St. Thomas and a lack of recognition of the sublime and necessary role that the authority of the Church occupies in our faith.” He states that this deviation was carried forward by many writers of modern theology manuals – showing that, while the genre is tremendously helpful and important, it has its limitations.
This “deviation”, as Marín-Sola calls it, is evident in discussions around what must be explicitly believed with divine faith. Many theologians treat the question as if it revolves around the two-dogma or four-dogma positions – namely, whether one must simply believe that “[God] is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him” (Heb. 11.6), or also that God is a Trinity, and that God the Son became Man to redeem us. Marín-Sola shows us that there is more to the debate than this. He proposes the following questions, which are sometimes barely considered at all:
“Is the authority of the Church an indispensable element for every act of our divine faith in the revealed deposit?
“Is there room for an act of divine faith in a truth of the deposit before it is defined by the Church?
“Is our act of faith only ‘I believe because God has revealed it,’ or is it necessarily ‘I believe because God has revealed it and because Holy Mother Church thus teaches’?
“In short, apart from a special revelation or intervention from God, is the Church the only means that connects our divine faith with the revealed deposit, or are there other means by which human understanding can come into contact with the revealed deposit through divine faith?”
We can sum this all up with a further question: Is it actually possible to have supernatural faith without regard for the Catholic Church?
In this piece, we will see how Fr Marín-Sola answers the questions, with particular regard to St Thomas Aquinas.
From
The Homogenous Evolution of Catholic Dogma
Fr Francisco Marin-Sola OP
The Organic Place of the Authority of the Church in Our Divine Faith
Chapter III, Section III
— An excerpt translated by a friend of The WM Review —
Headings and some line breaks added for reading online
The true Thomistic theory
For St. Thomas, and for all his faithful commentators, the authority or definition of the Church is indispensable for every act of our divine faith (divine faith quoad nos) in any truth of the revealed deposit.
The act of our divine faith is not only “I believe because God has revealed it,” but necessarily “I believe because God has revealed it and because Holy Mother Church teaches it”. Here, the first ‘why’ is essential to our divine faith, not because it is ours but because it is divine; and the second ‘why’ being necessary (and only substitutable by special revelation or divine intervention), not because it is divine faith, but because it is ours.
In short, although science (theology, philosophy, exegesis, criticism, history…) has many means of attaining scientific, human knowledge, acquired from the truth of the deposit, and of making acts of science or human faith regarding it without any intervention of the Church, our divine faith has only one means, and that is the authority of the Church. In other words, humanity has no other means than the authority of the Church to reach the truth revealed by the assent of divine faith.
As these affirmations may be new and even daring for many, let us first try to explain the literal doctrine of the Holy Doctor, turning to the complete and immortal treatise De Fide in the Summa Theologica.
The Holy Doctor begins his first question and its first article with the formal object of faith. St. Thomas never beats around the bush; from his first article, he places himself at the central, fundamental, formal, and essential point of the question: the object. And since the essence of a thing is immutable and must be found intact and unchanging wherever the thing is located, the object of divine faith is defined in that first article in itself, formally, without any relation to angels or humans. It is defined with the succinct and lapidary phrase “Nihil aliud quam Veritas Prima” – Nothing else than the First Truth.
In the formal object, in the essence of faith, according to St. Thomas, nothing created can enter, and there can be no mixture of creatures, whether angels, humans, patriarchs, prophets, apostles, or the Church. All of that is outside the formal object of faith, outside the object of divine faith in itself, of the object of divine faith as divine. God, and only God, is its author, object, end, and rule. In divine faith, therefore, conceived from this formal point, the “I believe…” based on the authority of the Church, the Bible, or Tradition does not enter at all; it is solely and exclusively “I believe because God has revealed it.” Nihil aliud quam Veritas Prima.1
However, formal objects themselves, although they do not admit variations or changes per se, can admit conditions that are non-essential to the object in itself, but absolutely necessary for the object in us. For example, the formal object of intelligence as such, or of intelligence as intelligence, is being; the formal object of our intelligence is also being, but with essential conditions or additions for us: namely being, abstracted from sensible things. Without this abstraction, our intelligence could never come into contact with its object: being itself.
The formal object of science as such, or as science, is the certain knowledge of a truth through another truth, or a truth in another truth; the object of our science is the same, but with an essential condition for us: it is knowing a truth through another truth, but by means of reasoning or succession. Without this, our science is not possible.
