BRETHREN IN CHRIST:
To Sedes and polemical Eastern Orthodox [1] – your manner of disputing on the internet follows this general pattern:
1. You have not sufficiently studied the subject under dispute. Ex: Sedes, you have never read Torquemada or Cajetan on the central question, nor can you prove what theological note is the sententia of Bellarmine.
For Eastern Orthodox: you have never read, for example, the Imitation of Christ but simply believed Brianchaninov’s incredible bias against the spirituality of your own Latin saints, or, perhaps what is worse, you disparage St. Augustine more than Mark of Ephesus would ever presume himself worthy to speak.
2. Thus, you rely on straw men and ad hominem to prove your opinions. Therefore your disputes are unconvincing and, moreover, hazardous to your own eternal salvation. As it is written: Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it on the day of judgment (Mt. xii. 36) or again whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire (Mt. v. 22).
3. Therefore I will ignore your comments unless you do the following:
First, tell me your full name. If we can’t interact like normal human beings do in disputes of this kind then we can stop now.
For sedes: list every primary source you have read on the question of a heretical pope besides Bellarmine.
For Eastern Orthodox: list Latin Saints you have read, the secondary Catholic sources you have read, and the Latin spiritual works you have read both pre- and post-1054. Confirm that you have read Soloviev and you can refute him.
The last time I gave such conditions, the Eastern Orthodox did not follow the directions and then attempted to ridicule me into disputing with them, proving my point exactly. Unless you follow these guidelines, your comments will be ignored. This is for your own sake and mine. If you think I’m trying to be arrogant or condescending to you, I suppose you can ignore me.
With respect,
Timothy Flanders
[1] Here I will distinguish between Eastern Orthodox who have questions of Catholics, or simply wish to have a civil disagreement (always happy to talk with such Orthodox), with those “polemical” Eastern Orthodox who seek to refute me. I am open to refutation, but only under the above conditions.
Sede Vacante. Viva Christo Rey. Full list of primary sources that prove sedevacantism.
Matthaeus Conte a Coronata (1950), Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Rome: Marietti 1950.
Pope Innocent III (1198), sermo 4.
Pope Paul IV (1559), Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio.
St. Alphonsus Liguori (?1787), Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232
Vatican I (1869), Serapius Iragui (1959), [Mansi 52:1109], Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium 1959. 371.
J. Wilhelm (1913), Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Encyclopedia Press 1913. 7:261.
Caesar Badii (1921), Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Florence: Fiorentina 1921. 160, 165.
Dominic Prümmer (1927), Manuale Iuris Canonci. Freiburg im Briesgau: Herder 1927. 95.
F.X. Wernz, P. Vidal (1943), Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:453.
Udalricus Beste (1946), Introductio in Codicem. 3rd ed. Collegeville: St. John’s Abbey Press 1946. Canon 221.
A. Vermeersch, I. Creusen (1949), Epitome Iuris Canonici. Rome: Dessain 1949. 340.
Eduardus F. Regatillo (1956), Institutiones Iuris Canonici. 5th ed. Santander: Sal Terrae, 1956. 1:396.
Hi Cory,
Not all of these are primary sources. Nevertheless, you mostly fulfilled my conditions. I’m happy to talk with you.
With respect,
Timothy
Hello again Timothy,
First, I would like to say that I hope this conversation to be fruitful and civil, in other words pax tecum. Second, I would like to point out that I am in no way affiliated with the Dimond Brothers, those heretics in New York that reject the baptism of desire, and in fact I hold the theological position of His Excellency, Bishop Pivarunas of the CMRI. Third, what is your position exactly? Do you hold the recognize and resist position of the SSPX? Do you reject Vatican II, or at least those parts that teach heresy? Do you hold Vatican II to be non-binding and therefore non-magisterial?
To reiterate, pax tecum.
Sincerely, Cory.
Dear Cory,
Thanks for a pleasant introduction brother. My position is summarized here: https://meaningofcatholic.com/my-confession-of-faith/
https://meaningofcatholic.com/my-hypothesis/
And:
https://youtu.be/cuIBNIrUoPI
Dear Timothy,
Before I define and prove sedevacantism to be true, I am going to lay down the foundation by asking a couple questions.
Do you object to St. Robert Bellarmine’s theological opinion, because in your view it is, “Sententia Probabilis,” or perhaps has no Sententia at all, at least in view of Cajetan’s opinion on the matter?
