Suscipe Domine Traditional Catholic Forum

The Church Courtyard => The Sacred Sciences => Topic started by: Geremia on July 28, 2014, 05:08:12 AM

Title: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Geremia on July 28, 2014, 05:08:12 AM
This video (http://vimeo.com/101741151) shows one instance in which John Paul II was a material heretic, yet the author of that video still considers him a valid pope because no other, valid pope has judged him a formal heretic.

Yet, according to Fraghi's excellent 1937 Angelicum dissertation, De Membris Ecclesiæ (https://archive.org/details/DeMembrisEcclesiae) (p. 85 ff. (https://archive.org/stream/DeMembrisEcclesiae/De%20Membris%20Ecclesiae%20-%20Fraghi%2C%20Sebastianus#page/n41/mode/1up)), there is not a consensus among theologians whether material heretics are or are not members of the Church, although Fraghi thinks the opinion that they are not is more probable.


De Haereticis materialibus et notoriis
On material and notorious Heretics
Circa hos haereticos, notorie sed bona fide aberrantes, non una est sententia inter Theologos. Regarding these notorious but bona fide aberrant heretics, there is not a consensus among Theologians.
Alii negant eos esse membra Ecclesiae;¹ alii e contra affirmant, inter quos est etiam Suarez, consequenter ad suum principium generale circa rationem membri Ecclesiae;² alii distinguunt, affirmantes eos in foro interno et iudicio Dei esse membra Ecclesiae, in foro tamen externo et iudicio Ecclesiae praesumi haereticos.³ Some deny they are members of the Church;¹ others, however, affirm they are, and Suarez is also among them, as a result of his general principle regarding the nature of a member of the Church;² others distinguish, affirming them to be members of the Church in the internal forum and by the judgment of God, but in the external forum and by the judgement of the Church they are presumed heretics.³
Nos ut probabiliorem primam sententiam tenemus. We hold the first opinion as more probable.

Patres cum loquuntur de haereticis, generatim de formalibus et pertinacibus loqui intendunt; aliquando autem aliquis eorum videtur excusare eos qui bona fide extra Ecclesiam sunt. Ita S. Augustinus de istis loquens habet:¹
Quote
Qui sententiam suam, quamvis falsam atque perversam, nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt, praesertim quam non audacia praesumptionis suae pepererunt, sed a seductis atque in errorem lapsis parentibus acceperunt, quaerunt autem cauta sollicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati cum invenerint, nequaquam sunt inter haereticos deputandi. Tales ergo vos nisi esse crederem, nullas fortasse vobis litteras mitterem.
When the Fathers speak of heretics, generally they intend to speak of formal and pertinacious heretics; sometimes, however, some of them are seen to excuse those who bona fide are outside the Church. St. Augustine has spoken of them thus:¹
Quote
Those who maintain their own opinion, however false and perverted, without obstinate ill will, especially those who have not originated their own error by bold presumption, but have received it from parents who had been led astray and had lapsed, those who seek truth with careful industry, ready to be corrected when they have found it, are not to be rated among heretics. Therefore, if I did not believe you to be such, I would probably not send you any letters.
Istis verbis Sanctus Doctor intendit magnam distinctionem ponere inter haereticos formales et haereticos materiales: cum illis non licet communicare; cum istis, seductis et minime pertinacibus, caritatis causa licet. Unde illa expressio potius ad defensionem sui agendi modi tendit, et revera paulo post ipse scribit:²
Quote
Haec praelocutus sum ne quis me existimet impudentius vobis quam prudentius scripta misisse et hoc modo vobiscum de negotio animae vestrae aliquid agere voluisse, quia nostrae communionis non estis.
Aliis verbis S. Augustinus distinguit inter haereticos qui «pertinaci animositate» errorem defendunt, et alios qui «sine animositate» in errore sunt: posteriores inter veros haereticos, id est, inter formales haereticos computandi non sunt, quamvis et isti non sint «nostrae communionis».
By these words the Holy Doctor intends to put a great distinction between formal and material heretics: it is not licit to communicate with the former; with the latter, being seduced and the least pertinacious, it is licit to be charitable. Hence that expression tends more for the defense of his conduct, and, in truth, a little after he writes:²
Quote
I have made this introductory explanation to prevent anyone from thinking that I had written to you too freely or without due prudence, wishing to deal with you about the business of your soul, even though you are not of our communion.
In other words, St. Augustine distinguishes between heretics who defend error "pertinaciously with animosity," and the others who are in error "without animosity:" the latter are not among true heretics, i.e., they are not reputed among formal heretics, although they are not "of our communion."
Sed et Patres multoties docent etiam haereticos materiales versari extra Ecclesiam. Dicunt enim expressis ver- But also the Fathers often teach that even material heretics are turned outside the Church. For they explicitly say

bis omnes haereticos, etiam illos qui seducti ab haeresiarchis in eorum congregatiunculas ingressi sint, non pertinere ad corpus Christi mysticum, nullam distinctionem ponentes inter eos qui voluntarie et eos qui bona fide eorum errorum participes sint. that all heretics, even those seduced by heresiarchs who entered into their bad congregations, do not pertain to the mystical body of Christ, putting no distinction between them who voluntarily and them who bona fide participate in their errors.
Ita S. Ireneus narrat Sanctum Polycarpum convertisse «in Ecclesiam Dei multos ex his quos praediximus haereticos»;¹ qui «haeretici» erant illi qui bona fide in errorem inducti fuerant: nam in praefatione de istis haereticis Ireneus dicit eos «inexpertiores» et «subdole» ab haeresiarchis in errorem ductos fuisse;² et deinceps affirmat opus suum perfecisse «ne forte et cum nostro delicto abripiantur quidam quasi oves a lupis».³ Quapropter si Polycarpus multos ex iis «convertit in Ecclesiam Dei», hoc significat eosdem antea in Ecclesia non fuisse. St. Ireneus thus tells us that Saint Polycarp converted "into the Church of God many whom we previously called heretics;"¹ "heretics" were those who bona fide were induced into error: for in the preface on these heretics Ireneus says they were "inexperienced" and "cunningly" conducted into error by the heresiarchs;² and thereafter he maintains that his work is done "lest and with our displeasure some are snatched like sheep by wolves."³ Therefore, if Polycarp «converts into the Church of God» many from the heresiarchs, this means that they were previously not in the Church.
Praxis Ecclesiae conformis est huic sententiae. Cum haeretici accedere volunt ad Ecclesiam, omnes eodem modo recipiuntur, nullo discrimine facto inter haereticos formales et haereticos materiales. The practice of the Church conforms to this opinion. When heretics want to enter the Church, all are received in the same way, no distinction being made between formal and material heretics.
Ita Cornelius Papa, anno 251, recepit in communionem Ecclesiae Maximum, Urbanum, Sidonium aliosque qui hanc professionem fidei fecerunt:⁴
Quote
…nos errorem nostrum confitemur…; imposturam passi sumus; circumventi sumus perfidia et loquacitate captiosa; nam tametsi videbamur quasi quandam communicationem cum schismatico et haeretico homine habuisse, cor tamen no-
Thus Pope Cornelius, in the year 251, received Maximus, Urban, and Sidonius into the communion of the Church, plus others who have mad this profession of faith:⁴
Quote
…we confess our error…; we have suffered imposture; we have been deceived by treachery and captious loquacity; for although we seemed to have held, as it were, a certain communication with a schismatical and heretical man, nevertheless our heart

