De Moor I:31: Consequences of Theology and of Faith?

In passing, our AUTHOR here repudiates the distinction between Conclusions Theological and of Faith.

That is, they distinguish, 1.  between Conclusions Theological and of Faith:  2.  they call the former Deduced, the latter Express:  3.  they attribute the former to the industry of Private individuals, the latter to the authority of the Church.  But, 1.  that which is formally Theological is drawn from the fount of Sacred Scripture, and to that extent is of Faith:  therefore members of this distinction are not legitimately opposed one to another.  2.  With equal absurdity would you speak of some Conclusions Deduced, others Express:  for what is expressed/extracted from certain principia is also deduced from them, and vice versa.  3.  Finally, the condition of the one drawing the conclusion does little to change the nature of the Conclusion, and to augment or diminish its force; but rather the legitimate and evident tie of the middle term with the end terms[1] is to be attended to.

However, no one would want to deny:  1.  that some Theological Conclusions are of the necessity of Faith, the rejection of which gives birth to heresy, if those Conclusions proceed legitimately:  others are only of the fullness of Faith, which are rejected, never without error, but not always with heresy.  2.  That some are proximate, immediate, derived by manifest consequence, which, with the truth of the Premises admitted, are not able to be rejected; others are more remote, mediated, not so clearly proceeding, which make a lesser impression upon the mind:  and it is certain that opposition is made to the latter with less danger than to the former.

But it is hardly to be doubted, that this distinction was devised in the schools of the Papists especially for this Purpose, that they might make less of their own disputes on many heads of significant weight, and introduce a certain, perpetual Skepticism in as many matters as possible.  So, when they dispute among themselves whether Blessed Mary was preserved from contracting original Sin, which the Minorites[2] affirm and the Dominicans deny:  whether the Cross is to be adored with Latria,[3] which Thomas determines, but Bellarmine does not dare to assert and judges to be dangerous:  whether the Infallibility of the Church resides in the Pope, as the Jesuits affirm, or in a universal Council, as the Theologians of the Sorbonne prefer:  and in six hundred others:  they say that these Controversies are Theological, not of Faith, and in which, without danger of heresy or error in Faith, it is lawful to each to think as he will.

[1] The major and minor terms, which appear in the conclusion, are sometimes called the end terms.

[2] That is, the Franciscans.

[3] In Roman Catholic theology, dulia is a degree of reverence/worship that might be extended to saints and angels; latria is reserved for the Divine Trinity alone, and by extension the Eucharist.