St Rober Bellarmine: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” De Romano Pontifice. II.30,
(I can’t find Cajetan’s quote so I’m relegating this to John of St. Thomas.) “[A] heretic must be avoided as a result of two rebukes that have been made juridically by the Church’s authority and not according to private judgment.”(“[H]aereticum esse evitandum propter duas correptiones juridice scilicet factas, et ab ecclesiae auctoritate, et non privatum judicium.”) John of St. Thomas, Cursus Theologicus, Disputatio II, Art. III, no. XXVI, Ludovicus Vives, 1883–1886, 263.
How do you define the sedevacantism of those that reject Vatican II and Vatican II’s alleged papal claimants? Please create a steelman argument if you can, I have yet to see any steelman argument against sedevacantism by the apologetics establishment of Catholic Answers, or by any modern Catholic apologist (and True or False Pope by John Salza is littered with strawman arguments).
1. The sententia of St. Robert Bellarmine (from De Controversiis on a heretical pope) is AT THE MOST Sententia Communis. It is more likely Probabilis because the Sententia of Cajetan has also been commonly held, including such greats as Garrigou-Lagrange and other Dominicans.
2. Therefore it is against charity and prudence to go into schism over a Sententia Communis, especially if it is not well founded to be Communis (as Bellarmine’s is), since the denial of a Sententia Communis is AT WORST the sin of temerity, NOT the sin of heresy. Therefore the sede’s schism is a mortal sin and they are in danger of hellfire.
3. Even if, for the sake of argument, Bellarmine’s Sententia is Communis (and is in fact true), the conditions necessary for the discovery process of a sede vacante (which is an ecumenical council or some other juridical process according to Bellarmine himself) in order that the sede vacante can be known quoad ecclesiam, has never occurred since 1958. Sedes, rather, not taking Bellarmine at his word, rely on their private judgments to skip Bellarmine’s discovery process and thus selectively read him and his sententia.
There is one aspect to this, that Catholics may find interesting.
https://aleteia.org/2018/06/04/6-sins-against-the-holy-spirit/ (this topic in general might be worth addressing in a video.)
“3. Denying a truth”
Where i come from, it has a more detailed name. It is called “Tussle with a learned truth”.
Whoever willingly engages in tussling with the Truths of the Catholic church, sede or ortho, sins against the Holy Spirit. Sins against the Holy Spirit are unforgivable.
Those who choose to deny, mock, ridicule the Truths of the Catholic Church, are in a very, very big trouble. Of course, this also goes for the prots, jews, muzzies, hindus, buddhists, atheists etc.
You are in a very, very big trouble.
This also speaks, to an extent, about the futility to engage with these people. They are irrevocably blind. They lost all grace. .
Yes the seeming futility of engaging is why I set these conditions. It’s definitely a serious issue, but I think the sin against the Holy Ghost is generally regarded by the Fathers to be final impenitence.
Flanders: You only read biased secondary sources, that’s why you remain obstinate. You need to go to primary sources for truth.
Also Flanders: I’m sure you haven’t read Soloviev.
Case in point.
Dear Timothy,
Foreword: I have no knowledge of any learned sedevacantist clergy, those belonging to the SSPV, CMRI, RCI, SGG, IMBC, SST, claiming that St. Robert’s opinion, and of those theologians that agree with St. Robert Bellarmine, as being anything more than Sententia Communis.
Reply to point one: I cannot say that I have read the works of the Dominicans on this matter. The Dominicans are not the only theologians to look at this matter, but yes it must be said that this matter hasn’t been definitively agreed upon by the theologians (I might even be wrong about that claim).
Canonist, Creusen: “At least according to the more common teaching, the Roman Pontiff as a private teacher can fall into manifest heresy. Then, without any declaratory sentence (for the supreme See is judged by no one), he would automatically [ipso facto] fall from a power which he who is no longer a member of the Church is unable to possess.” Epitome Iuris Canonici. Rome: Dessain 1949. 340.
Canonist, Regatillo: “5. ‘The pope loses office ipso facto because of public heresy.’ This is the more common teaching, because a pope would not be a member of the Church, and hence far less could he be its head.” Institutiones Iuris Canonici. 5th ed. Santander: Sal Terrae, 1956. 1:396.