Quote
strum semper in Ecclesia fuit…
Ut apparet ex ipsa formula, hi omnes erant haeretici materiales, et tamen eis necesse fait haec professio fidei ut in Ecclesiam a Summo Pontifice reciperentur.
Quote
has always been in the Church…
As is apparent from the formula itself, they all were material heretics, and yet it is necessary for them to make a profession of faith so that they may be received into the Church by the Supreme Pontiff.
Non valet obiectio quam ponunt aliqui dicentes: pueri baptizati in secta haeretica certe membra Ecclesiae sunt, ergo adulti qui bona fide sunt non amittunt hanc qualitatem veri membri, nisi forte per peccatum mortale.² The objection does not hold of those who say: "Children baptized in a heretical sect are certainly members of the Church, thus adults who bona fide do not lose this quality of true members except, perhaps, by mortal sin."¹
Filii acatholicorum utique sunt membra Ecclesiae quia per baptismum inserti sunt in corpus Christi mysticum et membra manent donec obicem contra unitatem Ecclesiae non ponant. Nec necesse es infantes communicent vitae sociali Ecclesiae; etenim nec filii catholicorum realiter communicant, quia incapaces sunt. Children of non-Catholics are certainly members of the Church because they are grafted into the mystical body of Christ by baptism, and they remain members while they do not place an obstacle against the unity of the Church. Nor is it necessary that infants participate in the social life of the Church; for neither do children of Catholics really communicate, because they are incapable.
Adulti vero debent communicare huic vitae sociali Ecclesiae, praesertim per professionem eiusdem fidei a magisterio ecclesiastico propositae; secus non haberetur Adults, however, must participate in this social life of the Church, especially by professing the same faith proposed by the ecclesiastical magisterium; otherwise, he would not have

unio intellectuum in eundem finem et sic unitas Ecclesiae periret. unity of the intellect in the same end, and so the unity of the Church would perish.
Unde in casu proposito, haereticus adultus, etsi inculpabiliter, revera ponit obicem contra unitatem fidei, et proinde extra Ecclesiam est. Hence, in such a case, an adult heretic, although inculpably, truly places an obstacle against the unity of the faith, and therefore he is outside the Church.
Neque valet quod a quibusdam asseritur: haeretici materiales in foro externo ab Ecclesia praesumuntur et habentur ut haeretici, sed in foro interno et coram Deo manent membra Ecclesiae.¹ Bene notat Ludovicus De San:²
Quote
Hoc dici non potest…; cum enim in iudicio Dei, quod est infallibile, haeretici et schismatici materiales non possint actu esse nisi id quod vere sunt, si ipsi in iudicio Dei essent membra Ecclesiae, sequeretur eos esse vera Ecclesiae membra, quod falsissimum patet esse…
Nor does what some assert hold: "In the external forum, material heretics are presumed and held as heretics by the Church, but in the internal forum before God they remain members of the Church.¹ Ludovicus De San notes well:
Quote
This cannot be said…; for in the judgement of God, which is infallible, material heretics and schismatics cannot in actuality be but what they truly are; if they in the judgement of God be members of the Church, it follows they are true members of the Church, which appears to be most false…
Non negamus etiam haereticum materialem gratiam, quam in baptismo recepit, servare posse, et etiam amissam reparare actu contritionis perfectae, et sic ad salutem pervenire. Haec est alia quaestio: ad salutem—ut diximus—aliquis pervenire potest etiam voto pertinendi ad veram Ecclesiam, quod adest in haeretico materiali. Affirmamus vero talem haereticum non habere condiciones veri membri et proinde etiam inculpabiliter non pertinere actu ad Ecclesiam Christi. We also do not deny a material heretic grace, which he receives in baptism, can keep, and even repair what is lost by an act of perfect contrition, and so to attain salvation. This is another question: someone can attain salvation—as we said—even by the desire of belonging to the true Church, who is in material heresy. We in fact affirm that such a heretic does not have the conditions of a true member and therefore also inculpably does not belong in actuality to the Church of Christ.

If you would like to improve the translation or make corrections, please do so here (http://moerwiki.us.to/wiki/On_material_and_notorious_Heretics).
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Sbyvl36 on July 29, 2014, 08:04:29 PM
This is very interesting.  Thank you for sharing!
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Gardener on July 29, 2014, 08:15:37 PM
I believe he is using the terms in a very specific way which is not necessarily how the OP is interpreting them.

I'd be interested in LouisIX's thoughts, as the OP's opening and the actual text seem to go a little passed each other.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: FatherCekada on August 01, 2014, 05:22:18 PM
Very interesting and helpful source. I'd never come across it.

Here is Van Noort on the same topic; he throws some additional light on the theological reasoning behind the position.

------------------------------------

"b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors – baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy – pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. “For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy (MCC 30; italics ours).”

"By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary’s Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic). It is certain that public, formal heretics are severed from Church membership. It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics are likewise excluded from membership. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ’s Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the “Catholic Church?” How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church." (Dogmatic Theology 2 : 153).

Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Geremia on August 01, 2014, 05:59:32 PM
This from Card. Billot is good, too:
Quote
Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known; while material heretics are those who, being in invincible ignorance of the Church herself, in good faith choose some other guiding rule. So the heresy of material heretics is not imputable as sin and indeed it is not necessarily incompatible with that supernatural faith which is the beginning and root of all justification. For they may explicitly believe the principal articles, and believe the others, though not explicitly, yet implicitly, through their disposition of mind and good will to adhere to whatever is sufficiently proposed to them as having been revealed by God. In fact they can still belong to the body of the Church by desire and fulfil the other conditions necessary for salvation. Nonetheless, as to their actual incorporation in the visible Church of Christ, which is our present subject, our thesis makes no distinction between formal and material heretics, understanding everything in accordance with the notion of material heresy just given, which indeed is the only true and genuine one. For, if you understand by the expression material heretic one who, while professing subjection to the Church's Magisterium in matters of faith, nevertheless still denies something defined by the Church because he did not know it was defined, or, by the same token, holds an opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine because he falsely thinks that the Church teaches it, it would be quite absurd to place material heretics outside the body of the true Church; but on this understanding the legitimate use of the expression would be entirely perverted. For a material sin is said to exist only when what belongs to the nature of the sin takes place materially, but without advertence or deliberate will. But the nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical Magisterium and this does not take place in the case mentioned [of someone who is resolved to believe all that the Church teaches but makes a mistake as to what her teaching consists in], since this is a simple error of fact concerning what the rule dictates. And therefore there is no scope for heresy, even materially.

(Cardinal Louis Billot S.J., De Ecclesia Christi, 4th edition, pp.289-290.  Translated by John S. Daly.)
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Geremia on August 01, 2014, 06:05:06 PM
Who moved this thread to "The Sedevacantist Thesis" subforum? I thought I posted it in "The Sacred Sciences" subforum since it doesn't directly pertain to sedevacantism and it requires "serious, semi-scholarly discussions on theology and philosophy." The most we can conclude is that it's uncertain whether John Paul II et al. can be considered true popes, and that assumes we've conclusively shown them to be material heretics. Thus it's at most sededoubtist, not sedevacantist.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Norwich24 on August 01, 2014, 08:01:34 PM
Quote from: Billot
Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known; while material heretics are those who, being in invincible ignorance of the Church herself, in good faith choose some other guiding rule.

