We begin this chapter by addressing the
matter and form of heresy. The matter of heresy is a belief contrary to a
teaching of the Church (revealed in Scripture or Tradition) which must be
believed with divine and Catholic Faith. The matter of heresy exists in the
intellect and can be present with innocent ignorance or with sinful pertinacity
in the will. The form of heresy is pertinacity in the will. Pertinacity is
another word to describe the depravity of the will in obstinately adhering to a
heretical proposition. When a person knowingly rejects or willfully doubts a
doctrine of the Church that must be believed by faith, he is guilty of formal
heresy (the sin of heresy) in the internal forum (the realm of conscience).
Unlike the natural moral virtues which corrupt gradually over time, the
theological virtues corrupt entirely when a person commits a single mortal sin
contrary to the virtue. Consequently, if a person commits the sin of heresy, by
denying a single article of faith, he immediately loses the interior virtue of
faith completely. Just as one mortal sin removes all supernatural charity (and
sanctifying grace) from the soul,1 so too one mortal sin against the faith
removes all supernatural faith.2 St. Thomas says: “Just as mortal sin is
contrary to charity, so is disbelief in one article of faith contrary to faith.
Now charity does not remain in a man after one mortal sin. Therefore, neither
does faith, after a man disbelieves one article…Therefore, it is clear that
such a heretic with regard to one article, has no faith in the other articles,
but only a kind of opinion in accordance with his own will.”3 Now, since faith
is “the foundation of the supernatural life,” when the faith is lost, so too
are the theological virtues of hope and charity, which, along with faith,
constitute the internal bonds that unite a man to the Church. Therefore, when
one loses the faith, he is completely severed from the Soul of the Church.
However, as
we discussed in Chapter 2, the loss of this interior faith does not, in and of
itself, sever a man from the Body of the Church (the visible, ecclesiastical
society founded by Christ). This is evident when one considers that the loss of
internal faith does not, of itself, cause a Catholic to lose the rights and
privileges of his membership in the Church. And if the Catholic who loses the
interior virtue of faith happens to be a bishop or even the Pope, the visible
and external bonds alone suffice for him to retain his office. This crucial
point strikes at the heart of one of the principal errors of Sedevacantism. In
Chapter 2, we discussed the dispute over “membership” in the Church. We saw
that certain theologians, such as Suarez, maintained that the loss of interior
faith was incompatible with actual “membership” in the Church. He and others
held this view because they considered the concept of “membership” from the
perspective of union with Christ, rather than union with the Body of the Church
(the visible, ecclesiastical society). However, although these theologians did
not consider those who lost the faith to be, technically speaking, “members” of
the Church, they nevertheless realized that the external bonds of union alone
sufficed for a person to possess jurisdiction and hold office in the Church.
They maintained that a heretic Pope, for example, while not a “member” of the
Church (as they defined it) was still the head of the Church. In other words,
their opinion on “membership” (who can be called a “member” of the Church) only
pertained to the speculative level, and had no practical effect on those who
held office in the Church. This is clear from the following quotation from
Suarez. Although he held that faith was necessary for “membership” in the
Church, he conceded that faith was not necessary for a man to hold office and
perform acts of jurisdiction in the Church: “Finally, the faith is not
absolutely necessary in order that a man be capable of spiritual and
ecclesiastical jurisdiction and that he be capable of exercising true acts
which demand this jurisdiction…The foregoing is obvious, granted that, as is
taught in the treatises on penance and censures, in case of extreme necessity a
priest heretic may absolve, which is not possible without jurisdiction.”4
Suarez also
says: “The loss of faith for heresy which is merely internal does not cause the
loss of the power of jurisdiction (…) This is proved in the first place by the
fact that the government (ecclesiastical) would become very uncertain if the
power depended on interior thoughts and sins. Another proof: given that the
Church is visible, it is necessary that her governing power be in its way
visible, dependent therefore on external actions, and not on mere mental
cogitations.”5 The French canonist Marie Dominque Bouix (d. 1870) teaches the
same: “Faith is not necessary for a man to be capable of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction and that he might exercise true acts which require such
jurisdiction. For in case of extreme necessity a heretical priest can absolve,
as is taught in the treatises on penance and censures, however absolution
requires and supposes jurisdiction. Moreover, the power of orders, which in its
way is superior, can remain without faith, that is, with heresy; therefore
ecclesiastical jurisdiction can do so too…”6 Because interior faith is not
necessary to obtain or hold office in the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine
explains that a Pope who loses the virtue of faith does not, for that reason
alone, cease to be Pope. This is evident since Bellarmine held that a Pope who
is an occult (secret) heretic retains his office; and, to be clear, an occult
heretic is one who is guilty of formal heresy – the mortal sin of heresy - in
the internal forum (the realm of conscience), but which has not become public
and notorious in the external forum (which will be discussed later). In support
of his position, Cardinal Bellarmine cites the authority of Melchior Cano, a
theologian from the Council of Trent, who explains that since an occult heretic
remains united to the Church by an external union, a Pope who is an occult
heretic retains his office. Bellarmine also notes that this is the unanimous
opinion of all the authors he cites in his book De Ecclesia: “[O]ccult heretics
are still of the Church, they are parts and members… therefore the Pope who is
an occult heretic is still Pope.