Reply to point two: The sedevacantist position is not one of schism. Sedevacantists deny the legitimacy of the one claiming to be Pope because the one claiming to be Pope is teaching heresy to the Universal Church (Vatican II), such a thing is impossible for a Pope to do, therefore the Vatican II claimants are not the Vicars of Jesus Christ. Furthermore, the proof of teaching heresy to the universal Church points to the possibility that the election of the Vatican II claimants to the papacy wasn’t valid in the first place.
“Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs to Sanchez and Palao].” (de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8.
“They cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation…” (Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicum, Vol. VII, n. 398.)
“Disobedience, no matter how pertinacious, does not constitute schism unless it be a rebellion against the office of the pope.” (Cajetan’s comentary on Saint Thomas’s article on schism, quoted by Cardinal Billot, De Ecclesia, Thesis XI)
Here are a few examples that show the sedevacantist reverence for the Papacy and Roman Catholicism (this section is here to dispel any thought that sedevacantists are against the doctrine of the Papacy or Rome).
Stephen Heiner (Founder of True Restoration): “We are Roman Catholics, We would rather *die* than separate ourselves from the Roman Pontiff. The thing is, this man is not the Roman Pontiff. Sedevacantism is simply a holding position until things return to normal.”
John Daly (scholar, translator of Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum Ex Apostolatus Offico, with a verified IQ of 161): “Catholics should be proud to be Roman. Every Catholic is bound to Rome: our faith is Roman, our Church is Roman, our civilization is Roman, our heritage is Roman. We are proud to be Romans: outside the borders of Romanity, whether geographical or cultural, there are only the enemies of our faith and the enemies of our freedom, the men who can destroy but can never build.
Reply to point three: As Catholics, we have the obligation of comparing what is taught by Vatican II with the teaching of the Catholic Church. The virtue of faith demands that we do so, since the faith is supernatural wisdom and consequently demands that everything be in conformity with it. If we did not make this comparison, we would not have the virtue of faith. If we find that the teachings of Vatican II are not in conformity with the teaching of the Catholic Faith, we are bound to reject Vatican II, and bound to conclude that those who promulgate it do not have the authority of Christ. Otherwise our adherence to the error which is contrary to faith would ruin the virtue in us, and we would become heretics. Similarly, if we would entertain the thought that the Catholic Church were capable of promulgating false doctrines and evil worship and discipline, we would be heretics. So privately to conclude that John Paul II is a heretic, indeed an apostate from the Faith, is not to “judge” the pope in the sense that it is meant by canonists and theologians. In fact, if we could not even think of the possibility of the pope being a heretic, then why do so many theologians speak about this possibility, and about the consequences of his being a heretic? We leave it to the authority of the Church, when it once again will function in a normal manner, to declare authoritatively that these supposed popes were non-popes. We as simple laity cannot, after all, make authoritative judgements, whether legal or doctrinal, which bind the consciences of the faithful.
Dear Timothy,
Now I am going to prove and define sedevacantism as I promised to do so before.
Sedevacantism is the belief of a Catholic that the man widely believed to be pope is not the legitimate successor of Saint Peter, in order to stay obedient to papal authority, because the successor of St. Peter cannot teach heresy to the Universal Church, and that man which is the alleged papal successor has done so (Vatican II), therefore the heretic claiming papal authority is rejected. The best explanation for this is that the illegitimate successor of St. Peter was never validly elected in the first place. Allow me to explain: a cause can be discerned by examining the effects. For example, the intelligent design of the universe points to a Creator. Likewise, if the man who came out of the conclave did what a true pope would not (indeed could not, such as teach heresy to the universal Church in the form of an ecumenical council) do, we can safely say he wasn’t elected pope.
Contrast that with Eastern Orthodoxy, which rejects the doctrine of supreme papal primacy, and as such they reject the authority of the Roman Patriarch in faith or morals, one sees then that sedevacantism is incompatible rather than proves Eastern Orthodox theology.
I will sum this up in two quotes from the theologians.
St. Thomas Aquinas: “Accordingly schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church; for this is the chief unity, and the particular unity of several individuals among themselves is subordinate to the unity of the Church, even as the mutual adaptation of each member of a natural body is subordinate to the unity of the whole body. Now the unity of the Church consists in two things; namely, in the mutual connection or communion of the members of the Church, and again in the subordination of all the members of the Church to the one head, according to Colossians 2:18-19: “Puffed up by the sense of his flesh, and not holding the Head, from which the whole body, by joints and bands, being supplied with nourishment and compacted, groweth unto the increase of God.” Now this Head is Christ Himself, Whose viceregent in the Church is the Sovereign Pontiff. Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.”
“Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs to Sanchez and Palao].” (de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8.
Now to prove sedevacantism by proving Vatican II taught heresy to the Universal Church.
Is there a contradiction between Vatican II’s declaration on religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) and traditional Catholic doctrine as expressed in numerous encyclicals, and most especially in Pope Pius IX’s Quanta Cura? In recent years some intellectual conservatives have audaciously denied that there is any such contradiction. Before commenting on their attempts, let us remind ourselves of the texts:
Quanta Cura: “…against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that ‘the best condition of civil society is that in which no duty is attributed to the civil power of restraining by enacted penalties, offenders against the Catholic religion, except insofar as public peace may require.’
“From which totally false idea of social government they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal to the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our Predecessor, Gregory XVI, insanity, viz., that ‘liberty of conscience and worship is the proper right of every man and ought to be legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society’.”
“Amidst, therefore, such great perversity of depraved opinions, we, well remembering our Apostolic Office, and very greatly solicitous for our most holy Religion, for sound doctrine and the salvation of souls which is intrusted to us by God, and (solicitous also) for the welfare of human society itself, have thought it right again to raise up our Apostolic voice. Therefore, by our Apostolic authority, we reprobate, proscribe, and condemn all the singular and evil opinions and doctrines severally mentioned in this letter, and will and command that they be thoroughly held by all children of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed and condemned.”
Dignitatis Humanae (Vatican II): “This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious liberty. Such liberty consists in this: that all men must be immune to coercion whether on the part of individuals, social bodies or any human power so that in religious matters no one is constrained to act against his conscience or prevented from acting in accordance with his conscience in private and in public, alone or with others, within due limits [these due limits are defined in paragraph 7 as being those of public peace and morality].
“It further declares that the right to religious liberty is truly founded on the very dignity of the human person as known by the revealed word of God and reason itself.
“This right of the human person to religious liberty in the juridical ordering of society is to be recognised so as to become a civil right.”
Now to all appearances these texts are in radical contradiction on three points. Pope Pius IX condemns the following ideas: 1. all men have a right to liberty of conscience and of worship; 2. this right of religious liberty should be made a civil right in every well-ordered society; 3. the best state of society is that in which men’s civil right to religious liberty is limited only by the demands of public peace.
These three points condemned by Pius IX are all three apparently taught by the Vatican II text. Moreover Pope Pius IX is exercising the Extraordinary Magisterium and teaches that these propositions are opposed to Holy Scripture (written divine revelation) while Vatican II declares its opposing doctrine to be founded on the revealed word of God and requires all Catholics to observe its teaching religiously.
More heresies can be found in the Vatican II text. http://www.holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html
Two common objections are raised against sedevacantism. One involves Pastor Aeternus of Vatican I. The other involves the lack of cardinals (papal electors).
Vatican I: “Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.”
Sedevacantism is the belief of a Catholic that the man widely believed to be pope is not the legitimate successor of Saint Peter. Nowhere in this thesis, sedevacantism, does it support the heresy that the perpetual succession of St. Peter in the primacy has ended. Instead the thesis only supports an extended papal interregnum between Popes. And yes, extended papal interregnums have been discussed by theologians.
Fr. O’Reilly, The Relations of the Church to Society (1882), “We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy. In the first place, there was all throughout, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope — with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created. There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”
A. Dorsch (1928): “The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, or even for many years, from remaining deprived of her head. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this
state.… “Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not… “For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has die— for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate. These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of
the head, however, is not so strictly necessary.” (de Ecclesia 2:196–7)
To answer the second objection. How does one get another Pope without current valid cardinals. Three answers have been given: First, direct Divine Intervention. This scenario is found in the writings of some approved mystics. Second, the Material/Formal Thesis. This holds that should a post Vatican II pope publicly renounce the heresies of the post Conciliar Church, he would automatically become a true pope. Third, an Imperfect General Council. The theologian Cajetan (1469–1534) and others teach that, should the College of Cardinals become extinct, the right to elect a pope would devolve to the clergy of Rome, and then to the universal Church. (de Comparatione 13, 742, 745)
Cody,
Sorry I have not had much time to respond at length, but by the time I read your respond to point two, I was already very dissatisfied with your lack of understanding of the very basics here, which is the type of thing which makes conversations with sedes a waste of my time because it seems very clear that you are not investigating these issues thoroughly.