This seems to contradict Van Noort, because Van Noort suggests Catholics simply in error can be material heretics.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Geremia on August 01, 2014, 09:00:09 PM
Very interesting and helpful source. I'd never come across it.
Fraghi's dissertation is excellent.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Geremia on August 01, 2014, 09:19:37 PM
Quote from: Billot
Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known; while material heretics are those who, being in invincible ignorance of the Church herself, in good faith choose some other guiding rule.

This seems to contradict Van Noort, because Van Noort suggests Catholics simply in error can be material heretics.
Does Van Noort say one way or another about what Card. Billot calls "simple error of fact concerning what the rule dictates"?
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Geremia on August 01, 2014, 09:50:31 PM
Fraghi also quotes St. Robert Bellarmine and Suarez views on Church membership:
Quote from: St. Robert, De Ecclesia Milit., III, c 4 (Fraghi p. 66)
Praeterea character non proprie unit hominem cum capite, sed est signum potestatis et unionis cuiusdam, et ideo in inferno illo signo cognoscentur qui fuerunt membra Christi. Quod autem non uniat patet: nam non unit exterius cum sit res invisibilis: nec interius cum non sit actus nec habitus operativus. Divus Thomas primam unionem internam ponit in fide.

Moreover, the [baptismal] character does not itself unit a man with the head, but it is a sign of a certain power and union, and so in hell by that sign they who were members of Christ may be known. But what may not unite is clear: for it [the baptismal character] does not unite externally since it is an invisible thing: nor internally since it is not an action or operative habit. Saint Thomas places the first union [to the Body of Christ] in faith.
Quote from: Suarez, De Fide, disp. 9, Sect. 1, n. 5. (Fraghi p. 60)
Omnes qui fidem habent, Ecclesiae membra sunt, omnes vero qui illa carent, extra Ecclesiam constituuntur.

All who have the faith are members of the Church, but those who lack [the faith] are placed outside the Church.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Norwich24 on August 01, 2014, 11:35:17 PM
Quote from: Billot
Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known; while material heretics are those who, being in invincible ignorance of the Church herself, in good faith choose some other guiding rule.

This seems to contradict Van Noort, because Van Noort suggests Catholics simply in error can be material heretics.
Does Van Noort say one way or another about what Card. Billot calls "simple error of fact concerning what the rule dictates"?

The key is the distinction between those "whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known" and those "who have chosen another rule," which refers to those who are not Catholics. 

Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Geremia on August 02, 2014, 12:18:39 AM
Quote from: Billot
Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known; while material heretics are those who, being in invincible ignorance of the Church herself, in good faith choose some other guiding rule.

This seems to contradict Van Noort, because Van Noort suggests Catholics simply in error can be material heretics.
Does Van Noort say one way or another about what Card. Billot calls "simple error of fact concerning what the rule dictates"?

The key is the distinction between those "whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known" and those "who have chosen another rule," which refers to those who are not Catholics.
Perhaps Van Noort just doesn't mention error explicitly because the context is heresy, not error.

Although, as Fraghi says above, St. Augustine seems to use "error" in a different sense than simply an incorrect conclusion drawn from true premises:
Quote
St. Augustine distinguishes between heretics who defend error "pertinaciously with animosity," and the others who are in error "without animosity:" the latter are not among true heretics, i.e., they are not reputed among formal heretics, although they are not "of our communion."
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Non Nobis on August 02, 2014, 01:34:22 AM
Quote from: Billot
Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known; while material heretics are those who, being in invincible ignorance of the Church herself, in good faith choose some other guiding rule.

This seems to contradict Van Noort, because Van Noort suggests Catholics simply in error can be material heretics.
Does Van Noort say one way or another about what Card. Billot calls "simple error of fact concerning what the rule dictates"?

The key is the distinction between those "whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known" and those "who have chosen another rule," which refers to those who are not Catholics.

What of a baptized Catholic child (past the age of reason) who, when he is learning (or later), is sometimes in explicit error (say about the Assumption) out of ignorance or bad memory etc?  I would think his mistake would be material error; but does that make him a material heretic?  His error is a "simple error of fact". He follows the Church as his guiding light (even if through his parents).  I assume he would  still be in the Church?

It seems the same could be asked about practicing Catholic adults as they learn and forget and re-learn points of their faith.  They make material  errors, but if they are of good will, and the Church is their guiding light, at what point  do they become material heretics, and more importantly when are they out of the Church?
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Gardener on August 02, 2014, 02:08:54 AM
Quote from: Billot
Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known; while material heretics are those who, being in invincible ignorance of the Church herself, in good faith choose some other guiding rule.

This seems to contradict Van Noort, because Van Noort suggests Catholics simply in error can be material heretics.
Does Van Noort say one way or another about what Card. Billot calls "simple error of fact concerning what the rule dictates"?

The key is the distinction between those "whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known" and those "who have chosen another rule," which refers to those who are not Catholics.

What of a baptized Catholic child (past the age of reason) who, when he is learning (or later), is sometimes in explicit error (say about the Assumption) out of ignorance or bad memory etc?  I would think his mistake would be material error; but does that make him a material heretic?  His error is a "simple error of fact". He follows the Church as his guiding light (even if through his parents).  I assume he would  still be in the Church?

It seems the same could be asked about practicing Catholic adults as they learn and forget and re-learn points of their faith.  They make material  errors, but if they are of good will, and the Church is their guiding light, at what point  do they become material heretics, and more importantly when are they out of the Church?

This is why this topic seems problematic to me. It becomes a problem of the intelligentsia rather than being as little children. As if we didn't have enough to worry about for the issue of salvation, now we have to wonder if not being smart enough, or not knowing enough, is gonna condemn us?

Man alive.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: FatherCekada on August 02, 2014, 08:52:54 AM
This is why this topic seems problematic to me. It becomes a problem of the intelligentsia rather than being as little children. As if we didn't have enough to worry about for the issue of salvation, now we have to wonder if not being smart enough, or not knowing enough, is gonna condemn us?

Man alive.

If a passage from someone like Van Noort seems intimidating, remember that as a theologian he is merely trying to draw out all the logical conclusions from what God has revealed and what Catholics are therefore supposed to believe.

The basic principle, though, is one any Catholic can understand: to be a member of the Church, you need baptism and faith. If you publicly deny or doubt an article of the faith, you take yourself outside the Church.

Simple people who possess only a rudimentary understanding of Catholic doctrine often know more than enough to distinguish truth from error and even come up with astonishingly profound insights -- a phenomenon I've seen time and again during my life as a priest.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Norwich24 on August 02, 2014, 09:46:06 AM
Quote from: Billot
Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known; while material heretics are those who, being in invincible ignorance of the Church herself, in good faith choose some other guiding rule.