The specific or formal principles of theology as such are the supernatural divine truths; the principles of our theology are these same truths but believed with divine faith, or in other words, obscurely seen. Without this condition of being believed or obscurely seen, our theology would never come into contact with its object: the divine-supernatural truths.2
Faith in the believer – and opinion in the heretic
Well then, the formal object of faith in itself, as we have seen, is nothing else than the First Truth. What, then, will be the formal object of our divine faith, of that divine faith that we give, not by revelation that we have received immediately from God, but mediately through the Apostles? Does the formal object of faith receive any indispensable condition or addition when considered not in itself but in us, as the formal object not of divine faith itself but of our divine faith?
Let us move on to the fifth question where St. Thomas addresses faith in relation to the various subjects in which it can be found: On those having faith, on the various subjects of faith.
Let us pass over articles 1 and 2, where he deals with faith in relation to angels and demons, and focus on the third, where he discusses faith in relation to us: our faith [faith quoad nos].
The Holy Doctor asks whether in a heretic who denies a single article of faith, divine faith remains regarding the others. For this, the Holy Doctor needs to establish all the elements that necessarily enter into the formal object of our faith. If, by denying a single article, all the indispensable elements of our faith remain, then faith endures. If, on the contrary, the person who denies an article destroys some indispensable element of our faith, then faith is destroyed. What, then, are the indispensable elements of the formal object of our divine faith? Let us hear the Holy Doctor:
“The formal object of divine faith is the First Truth as it is made manifest in the Holy Scriptures and the doctrine of the Church that proceeds from the First Truth”.3
The formal object of faith in relation to us is no longer just the First Truth, but the First Truth with a conditio sine qua non, with an integral condition: the authority of the Church. “First Truth as it is made manifest… in the doctrine of the Church.” Not just the First Truth alone, not even the First Truth contained in Scripture and Tradition, but the First Truth contained in Scripture and Tradition as understood and interpreted by the Church.
What does this imply for St. Thomas? Well, as something disappears from the formal object, which is what gives the essence or species, the habit disappears, and anyone who tries to adhere to the First Truth of Scripture and Tradition through a means other than the authority of the Church does not have true divine faith, but rather another faith of their own making, a human-created faith: scientific or acquired faith.
“The species of any habit depends on the formal reason of the object, and if this is removed, the species of the habit cannot remain. Therefore, whoever does not adhere, as to an infallible and divine rule, to the doctrine of the Church, which proceeds from the First Truth as manifested in the Holy Scriptures, does not have the habit of faith. Instead, he holds by another means what pertains to faith, but in a manner other than by faith”.4
But does man not have other means, outside of the Church, to understand the meaning of the revealed deposit and give the assent of divine faith?
Man has many scientific, human means that lead to acts of human science or acquired faith regarding the revealed deposit, says the Holy Doctor. However, man can only give an assent of divine faith through one means: the authority of the Church. Without this means, the act of our divine faith is entirely impossible.
“In various conclusions of one science, there are different means by which they are proven, and one can be known without the other… but faith adheres to all the articles through one means, namely, through the First Truth proposed to us in the Scriptures according to the doctrine of the Church who has the right understanding of them. Therefore, anyone who rejects this means totally lacks faith.”5
St. Thomas’s thought will be clear to anyone who reads the two aforementioned questions carefully and without preconceived notions.6
However, it will not be amiss to adduce the interpretations of his most authoritative commentators, beginning with the foremost among them.
[The next piece to be published in due course includes a section of such authorities, including Cajetan and John of St Thomas.]
Summary
In a word, for St. Thomas, nothing purely human can enter into the act of divine faith; all its elements must be divine. Anything human must necessarily enter only as directed by God or as a mere instrument of the divine. Faith has two elements, the object and its proposition or explanation, and both must be divine.
In immediate revelation, both elements are inherently divine: both the revealed truth and its proposition and explanation come directly from God. For those who receive immediate revelation, there is no need for the Church.
However, in mediate revelation, where the revealed truth comes from God, but its proposition and explanation come from humans, a human element is involved. For this to be an act of divine faith, the proposition and explanation must be made not by fallible human reason (theology, exegesis, history, etc.) but by God Himself, meaning by human reason assisted by God, or through the Church’s definition.