1. The common teaching according to Bellarmine requires a discovery process like an ecumenical council in order that the heretic who is not pope can be declared as such quoad ecclesiam. This is the crucial piece missing which makes your entire edifice collapse.
2. Heresy works the same way. Even if it could be proved that Vatican II taught heresy, a discovery process would be required to prove formal heresy as opposed to material. Your reasoning hinges upon the mechanism of private judgment alone which is insufficient to resolve a dispute like this as every similar crisis (Honorius, John XII, John XXII, Great Schism) all show without exception.
I have never met a sede who did not indicate very early that they had not studied this thoroughly. You are making the same indications.
With respect,
Timothy
Dear Timothy,
With respect I must remind you that my position is but one of waiting for the Church to return to normal in order to create the very discovery process you are talking about. Also I must remind you that no Pope in history has ever taught heresy to the Universal Church (so whatever point you’re trying to make with Honorius, John XII, and John XXII is nullified by the teachings of Vatican Council I. and the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine)
https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/069256599X/interregnumnow-20
Vatican I: “For the fathers of the Fourth Council of Constantinople, following closely in the footsteps of their predecessors, made this solemn profession: ‘The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith. For it is impossible that the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church” (Matt. 16:18), should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied, and its teaching kept holy.’”
“For they fully realized that this See of St. Peter always remains untainted by any error, according to the divine promise of Our Lord and Savior made to the prince of His disciples, ‘I have prayed for thee, that thy faith may not fail; and do thou, when once thou has turned again, strengthen thy brethren’ (Luke 22:32).”
“Now this charism of truth of never-failing faith was conferred upon St. Peter and his successors in this Chair, in order that they might perform their supreme office for the salvation of all.”
In a conference given after his return from the council [of Vatican I], Archbishop John Baptist Purcell of Cincinnati related the following:
“The question was also raised by a Cardinal, “What is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?” It was answered that there has never been such a case; the Council of Bishops could depose him for heresy, for from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church. The Church would not be, for a moment, obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.”
“If the Pope, for instance, were to say that the belief in God is false, you would not be obliged to believe him, or if he were to deny the rest of the creed, “I believe in Christ,” etc. The supposition is injurious to the Holy Father in the very idea, but serves to show you the fullness with which the subject has been considered and the ample thought given to every possibility. If he denies any dogma of the Church held by every true believer, he is no more Pope than either you or I; and so in this respect the dogma of infallibility amounts to nothing as an article of temporal government or cover for heresy.”
(Abp. John B. Purcell, quoted in Rev. James J. McGovern, Life and Life Work of Pope Leo XIII [Chicago, IL: Allied Printing, 1903], p. 241; imprimatur by Abp. James Quigley of Chicago; underlining added.)
The Vatican Council and its Definitions by Cardinal Henry Manning (1870):
“I will, nevertheless, here affirm, that the following points in the case of Honorius can be abundantly proved from documents:
That Honorius defined no doctrine whatsoever.
That he forbade the making of any new definition.
That his fault was precisely in this omission of apostolic authority, for which he was justly censured.
That his two epistles are entirely orthodox; though, in the use of language, he wrote as was usual before the condemnation of Monothelitism, and not as it became necessary afterwards. It is an anachronism and an injustice to censure his language, used before that condemnation, as it might be just to censure it after the condemnation had been made.”
If you are dissatisfied by my “private judgement,” then please try to understand my position.
Can a Private Individual Recognize Someone as a Heretic Before the Direct Judgement of the Church?
“What would be the point of the rule of faith and morals if in every particular case the simple layman could not himself apply them directly?” (Don Felix de Sarda y Salvany: Liberalism is a Sin, Chap. xxxviii, p. 203)
Thesis: Yes, private individuals can recognise someone as a heretic before the direct judgment of the church, on certain conditions, namely:
1. The false doctrine held by the culprit must in manifest and direct opposition to a truth that must certainly be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
2. It must be morally certain that the culprit is aware of the conflict between his opinion and the teaching of the Catholic Church.