This seems to contradict Van Noort, because Van Noort suggests Catholics simply in error can be material heretics.
Does Van Noort say one way or another about what Card. Billot calls "simple error of fact concerning what the rule dictates"?

The key is the distinction between those "whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known" and those "who have chosen another rule," which refers to those who are not Catholics.
Perhaps Van Noort just doesn't mention error explicitly because the context is heresy, not error.

Although, as Fraghi says above, St. Augustine seems to use "error" in a different sense than simply an incorrect conclusion drawn from true premises:
Quote
St. Augustine distinguishes between heretics who defend error "pertinaciously with animosity," and the others who are in error "without animosity:" the latter are not among true heretics, i.e., they are not reputed among formal heretics, although they are not "of our communion."

That is my point. The distinction is important because if it isn't made, a Catholic who is merely mistaken (he is not pertinacious) is considered to be outside the Church. Apparently, even Fr. Cekada believes this.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Geremia on August 02, 2014, 11:52:25 AM
What of a baptized Catholic child (past the age of reason) who, when he is learning (or later), is sometimes in explicit error (say about the Assumption) out of ignorance or bad memory etc?  I would think his mistake would be material error; but does that make him a material heretic?  His error is a "simple error of fact". He follows the Church as his guiding light (even if through his parents).  I assume he would  still be in the Church?

It seems the same could be asked about practicing Catholic adults as they learn and forget and re-learn points of their faith.  They make material  errors, but if they are of good will, and the Church is their guiding light, at what point  do they become material heretics, and more importantly when are they out of the Church?
The context in which we are speaking is public material heresy. In other words: You need to know the faith well to confess or teach it publicly because if you make a mistake in that, you erode the unity of the Church. Whether occult heretics are or are not part of the Church is another contested issue.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Geremia on August 02, 2014, 12:04:39 PM
That is my point. The distinction is important because if it isn't made, a Catholic who is merely mistaken (he is not pertinacious) is considered to be outside the Church. Apparently, even Fr. Cekada believes this.
Public material heretics still erode the unity of the Church, regardless their intentions.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: SouthpawLink on August 02, 2014, 12:05:35 PM
I think the following passage from Tanquerey is quite relevant to this discussion:

"b.  no one can separate himself from the true faith once received and from the Church without some fault, at least the fault of imprudence1; but this fault is not always a mortal sin, and it is not always against faith; therefore it does not necessarily expel the habit of faith.  The Vatican Council has declared2 that those 'who have received the faith under the magisterium of the Church can never have any just cause for changing or doubting that faith'3.  But from the exposition of the theory of some authors which was proposed to the Fathers of the Council, it is clear that this opinion of some older theologians was not condemned, namely: 'per accidens and in certain definite circumstances, the conscience of an uneducated Catholic can be so much drawn into invincible error that he may embrace some heterodox sect without a formal sin against faith; in this hypothesis he would not lose the faith'3.

"1 So, he is guilty of imprudence:
1.   Who, instructed only slightly in religion, does not hesitate to mingle frequently with non-Catholics and to listen to them;
2.   Who reads magazines and books which atttack the faith, and does not have recourse to a well-informed priest when doubts arise contrary to faith.
2 Vatican Council, session III, chap. 3, D. B., 1794.
3 Refer to VACANT, Etudes théol. sur les Constit. du C. du Vatican, t. II, n. 731-737" (A Manual of Dogmatic Theology, vol. I, part 2, tr. VI, chap. III, art. II A, sec. 391, p. 235f.).
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Norwich24 on August 02, 2014, 02:49:03 PM
That is my point. The distinction is important because if it isn't made, a Catholic who is merely mistaken (he is not pertinacious) is considered to be outside the Church. Apparently, even Fr. Cekada believes this.
Public material heretics still erode the unity of the Church, regardless their intentions.
Material heretics are not members of the Church. They not only at least hold a material heresy, they have adopted another rule of faith.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: FockeWulf on August 02, 2014, 04:03:36 PM
Because I don't have enough time to parse all of these comments, did some of you allude to the fact that you actually believe that private/occult material heretics, that is to say a child past the age of reason or a retarded individual, have placed themselves outside of the Church through adhering to some error in belief, or are you stating that such individuals are not properly called "material heretics." I gathered the distinction between public/private, yet I'd like to know what you believe regarding privately held heresies as a result of some ignorance or defect of reason or instruction.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: RobertJS on August 02, 2014, 06:06:25 PM
Because I don't have enough time to parse all of these comments, did some of you allude to the fact that you actually believe that private/occult material heretics, that is to say a child past the age of reason or a retarded individual, have placed themselves outside of the Church through adhering to some error in belief, or are you stating that such individuals are not properly called "material heretics." I gathered the distinction between public/private, yet I'd like to know what you believe regarding privately held heresies as a result of some ignorance or defect of reason or instruction.

This was a very good response to Norwich.

The answer really is, there is a canonical "material heretic", and a moral "material heretic". If the distinction is not understood, it will cause a lot of debate (unnecessarily).

An example of the first is when the Church ruled on the Protestants being heretics. Certainly the original leaders of Protestants were pertinacious, but the descendants not necessarily so. Yet, because it was legally established, if a Catholic joins, he is legally no longer a Catholic, because he joined what is obviously condemned as a current practicing sect.

FockeWulf brings up the other case of a (moral) material heretic, which is not legal, but philosophical. For instance if a young boy of 9 explains the Hypostatic Union in a heretical way, he is not to be considered a non-Catholic, but merely a mistaken Catholic. Adult Catholics who are mistaken in the same way are considered dangerous Catholics and can be somewhat treated as non-Catholic, but still they are legally "Catholics" until determined by the Church to be pertinacious and cut-off.



Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Norwich24 on August 02, 2014, 07:03:16 PM
Because I don't have enough time to parse all of these comments, did some of you allude to the fact that you actually believe that private/occult material heretics, that is to say a child past the age of reason or a retarded individual, have placed themselves outside of the Church through adhering to some error in belief, or are you stating that such individuals are not properly called "material heretics." I gathered the distinction between public/private, yet I'd like to know what you believe regarding privately held heresies as a result of some ignorance or defect of reason or instruction.

This was a very good response to Norwich.

The answer really is, there is a canonical "material heretic", and a moral "material heretic". If the distinction is not understood, it will cause a lot of debate (unnecessarily).

An example of the first is when the Church ruled on the Protestants being heretics. Certainly the original leaders of Protestants were pertinacious, but the descendants not necessarily so. Yet, because it was legally established, if a Catholic joins, he is legally no longer a Catholic, because he joined what is obviously condemned as a current practicing sect.

FockeWulf brings up the other case of a (moral) material heretic, which is not legal, but philosophical. For instance if a young boy of 9 explains the Hypostatic Union in a heretical way, he is not to be considered a non-Catholic, but merely a mistaken Catholic. Adult Catholics who are mistaken in the same way are considered dangerous Catholics and can be somewhat treated as non-Catholic, but still they are legally "Catholics" until determined by the Church to be pertinacious and cut-off.



I'm not sure he was responding to me alone, Robert ... But anyway, the material heretic can only be one who has a different rule of faith to begin with. A protestant is a good example, as you stated.