The Church, according to Saint Thomas, becomes a true rule and a true reason for every act of our divine faith. This rule and reason do not pertain to our faith in its divine aspect, or in itself, but rather to divine faith insofar as it is ours [quoad nos]. They condition or modify the same First Truth or revealed deposit, not in themselves but in relation to us. This rule and reason are not about the formal object of faith but about its proposition and explanation.
They are as necessary for every act of our divine faith as the proposition of the object by intelligence is necessary for the act of the will. A true act of the will cannot occur without this proposition, and it is reduced to a mere act of passion or sensitive appetite when this proposition is lacking. The proposing or proximate rule must belong to the same order as what is regulated.
Anyone who acts against this rule of the Church’s definition, acts against divine faith – committing an act of heresy.
Anyone who acts without this rule commits an act without divine faith – an act of mere science or human faith.
Any explanation of the implicit or inclusive virtuality of the revealed deposit made against the Church’s definition is heretical. If made without the Church’s definition, it is purely scientific or human. If made by the Church’s definition, it is a divine explanation, a dogma of faith.
The theological conclusions drawn through inclusive or explanatory minor premises (and even, in our judgment, those deduced from two revealed premises, though this is secondary to our purpose) do not belong to our faith, and cannot merit anyone’s true act of divine faith without the Church’s solemn or ordinary magisterial definition. Before that definition, they certainly have the formal motive of our theology, which is the inclusive deduction from the revealed datum; however, they lack one of the indispensable conditions of the formal motive of our faith – the definition of the Church.
Further Reading:
HELP KEEP THE WM REVIEW ONLINE!
As we expand The WM Review we would like to keep providing free articles for everyone. If you have benefitted from our content please do consider supporting us financially.
A subscription from you helps ensure that we can keep writing and sharing free material for all.
Plus, you will get access to our exclusive members-only material!
Thank you!
Follow on Twitter, YouTube and Telegram:
St Thomas:
“So, in faith, if we consider the formal aspect of the object, there is nothing other than the First Truth. For the faith of which we speak assents to something only because it is revealed by God. Hence, faith relies on divine Truth itself as a means.” (II-II, q. 1, a. 1).
“Therefore, one cannot infallibly assent to truth based on the testimony of a man or an angel unless the testimony of God speaking in them is considered.” (De Veritate, q. 14, a. 8).
“When a man, whether through natural reason, the testimony of the law and prophets, or the preaching of the Apostles or others, believes guided by any of these means, then he can say that he believes not because of any of them, neither because of natural reason, nor because of the testimony of the law, nor because of the preaching of the Apostles, but only because of the Truth itself.” (In Ioann., c. 4).
“The First Truth is formal in the object of faith and from it comes the entire aspect of the object.” (3 Sent., d. 24, q. 1, a. sol.).
As every Thomistic theologian knows, these distinctions between knowledge in itself and knowledge as ours, theology in itself and theology as ours, divine faith and divine faith as ours, are fundamental and elemental for truly grasping the doctrine of St. Thomas and avoiding errors in these matters. This is why the great commentator of the Summa Theologica recalls them from the very first question, starting from the second article where St. Thomas begins to discuss the object of theology, and therefore its essence and distinction.
“You, however, novice, when you argue, beware not to mistake, taking it as the same, theology according to itself and theology as it is ours; for these indeed differ greatly.” (Cajetan, In 1 Part, q. 1, a. 2).
ST, II-II, q. 5, a. 3.
Ibid.
Ibid. ad 2.
The distinguished Porrecta, whose commentaries often are placed alongside those of Cajetan, says that the teaching of this article of St. Thomas is worthy of being inscribed with letters of gold for the instruction of Catholics and heretics.
“Let these things be said for Catholics and against heretics as memorable golden perpetual truths “ (In loc.cit. of St. Thomas)
Cardinal Toledo rates it as most beautiful.
“St. Thomas's reason is most beautiful. The reason of faith is not the First Truth absolutely, but restricted with this condition, that it be manifested by the Church. Now, if this necessary condition of the object be set aside, the whole habit is removed.” (TOLEDO, Com-ment. in loc.cit.)
On the other hand, Suarez, preoccupied with the nature of private revelations, thinks that art. 3 of question 5 is inconsistent with art. 1 of question 1, and adduces the doctrine of each of these two articles as favouring two opposed theories on the formal object of faith, without adverting to the fact that one of the articles deals with the formal object of faith in itself, and the other deals with the formal object of our faith. (SUAREZ, loc.cit., nn. 1-2)