3. The private individual may “judge” that someone is a heretic in the sense of recognising a fact — the epistemological meaning of the word “judge” — and not in the juridical sense of pronouncing a definitive sentence. Hence such judgments can oblige only the conscience of the person forming them, in full awareness of the facts, and no one else.
4. It is obligatory to incline, out of charity, as far as is reasonably possible, in favour of a suspect, and to reach the conclusion that anyone is a heretic only as a last resort.
Pitfalls to be avoided:
It is incorrect to give the name “heresy” to an error which is opposed to a doctrine taught by the Church, but not as having to be believed with divine and Catholic faith, or which does not certainly belong in this category;
It is incorrect to give the name “heresy” to an error which is opposed to a doctrine to be believed with divine and Catholic faith, where the opposition is not direct and manifest but depends on several steps of reasoning: in such cases the qualification “heresy” is not applicable before a definitive judgment on the part of the Church;
It is incorrect to accuse anyone of heresy on the grounds that, while not embracing the heresy in question, he refuses to accept that it is in fact heretical or to count its devotees as heretics pending the Church’s formal judgment;
It is incorrect to affirm that pertinacity is present when other explanations could reasonably be supposed.
Proofs of the Thesis
Denzinger 1105: Pope Alexander VII condemned the statement that one is not obliged to denounce to the authorities someone whom one knows to be certainly a heretic if one does not have strict proof that he is a heretic. This condemnation directly implies that private individuals can sometimes know that someone is a heretic before the authorities of the Church realise this, and even without having strict proof.
St Alphonsus Liguori discusses the duty of denouncing heretics even among the members of one’s own family. He declares that this duty obliges without exception, but only when the miscreant is truly and formally a heretic and not merely suspected or erring in good faith. This distinction, presented in a clear and detailed manner, would be perfectly otiose if individuals were unable to recognise heretics before the authorities had intervened. So St Alphonsus clearly presumes that individuals can, at least sometimes, distinguish suspicion of heresy from certainty and can, at least sometimes, recognise the presence or absence of pertinacity. (Theologia Moralis, lib. 5, n. 250)
Canon 1325 gives the classic definition of the word “heretic”, based on St Thomas: “a baptised person who, while continuing to call himself a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts a truth which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.” Canonists are agreed that the pertinacity in question consists in knowing that the doctrine one denies (or doubts) is taught by the Church as revealed. No other condition, such as authoritative judgment is required to make someone a heretic.
Canon 2314 declares that all heretics incur latae sententiae excommunication. Some other penalties incurred by heretics must be specifically inflicted by the authorities, and only after a warning has proved fruitless, but the excommunication itself is automatically incurred from the very instant that the heresy is externally expressed. The express stipulation that this censure is immediately incurred by the fact of heresy and not as a result of sentence would clearly be pointless and inapplicable if no one could know in any concrete case that it had been so incurred.
Canon 188§4 declares that if a cleric should publicly fall away from the Catholic faith, all his offices would become vacant ipso facto and without need of official declaration. Canonists agree that this falling away is verified by public heresy as defined in Canon 1325: there is no need, they say, to join any particular sect, but only publicly to reject what one knows the Church teaches. Now this canon would be deprived of any meaning or value if no one could recognise the presence of heresy before an official judgment. How could an office become automatically vacant by the very fact of heresy, and without any declaration, if in fact a formal trial and a declaration were necessary to know that anyone was a heretic? What would be the point of advising us of this pre-judgement, pre-declaration effect of heresy if no one could ever take account of it?
The meaning of Canon 188§4 is quite clear in itself and requires no commentary to understand it, in accordance with the canonists’ axiom: “Clara verba non indigent interpretatione sed executione.” Indeed all canonists are unanimous that it means exactly what it says: public heretics forfeit all offices ipso facto and without any need for trial or declaration by anyone. However, Canon 188§4 has never been the object of official interpretation emanating from the Holy See. By contrast, it has a sister-canon — Canon 646§1 n. 2, concerning religious life — which has been officially explained and which sheds considerable reflected light on Canon 188§4 too and on the whole principle according to which private individuals can recognise manifest heretics irrespective of authoritative condemnation. This is because Canon 646§1 n. 2 declares that any religious who publicly abandons the Catholic Faith must be considered by that very fact to be legitimately dismissed (from his or her religious order or congregation) .