A Catholic who holds a heretical notion is either mistaken or unaware of the conflict between his belief and the teaching of the Church somehow (and not a heretic at all) or he is a formal heretic and therefore outside the Church.

Quote from: RobertJS
Adult Catholics who are mistaken in the same way are considered dangerous Catholics and can be somewhat treated as non-Catholic, but still they are legally "Catholics" until determined by the Church to be pertinacious and cut-off.

This appears to justify your deciding who is and isn't "dangerous" and how they can be "somewhat treated as non-Catholics," whatever that might mean.

 
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: RobertJS on August 02, 2014, 07:09:46 PM
Because I don't have enough time to parse all of these comments, did some of you allude to the fact that you actually believe that private/occult material heretics, that is to say a child past the age of reason or a retarded individual, have placed themselves outside of the Church through adhering to some error in belief, or are you stating that such individuals are not properly called "material heretics." I gathered the distinction between public/private, yet I'd like to know what you believe regarding privately held heresies as a result of some ignorance or defect of reason or instruction.

This was a very good response to Norwich.

The answer really is, there is a canonical "material heretic", and a moral "material heretic". If the distinction is not understood, it will cause a lot of debate (unnecessarily).

An example of the first is when the Church ruled on the Protestants being heretics. Certainly the original leaders of Protestants were pertinacious, but the descendants not necessarily so. Yet, because it was legally established, if a Catholic joins, he is legally no longer a Catholic, because he joined what is obviously condemned as a current practicing sect.

FockeWulf brings up the other case of a (moral) material heretic, which is not legal, but philosophical. For instance if a young boy of 9 explains the Hypostatic Union in a heretical way, he is not to be considered a non-Catholic, but merely a mistaken Catholic. Adult Catholics who are mistaken in the same way are considered dangerous Catholics and can be somewhat treated as non-Catholic, but still they are legally "Catholics" until determined by the Church to be pertinacious and cut-off.



I'm not sure he was responding to me alone, Robert ... But anyway, the material heretic can only be one who has a different rule of faith to begin with. A protestant is a good example, as you stated.

A Catholic who holds a heretical notion is either mistaken or unaware of the conflict between his belief and the teaching of the Church somehow (and not a heretic at all) or he is a formal heretic and therefore outside the Church.

Quote from: RobertJS
Adult Catholics who are mistaken in the same way are considered dangerous Catholics and can be somewhat treated as non-Catholic, but still they are legally "Catholics" until determined by the Church to be pertinacious and cut-off.

This appears to justify your deciding who is and isn't "dangerous" and how they can be "somewhat treated as non-Catholics," whatever that might mean.

Truly, I think you need to ponder what I previously wrote, and then you should see something different.

Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Norwich24 on August 02, 2014, 09:12:17 PM
Robert, you always think everybody just doesn't understand you. If they only pondered your posts a little longer they'd figure it out.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Norwich24 on August 03, 2014, 08:11:53 AM
Quote from: Billot
Thesis XI

Although Baptismal character is sufficient in itself to make someone member of the Catholic Church, nevertheless for adults two conditions are required in order to produce this effect. The first is that it is not impeded the social bound of unity of faith through formal or even mere material heresy. In fact since this impediment is brought only by the openly professed heresy, we have to say that it excludes only the notorious heretics from the body of the Church.

“According to the etymology of the word and the common meaning of the whole tradition, someone is properly called heretic who after receiving the sacrament of baptism, does not receive from the ecclesiastical magisterium the rule of believers, but rather he chose some other norm for believing on matters of faith and of the doctrine of Christ: whether he follow other doctors and teachers of religion, whether he adhere to the principle of free exam professing the absolute independence of reason, or whether he finally don`t believe even one of those articles propossed by the Church as dogmas of faith...”
“...Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics are those to which the authority of the Church is well known; whereas material heretics are those that chose on good faith another directive rule, while invincibly ignoring about the very Church. The heresy of the material heretics is not imputed to them as sin, even they don`t necessary lack the supernatural faith which is the beginning and root of all iustification. Perhaps they believe explicitly the main articles, and the rest only in an implicit way, with a disposition of the will and a good will to adhere all those things that be sufficiently proposed to him as revealed by God. Therefore they may still belong by desire to the body of the Church, and having the other conditions to be saved. Nevertheless regarding the real incorporation into the visible Church, of which we are talking about, the thesis doesn`t make any distinction between formal and material heretics, understanding all these things according to the notion of material heresy, which is the only one both genuine and proper, that we will explain soon. Because if by material heretic you understand he who, professing to depend on things on faith upon the magisterium of the Church, denies something defined by the Church because he doesn´t know it was defined, or he holds some sentence contrary to the Catholic doctrine because he believes wrongly that it was defined by the Church, then it would be absurd to put material heretics outside the body of the true Church, but in this way it would be completly twisted the legitimate meaning of the word. Because it is said that there is a material sin only when you put (make) materially those things that are proper of such a sin, without warning or deliberated will. Instead it is of the reason of heresy the removal (separation) from the ecclesiastical magisterium, which doesn´t exist in that case (material heresy as it was explained before), since it is a simple error of fact regarding what the rule teaches.”
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: RobertJS on August 03, 2014, 02:13:53 PM
Robert, you always think everybody just doesn't understand you. If they only pondered your posts a little longer they'd figure it out.

Always?
Everybody?
C'mon!
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: RobertJS on August 03, 2014, 02:18:26 PM
Quote from: RobertJS
Adult Catholics who are mistaken in the same way are considered dangerous Catholics and can be somewhat treated as non-Catholic, but still they are legally "Catholics" until determined by the Church to be pertinacious and cut-off.

This appears to justify your deciding who is and isn't "dangerous" and how they can be "somewhat treated as non-Catholics," whatever that might mean.

For instance, when Martin Luther was suspect, there was a time period in which he was being censured, but was still a Catholic. Between the start of his being admonished by the Church, and his final excommunication which made him a non-Catholic, people could treat him "somewhat" as a non-Catholic, meaning they had an obligation to avoid him and his writings as a danger.

Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Norwich24 on August 03, 2014, 03:40:12 PM
Quote from: RobertJS
Adult Catholics who are mistaken in the same way are considered dangerous Catholics and can be somewhat treated as non-Catholic, but still they are legally "Catholics" until determined by the Church to be pertinacious and cut-off.

This appears to justify your deciding who is and isn't "dangerous" and how they can be "somewhat treated as non-Catholics," whatever that might mean.

For instance, when Martin Luther was suspect, there was a time period in which he was being censured, but was still a Catholic. Between the start of his being admonished by the Church, and his final excommunication which made him a non-Catholic, people could treat him "somewhat" as a non-Catholic, meaning they had an obligation to avoid him and his writings as a danger.
Well, nobody is being censured today, so I'm not sure that example is a relevant one.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: LouisIX on August 03, 2014, 04:23:49 PM
I believe he is using the terms in a very specific way which is not necessarily how the OP is interpreting them.

I'd be interested in LouisIX's thoughts, as the OP's opening and the actual text seem to go a little passed each other.

Even Fraghi recognizes that this subject is open to debate.  This is why "dogmatic sedevacantist" or "dogmatic sedeplenism" are so dangerous.  They treat this question as if it has been settled.  It is anything but. 

