by Dr. Rafael Xavier Gonzalez
Knowledge of the theological notes or censures are of the utmost importance, especially in these doctrinally and morally confusing times in which we find ourselves. I wrote an article on this topic some time ago for 1Peter5, which you can check out here (https://onepeterfive.com/theological-notes-papal-heresy/). Dr. Jerome King, in his PhD dissertation explains the theological notes:
“In the High Middle Ages, many popes had been trained as canonists rather than as theologians. When theological controversies arose, popes would sometimes issue condemnations of certain ideas through documents that were prepared with the help of commissions of theologians. In the fourteenth century, these papal condemnations began to use certain theological terms to criticize the content of specific assertions: heretica, erronea, male sonans, suspecta de haeresi, and so on. These terms did not seem to attract much attention until they were used by the Council of Constance (1414-18) in three separate documents. These would eventually become known as theological censures, or more generally, theological notes. (The term “theological notes” includes positive, negative, and somewhat neutral assessments of propositions, while the term “theological censures” includes only the negative theological notes.)”[1]
Theologians, based on Magisterial documents, have studied these censures, attempting to systematize them and give them a clear exposition, forming a theology of the Magisterium or, as I also have heard it called, Magisterial theology. Probably the most in-depth and actualized treatise on the issue was written by the Dominican John Cahill.[2]
Faith of course is a supernatural act, an assent of the intellect, commanded by the will, moved by grace based on the authority of God who reveals. The authority of God is essential to the act of faith, at least in a tacit manner. So no one can claim to not know the authority of God and have supernatural faith. These are both mutually exclusive. There is no true supernatural assent of faith without, at least implicit, knowledge of God’s authority.
So the theological note of Divine Faith, de fide divina, pertains to all which is revealed in the sources, namely, Scripture and Tradition. Yet the note of Divine and Catholic Faith, de fide divina et catholica, is a faith that contains adhesion to all the revealed truths since it is what is divinely revealed, in the written of oral Word, and is proposed by the Church to be divinely revealed. The Magisterium does this either solemnly pronouncing doctrine (the type of language utilized is an indicator of course), or via the ordinary and universal Magisterium of the Church. If the Magisterium exercises in an extraordinary way, through an ecumenical council or by the Roman Pontiff speaking ex catedra then the note has the addition of definita. Hence it would be the note de fide divina et catholica definita.
Such a faith is obligatory for Catholics, making him Catholic, since supernatural faith, its object, is “all or none”. Man having faith is actually God’s initiative through his grace which moves our assent. Yet faith is also rational and hence it is still necessary to inquire into the motives of credibility which make it rationally acceptable (See my article: Futurism has no Future, Fiducial Faith versus Dogmatic Faith: https://mycatholictwocents.com/2025/07/11/futurism-has-no-future-fiducial-faith-versus-dogmatic-faith/). Basically we have to also know naturally, according to reason, why we are Catholic. We have to know what is called the preambula fidei, the preambles of the faith.[3]
A non-Catholic also has the right and duty to inquire into the truth of his own religion, or non-religion (“none”), with the intention of embracing the true religion wherever he finds it. (See my article on The Obligation to Embrace the True Positive Religion: https://mycatholictwocents.com/2025/06/06/the-obligation-to-embrace-the-true-positive-religion/). Such a person will most likely convert to the true faith because, due to his sincerity and diligence, both the evident motives of credulity (the Church) and the internal divine motion, grace, move him to the Catholic faith. If he cooperates and accepts, he will come to the faith.
But I want to focus now on the Catholic. Is it possible for a Catholic to inquire about his faith and then leave it for another? Can a Catholic, after investigating diligently his own religion, come to the conclusion that his religion as a whole is false and become a Muslim for example? Well of course, he can physically do it, as one can physically sin. Yet he cannot morally do it, and hence he would be culpable. But why?
It seems on the surface that one’s transition from Catholic to non-catholic is due to ignorance, and even outright maliciousness in some cases, as those who are serious satanists believe but hate the doctrine, celebrating so-called black masses to desecrate Christ’s substantial presence in the consecrated host. If ignorance is vincible then it is culpable. But can there be a case of someone who was a Catholic, who actually believed, and then defects and is inculpable via invincible ignorance?
The answer is no. A Catholic cannot abandon his faith inculpably. It is not possible and hence all loss of faith is truly culpable. What’s beautiful and scary at the same time is that God does not abandon us, unless we abandon Him. So the greatest thing we can lose is God, by losing our faith, and this is done through our moral evil. Defection of a true believer does not even happen through ignorance for such seems to be a contradiction for how can one be ignorant of what he truly believed?
The cause is sin. Sin clouds our intellect and hence causes us ultimately to lose our faith (though individual mortal sins committed, unless they go directly contrary to the faith, do not cause us to lose our faith, but rather our charity).
Defection from the Catholic faith can never be based on a true intellectual position but rather proceed from the immoral life. If we do not act according to our beliefs, we will end up believing according to our acts. Traditional Protestantism, along with the other false religions, reject this integral reality of man, in his internal and external realms, and how they need to be harmonized countering a hypocritical spirit. Though of course we cannot be hypocrites for long! Either our beliefs must change or our actions must change. One needs to conform to the other.
What we’re saying in this defection is manifest especially when a person becomes Catholic after leaving a sinful life. When the person goes back to the sinful life, especially to those particular sins committed, God withdraws his Providence and hence the person loses the faith.
But even when we abandon God, God continues to seek us. A must read for anyone serious in the spiritual life is the Discernment of Spirits by St. Ignatius of Loyola. God can console and also leave one disconsolate:
“…both the Church and God work in contrary ways in the soul of a Catholic and of a non-catholic: in the former they act by keeping him in peace in his possession of the truth, in the latter they act by moving him to inquire into the true faith”.[4]
In the end, both the external and internal realities motivate man to the true faith. Catholicism is objectively credible with its numerous miracles, doctrinal cohesion, moral fruits, tremendously influential institutions, convergence of oral and written testimony, universality, history, etc. Plus God’s grace is never lacking for man to accept the Catholic faith, and even the good natural elements in false religions are supposed to incite man to accept the fullness of the truth, what was properly and supernaturally revealed by God.
I end with pointing out two Scripture passages of the topic at hand:
“It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age and who have fallen away, to be brought back to repentance. To their loss they are crucifying the Son of God all over again and subjecting him to public disgrace”.[5]
“It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them”.[6]
[1] Lawrence Jerome King, The Authoritative Weight of Non-Definitive Magisterial Teaching (The Catholic University of America Press: Washington D.C., 2016), 71-72. I have told Dr. King to publish but it is still not so for some reason. Nevertheless you can access on JSTOR:
[2] Cahill, John (1955). The Development of the Theological Censures after the Council of Trent (1563–1709), (Studia Friburgensia. Fribourg, Switzerland: University Press). Loreto Press publishes this book also.
[3] An excellent in-depth work on this topic is the following: Ralph McInerny, Praeambula Fidei: Thomism and the God of the Philosophers, (Catholic University Press: Washington D.C. 2006).
[4] Sacrae Theologiae Summa, IIB, #181.
[5] Hebrews 6:4.
[6] 2Peter 2:21.