The second paragraph of the same canon requires that the fact in question (public heresy and consequent automatic dismissal) be declared by the superior. The canonists agree that public abandonment of the Catholic Faith would be fulfilled by any case of public heresy. In view of this second paragraph, the Holy See was consulted as to whether the dismissal was conditional upon the superior’s declaration. The Commission for the Interpretation of the Code replied, 30th July 1934, in the negative. The canonist Heribert Jone O.F.M. cap. explains that the superior’s declaration does not involve any trial and serves simply to make known facts that have already taken effect: the heresy and the dismissal which it produces.
Manifestly, therefore, the superior and the other religious must be able to recognise the fact of heresy in order to draw the practical conclusions that flow from it and to make the obligatory declaration of what has already happened.
St Hypatius, a Bithynian monk of the fifth century, insisted on suppressing the name of Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople, from the sacred diptychs (equivalent to the Canon of the Mass) from the moment when Nestorius began to preach his heresy, which denied the unity of person in Our Lord. Hypatius’s ordinary, the bishop Eulalius (who was a suffragan of Nestorius), refused Nestorius’s heresy, but rebuked the monk for having withdrawn from communion with their patriarch before he had been condemned by a council. Hypatius replied: “Ever since I learned that Nestorius teaches error about our Lord, I am not in communion with him neither do I include his name in the Eucharistic sacrifice, for he is not a true bishop. Do as you wish to me, for I have made up my mind to suffer all things and nothing will induce me to change my behaviour.” (See An Extract from the Life of Saint Hypatius translated by the present writer from the original fifth-century Greek of the monk Callinicus)
St Hypatius’s judgment relative to Nestorius seems to be confirmed not only by the approval of the hagiographers, but also by the decree of Pope St Celestine deciding that all of Nestorius’s acts were to be considered null from the moment when he began to preach heresy, “… for he who had abandoned the Faith by such preaching can neither deprive nor depose anyone.” (St Robert Bellarmine: De Romano Pontifice, Cap. XXX) The excesses of one school of traditional Catholics call for a reminder, however, that St Hypathius withdrew from communion only with Nestorius, not with Eulalius also!
Cardinal de Lugo, considered by St Alphonsus to be the greatest theologian since St Thomas, devoted the most detailed study we are aware of to the subject of the pertinacity required to make someone a heretic. He discusses whether a warning is needed in order to establish that someone is a heretic, and concludes, after considering the opinions of all the noted theologians and canonists, that such warnings are not always necessary — nor are they always required in practice by the Holy Office. The reason for this is that the warning serves only to establish that the individual is aware of the opposition existing between his opinion and the Church’s teaching. If that were already evident, the warning would be superfluous. (Disputationes Scholasticae et Morales, Disp. XX, De Virtute Fidei Divinae, Sectio vi, n. 174 et seq.)
Pope Paul IV’s bull Cum Ex Apostolatus (15th February 1559, Bullarium Romanum vol. iv. sect. i, pp. 354-357) provides that if ever the cardinals should elect as pope someone who was guilty of prior heresy, the election would be simply null and the faithful would have the entire right to withdraw from obedience to the person elected, as he would not be their head. Historians inform us that this bull, in the mind of Pope Paul IV, aimed particularly at excluding the possibility that after his death the conclave might elect Cardinal Morone, widely believed to be a heretic, but never condemned by the Church. Hence the bull clearly admits that the faithful in such a case (of any rank) could recognise the presence of heresy and withdraw from obedience to the “pope” infected thereby, without waiting for an official judgment.
Conclusions
(i) Those who claim that private individuals can never know that this or that person is a heretic until the Church has pronounced on his case are clearly mistaken.
(ii) Such judgments are certainly possible, but are usually exceptional and should be reserved for cases of peculiar blatancy or when the intervention of superior authority is in abeyance.
(iii) Those who recognise someone as clearly a heretic are bound in conscience to treat him as such, but their conviction does not bind others who do not share it. This is the chief distinction between heretics who have been condemned by the Church (or belong to condemned sects) and those who are uncondemned and still claim to be Catholics.
Hello Timothy,
Do you plan on addressing Cory’s April 19th post? This discourse has been a tremendous resource to my ignorant mind, and I would like to see it continue.
Thank you,
Kenny
Yes but it will be in a video format. Sorry I was not able to take the time before.