Everyone is free to hold a position on this.  I personally believe that material heretics are within the Body of Christ, but the Magisterium has refused an official pronunciation up until now.  I do think, however, that this will be an important question for the Church to address after the crisis has subsided.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Sbyvl36 on August 03, 2014, 04:24:52 PM
I believe he is using the terms in a very specific way which is not necessarily how the OP is interpreting them.

I'd be interested in LouisIX's thoughts, as the OP's opening and the actual text seem to go a little passed each other.

Even Fraghi recognizes that this subject is open to debate.  This is why "dogmatic sedevacantist" or "dogmatic sedeplenism" are so dangerous.  They treat this question as if it has been settled.  It is anything but. 

Everyone is free to hold a position on this.  I personally believe that material heretics are within the Body of Christ, but the Magisterium has refused an official pronunciation up until now.  I do think, however, that this will be an important question for the Church to address after the crisis has subsided.

Speaking of which, are we going to get a definition of what constitutes "dogmatic sedevacantism"?
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: LouisIX on August 03, 2014, 04:25:54 PM
That is my point. The distinction is important because if it isn't made, a Catholic who is merely mistaken (he is not pertinacious) is considered to be outside the Church. Apparently, even Fr. Cekada believes this.
Public material heretics still erode the unity of the Church, regardless their intentions.

That's true, but so do sinners, and they are not all necessary outside of the Church.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: LouisIX on August 03, 2014, 04:26:38 PM
I believe he is using the terms in a very specific way which is not necessarily how the OP is interpreting them.

I'd be interested in LouisIX's thoughts, as the OP's opening and the actual text seem to go a little passed each other.

Even Fraghi recognizes that this subject is open to debate.  This is why "dogmatic sedevacantist" or "dogmatic sedeplenism" are so dangerous.  They treat this question as if it has been settled.  It is anything but. 

Everyone is free to hold a position on this.  I personally believe that material heretics are within the Body of Christ, but the Magisterium has refused an official pronunciation up until now.  I do think, however, that this will be an important question for the Church to address after the crisis has subsided.

Speaking of which, are we going to get a definition of what constitutes "dogmatic sedevacantism"?

Yes.  We are in the process of finalizing that definition now.  It will be posted soon.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Sbyvl36 on August 03, 2014, 04:28:44 PM
I believe he is using the terms in a very specific way which is not necessarily how the OP is interpreting them.

I'd be interested in LouisIX's thoughts, as the OP's opening and the actual text seem to go a little passed each other.

Even Fraghi recognizes that this subject is open to debate.  This is why "dogmatic sedevacantist" or "dogmatic sedeplenism" are so dangerous.  They treat this question as if it has been settled.  It is anything but. 

Everyone is free to hold a position on this.  I personally believe that material heretics are within the Body of Christ, but the Magisterium has refused an official pronunciation up until now.  I do think, however, that this will be an important question for the Church to address after the crisis has subsided.

Speaking of which, are we going to get a definition of what constitutes "dogmatic sedevacantism"?

Yes.  We are in the process of finalizing that definition now.  It will be posted soon.

Gratzie!
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: LouisIX on August 03, 2014, 04:30:17 PM
Who moved this thread to "The Sedevacantist Thesis" subforum? I thought I posted it in "The Sacred Sciences" subforum since it doesn't directly pertain to sedevacantism and it requires "serious, semi-scholarly discussions on theology and philosophy." The most we can conclude is that it's uncertain whether John Paul II et al. can be considered true popes, and that assumes we've conclusively shown them to be material heretics. Thus it's at most sededoubtist, not sedevacantist.

I'm not sure why it was moved.  I am moving it back to the Sacred Sciences subforum as that is where it properly belongs.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: RobertJS on August 03, 2014, 06:16:00 PM
Quote from: RobertJS
Adult Catholics who are mistaken in the same way are considered dangerous Catholics and can be somewhat treated as non-Catholic, but still they are legally "Catholics" until determined by the Church to be pertinacious and cut-off.

This appears to justify your deciding who is and isn't "dangerous" and how they can be "somewhat treated as non-Catholics," whatever that might mean.

For instance, when Martin Luther was suspect, there was a time period in which he was being censured, but was still a Catholic. Between the start of his being admonished by the Church, and his final excommunication which made him a non-Catholic, people could treat him "somewhat" as a non-Catholic, meaning they had an obligation to avoid him and his writings as a danger.
Well, nobody is being censured today, so I'm not sure that example is a relevant one.

Yes, it is relevant. St. Athanasius and his followers shunned the Arians as heretics before the Church censured them.

Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Norwich24 on August 03, 2014, 10:39:57 PM
Quote from: RobertJS
Adult Catholics who are mistaken in the same way are considered dangerous Catholics and can be somewhat treated as non-Catholic, but still they are legally "Catholics" until determined by the Church to be pertinacious and cut-off.

This appears to justify your deciding who is and isn't "dangerous" and how they can be "somewhat treated as non-Catholics," whatever that might mean.

For instance, when Martin Luther was suspect, there was a time period in which he was being censured, but was still a Catholic. Between the start of his being admonished by the Church, and his final excommunication which made him a non-Catholic, people could treat him "somewhat" as a non-Catholic, meaning they had an obligation to avoid him and his writings as a danger.
Well, nobody is being censured today, so I'm not sure that example is a relevant one.

Yes, it is relevant. St. Athanasius and his followers shunned the Arians as heretics before the Church censured them.


Well Robert, first you give the example of Martin Luther, then when I say that that example isn't relevant, you say it is and then change the conversation to the Arians.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Norwich24 on August 03, 2014, 10:53:07 PM
The point is that Catholics don't and can't become "material heretics" as some sort of step to "formal heresy."
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Geremia on August 04, 2014, 12:44:38 AM
Speaking of which, are we going to get a definition of what constitutes "dogmatic sedevacantism"?
Here you go: extra sedevacantismo nulla salus.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Geremia on August 04, 2014, 12:51:30 AM
That is my point. The distinction is important because if it isn't made, a Catholic who is merely mistaken (he is not pertinacious) is considered to be outside the Church. Apparently, even Fr. Cekada believes this.
Public material heretics still erode the unity of the Church, regardless their intentions.

That's true, but so do sinners, and they are not all necessary outside of the Church.
Yes, but sins against the faith are the worst possible sins (unbelief [e.g., heresy, apostasy, etc.] is the greatest sin (http://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/SS/SS010.html#SSQ10A3THEP1)):
Quote from: Summa II-II q. 10 a. 3 c.
Every sin consists formally in aversion from God, as stated above (FS, Question [71], Article [6]; FS, Question [73], Article [3]). Hence the more a sin severs man from God, the graver it is. Now man is more than ever separated from God by unbelief, because he has not even true knowledge of God: and by false knowledge of God, man does not approach Him, but is severed from Him.

Nor is it possible for one who has a false opinion of God, to know Him in any way at all, because the object of his opinion is not God. Therefore it is clear that the sin of unbelief is greater than any sin that occurs in the perversion of morals. This does not apply to the sins that are opposed to the theological virtues, as we shall stated further on (Question [20], Article [3]; Question [34], Article [2], ad 2; Question [39], Article [2], ad 3).
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Sbyvl36 on August 04, 2014, 08:36:54 AM
Speaking of which, are we going to get a definition of what constitutes "dogmatic sedevacantism"?
Here you go: extra sedevacantismo nulla salus.

I like this definition.  Nobody would ever get in trouble for it.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: RobertJS on August 04, 2014, 09:15:12 AM
Quote from: RobertJS
Adult Catholics who are mistaken in the same way are considered dangerous Catholics and can be somewhat treated as non-Catholic, but still they are legally "Catholics" until determined by the Church to be pertinacious and cut-off.

This appears to justify your deciding who is and isn't "dangerous" and how they can be "somewhat treated as non-Catholics," whatever that might mean.

For instance, when Martin Luther was suspect, there was a time period in which he was being censured, but was still a Catholic. Between the start of his being admonished by the Church, and his final excommunication which made him a non-Catholic, people could treat him "somewhat" as a non-Catholic, meaning they had an obligation to avoid him and his writings as a danger.
Well, nobody is being censured today, so I'm not sure that example is a relevant one.

Yes, it is relevant. St. Athanasius and his followers shunned the Arians as heretics before the Church censured them.


Well Robert, first you give the example of Martin Luther, then when I say that that example isn't relevant, you say it is and then change the conversation to the Arians.

They are both relevant for the same converstation. These are two examples of treating dangerous Catholics somewhat like non-Catholics before the Church declares they are no longer Catholics.

Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Norwich24 on August 04, 2014, 10:28:46 AM
Quote from: RobertJS
They are both relevant for the same converstation. These are two examples of treating dangerous Catholics somewhat like non-Catholics before the Church declares they are no longer Catholics.

Who are the "dangerous Catholics" today?
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: RobertJS on August 04, 2014, 10:50:40 AM
Quote from: RobertJS
They are both relevant for the same converstation. These are two examples of treating dangerous Catholics somewhat like non-Catholics before the Church declares they are no longer Catholics.

Who are the "dangerous Catholics" today?

You will have to conscientiously decide for yourself. Any type of association that is a serious danger of being perverted in morals or doctrine.

Harken back again to the example of the followers of St. Athanasius. The Arian clergy only had one subtle philosophical error against the Trinity, which didn't mean every single priest would preach it at Mass. All the Arian Masses and Sacraments were valid, yet the followers of St. Athanasius didn't seek out priests who did not preach the error....they entirely shunned the Arian churches, and suffered inconveniences and risk by attending Mass in the mountains. The point: they considered this situation enough of a danger to decide their course of action. This is for our example today.


Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Norwich24 on August 04, 2014, 10:54:17 AM
Quote from: RobertJS
They are both relevant for the same converstation. These are two examples of treating dangerous Catholics somewhat like non-Catholics before the Church declares they are no longer Catholics.

Who are the "dangerous Catholics" today?

You will have to conscientiously decide for yourself. Any type of association that is a serious danger of being perverted in morals or doctrine.

Harken back again to the example of the followers of St. Athanasius. The Arian clergy only had one subtle philosophical error against the Trinity, which didn't mean every single priest would preach it at Mass. All the Arian Masses and Sacraments were valid, yet the followers of St. Athanasius didn't seek out priests who did not preach the error....they entirely shunned the Arian churches, and suffered inconveniences and risk by attending Mass in the mountains. The point: they considered this situation enough of a danger to decide their course of action. This is for our example today.

So what groups are dangerous today? If you can't name them, isn't it because you are just playing politics?
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: RobertJS on August 04, 2014, 11:09:17 AM
Quote from: RobertJS
They are both relevant for the same converstation. These are two examples of treating dangerous Catholics somewhat like non-Catholics before the Church declares they are no longer Catholics.

Who are the "dangerous Catholics" today?

You will have to conscientiously decide for yourself. Any type of association that is a serious danger of being perverted in morals or doctrine.

Harken back again to the example of the followers of St. Athanasius. The Arian clergy only had one subtle philosophical error against the Trinity, which didn't mean every single priest would preach it at Mass. All the Arian Masses and Sacraments were valid, yet the followers of St. Athanasius didn't seek out priests who did not preach the error....they entirely shunned the Arian churches, and suffered inconveniences and risk by attending Mass in the mountains. The point: they considered this situation enough of a danger to decide their course of action. This is for our example today.

So what groups are dangerous today? If you can't name them, isn't it because you are just playing politics?

I can name those whom my conscience says are dangerous enough to stay away from. For one, I am a sedevacantist. But this thread is designed for principles, not about my own conscience in applying them to the current situation.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Norwich24 on August 04, 2014, 01:06:29 PM
Quote from: RobertJS
They are both relevant for the same converstation. These are two examples of treating dangerous Catholics somewhat like non-Catholics before the Church declares they are no longer Catholics.

Who are the "dangerous Catholics" today?

You will have to conscientiously decide for yourself. Any type of association that is a serious danger of being perverted in morals or doctrine.

Harken back again to the example of the followers of St. Athanasius. The Arian clergy only had one subtle philosophical error against the Trinity, which didn't mean every single priest would preach it at Mass. All the Arian Masses and Sacraments were valid, yet the followers of St. Athanasius didn't seek out priests who did not preach the error....they entirely shunned the Arian churches, and suffered inconveniences and risk by attending Mass in the mountains. The point: they considered this situation enough of a danger to decide their course of action. This is for our example today.

So what groups are dangerous today? If you can't name them, isn't it because you are just playing politics?

I can name those whom my conscience says are dangerous enough to stay away from. For one, I am a sedevacantist. But this thread is designed for principles, not about my own conscience in applying them to the current situation.

So the identity of those who are dangerous is to be kept to oneself? Are they just dangerous to you and nobody else?
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: RobertJS on August 04, 2014, 01:08:18 PM
Quote from: RobertJS
They are both relevant for the same converstation. These are two examples of treating dangerous Catholics somewhat like non-Catholics before the Church declares they are no longer Catholics.

Who are the "dangerous Catholics" today?

You will have to conscientiously decide for yourself. Any type of association that is a serious danger of being perverted in morals or doctrine.

Harken back again to the example of the followers of St. Athanasius. The Arian clergy only had one subtle philosophical error against the Trinity, which didn't mean every single priest would preach it at Mass. All the Arian Masses and Sacraments were valid, yet the followers of St. Athanasius didn't seek out priests who did not preach the error....they entirely shunned the Arian churches, and suffered inconveniences and risk by attending Mass in the mountains. The point: they considered this situation enough of a danger to decide their course of action. This is for our example today.

So what groups are dangerous today? If you can't name them, isn't it because you are just playing politics?

I can name those whom my conscience says are dangerous enough to stay away from. For one, I am a sedevacantist. But this thread is designed for principles, not about my own conscience in applying them to the current situation.

So the identity of those who are dangerous is to be kept to oneself? Are they just dangerous to you and nobody else?

I said, "this thread".

Start another thread and you can make what you want of the focus.

Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Norwich24 on August 05, 2014, 09:54:18 AM
Quote from: RobertJS
They are both relevant for the same converstation. These are two examples of treating dangerous Catholics somewhat like non-Catholics before the Church declares they are no longer Catholics.

Who are the "dangerous Catholics" today?

You will have to conscientiously decide for yourself. Any type of association that is a serious danger of being perverted in morals or doctrine.

Harken back again to the example of the followers of St. Athanasius. The Arian clergy only had one subtle philosophical error against the Trinity, which didn't mean every single priest would preach it at Mass. All the Arian Masses and Sacraments were valid, yet the followers of St. Athanasius didn't seek out priests who did not preach the error....they entirely shunned the Arian churches, and suffered inconveniences and risk by attending Mass in the mountains. The point: they considered this situation enough of a danger to decide their course of action. This is for our example today.

So what groups are dangerous today? If you can't name them, isn't it because you are just playing politics?

I can name those whom my conscience says are dangerous enough to stay away from. For one, I am a sedevacantist. But this thread is designed for principles, not about my own conscience in applying them to the current situation.

So the identity of those who are dangerous is to be kept to oneself? Are they just dangerous to you and nobody else?

I said, "this thread".

Start another thread and you can make what you want of the focus.

Who are the "dangerous" Catholics, Robert? Why are you afraid to tell us?
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: RobertJS on August 05, 2014, 10:59:43 AM
Norwich, as I already touched upon, start another thread on that (in the sedevacantist section), because it doesn't belong here. I am trying to keep the rules of the forum. Then you can see how "afraid" I am.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Norwich24 on August 05, 2014, 04:10:29 PM
Norwich, as I already touched upon, start another thread on that (in the sedevacantist section), because it doesn't belong here. I am trying to keep the rules of the forum. Then you can see how "afraid" I am.

Ah, the "rules of the forum" dodge! If you wanted to answer, you'd just answer.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: flameburns623 on August 05, 2014, 05:42:44 PM
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8104.0

I don't know why I had to do it, but there's your alternative thread, Norwich24.

How hard was that?
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Norwich24 on August 06, 2014, 07:42:41 AM
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8104.0

I don't know why I had to do it, but there's your alternative thread, Norwich24.

How hard was that?

Didn't I already respond in the other thread before you wrote this? Anyway, THIS thread is about "material heretics" and their relation to the Church. The confusion is regarding the term "material heretic" which some people believe refers to Catholics who might hold a material heresy due to ignorance or a misunderstanding. If one believes a "material heretic" is a Catholic defined as above, and those "material heretics" can be considered "somewhat non-Catholic" then real Catholics can and must refuse communion with these heretics.

My question to Robert has EVERYTHING to do with this thread. It's definitely not "off-topic" and it's not a sedevacantist issue.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: flameburns623 on August 06, 2014, 08:06:40 AM
http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8104.0

I don't know why I had to do it, but there's your alternative thread, Norwich24.

How hard was that?

Didn't I already respond in the other thread before you wrote this? Anyway, THIS thread is about "material heretics" and their relation to the Church. The confusion is regarding the term "material heretic" which some people believe refers to Catholics who might hold a material heresy due to ignorance or a misunderstanding. If one believes a "material heretic" is a Catholic defined as above, and those "material heretics" can be considered "somewhat non-Catholic" then real Catholics can and must refuse communion with these heretics.

My question to Robert has EVERYTHING to do with this thread. It's definitely not "off-topic" and it's not a sedevacantist issue.

No.

I posted this immediately after I created the thread and before there was so much as a single post replying.

And the person to whom you addressed your question told you, repeatedly, that he felt the question was off topic and that he was not comfortable responding in this thread. The rules specifically precludeexclude derailing a thread: it seems benighted not to respect in Christian charity the efforts of another to do the right thing when asked to do so, especially when asked repeatedly.

But: NOW you are derailing the thread by debating whether or not you are derailing the thread.  I'm wondering if there is something about the original topic you don't want us to discuss?

Don't answer that. Just let's get back to talking about the topic. If my efforts to keep peace were helpful, you're welcome. If not, I am sorry. 

We'll let the moderators handle it from here. 
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Norwich24 on August 06, 2014, 09:21:59 AM
I just explained why it wasn't "off-topic." The entire thread spent much time in the sedevacantist section of the forum but was moved for some reason.

It's funny that you and Robert should be suggesting some kind of moderation of the thread on the very thread itself! Isn't that totally "off-topic" and a distraction itself?
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Geremia on August 06, 2014, 05:30:22 PM
I just explained why it wasn't "off-topic." The entire thread spent much time in the sedevacantist section of the forum but was moved for some reason.
I started it on this sub-forum and didn't intend it to be a discussion on sedevacantism.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: tradical on September 09, 2014, 03:27:54 PM
This is why this topic seems problematic to me. It becomes a problem of the intelligentsia rather than being as little children. As if we didn't have enough to worry about for the issue of salvation, now we have to wonder if not being smart enough, or not knowing enough, is gonna condemn us?

Man alive.

If a passage from someone like Van Noort seems intimidating, remember that as a theologian he is merely trying to draw out all the logical conclusions from what God has revealed and what Catholics are therefore supposed to believe.

The basic principle, though, is one any Catholic can understand: to be a member of the Church, you need baptism and faith. If you publicly deny or doubt an article of the faith, you take yourself outside the Church.

Simple people who possess only a rudimentary understanding of Catholic doctrine often know more than enough to distinguish truth from error and even come up with astonishingly profound insights -- a phenomenon I've seen time and again during my life as a priest.

To be a member of the Church it is not sufficient to just be baptized and have faith. In addition there is the Unity of Government - submission to the Pope.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: tradical on September 09, 2014, 03:29:49 PM
Although I may have missed it but the distinction that appears to be lacking in all the above commentary (theological and otherwise) is that there are two types of material heretics.

baptized Catholics who lapse into material heresy

baptized non-Catholic who likewise lapse into material heresy.

Their conditions and dispositions are somewhat different.

p3
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Geremia on September 09, 2014, 04:01:04 PM
Although I may have missed it but the distinction that appears to be lacking in all the above commentary (theological and otherwise) is that there are two types of material heretics.

baptized Catholics who lapse into material heresy

baptized non-Catholic who likewise lapse into material heresy.
Those are those who are bona fide outside the Church. St. Augustine discusses this in the beginning of the quote of the OP.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Geremia on September 09, 2014, 04:03:28 PM
To be a member of the Church it is not sufficient to just be baptized and have faith. In addition there is the Unity of Government - submission to the Pope.
Heretics who deny the papacy don't have the faith, because, as Leo XIII wrote, if you don't have the faith in its entirely, you don't have it at all. It's all or nothing; you're either faithful or a heretic.

Also, what if there is no pope at the time someone is baptized? That person still belongs to the Church, no?
(I think you mean "papacy," not necessarily "pope"?)
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: james03 on September 09, 2014, 08:18:18 PM
If someone believes in Christ, and that He established the Catholic Church as His Church, and is willing to conform his beliefs to this Church, then in areas where he is in error (and not in revolt), he is said to have implicit Faith, and is therefore Catholic.
Title: Re: Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church
Post by: Sbyvl36 on September 09, 2014, 08:28:52 PM
If someone believes in Christ, and that He established the Catholic Church as His Church, and is willing to conform his beliefs to this Church, then in areas where he is in error (and not in revolt), he is said to have implicit Faith, and is therefore Catholic.

That's called material heresy, and you are correct.