This is
also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book De Ecclesia.”7
Again, by referring to a Pope as an occult heretic, Bellarmine is not speaking
of him being in material error. He is referring to a Pope who has committed the
sin of heresy in the internal forum and thereby lost the faith entirely.8 The
great twentieth century Thomist, Fr. Reginald GarrigouLagrange, elaborated on
this teaching from Bellarmine. In the following quotation, note that
Garrigou-Lagrange (along with Billuart whom he cites) held the minority opinion
that the interior virtue of faith is necessary to be a “member” of the Church
(for the same reasons discussed earlier), yet, at the same time, maintained
that a Pope who loses the faith interiorly will retain his office.
Garrigou-Lagrange writes: “St. Robert Bellarmine’s objection. The pope who
becomes a secret heretic is still an actual member of the Church, for he is
still the head of the Church, as Cajetan, Cano, Suarez, and others teach.
Reply. This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something
abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic
would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as
explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction
by which he would influence the Church [the Body] in ruling it. Thus he would
still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head,
though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive
that vital influx of faith from Christ [from the Soul], the invisible and
primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of
jurisdiction the head of the Church [the Body], though he would not be a member
of it.”9 In fact, Garrigou-Lagrange explicitly uses the “body” and “soul”
distinctions when addressing the jurisdiction of a heretical Pope:
“This
condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but
such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head.
The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from
the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such
as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church [the Body],
although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of
the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of
the Church [the Soul] by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship
of the visible Church [the Body] by jurisdiction and power is compatible with
private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its
members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who
externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics.”10
Consistent with the distinction between the Body and Soul of the Church, formal
heresy can remain hidden in the internal forum (the internal sin of heresy), or
it can be manifested in the external forum. Fr. Sebastian B. Smith confirms the
same. In his classic book, Elements of Ecclesiastical Law, he says: “Formal
heresy, of which alone we here speak, is either internal - i.e., not manifested
externally by any word or action; or external - i.e., outwardly expressed, in a
sufficient manner, by words or actions.”11 Formal heresy in the internal forum
alone (secret or “occult” heresy), only severs a man from the Soul of the
Church.12 It requires formal heresy in the external forum to sever him from the
Body of the Church - from the visible, ecclesiastical society founded by
Christ. Hence, the loss of interior faith alone does not cause a Pope or bishop
to lose his office. As Suarez reasoned, if the virtue of faith were absolutely
necessary for a man to hold office in the Church, one could never be absolutely
certain if a man elected Pope was a true Pope or an antipope (a believer or a
pretender), since, absent an extraordinary grace, men cannot see into the
hearts of other men. If the sin of heresy alone were to cause the loss of
office for a prelate (or prevented one from legitimately and validly acquiring
the office), Catholics could never be absolutely certain if a Pope who defined
a doctrine, or ratified the decrees of a Council, was the Vicar of Christ or a
public imposter who was secretly an antipope. If that were the case, those who
professed to be Catholic, yet rejected defined doctrines, could simply cast
doubts upon the Pope who defined them in order to cast doubts upon the
doctrines themselves. If the interior virtue of faith were necessary for a Pope
or bishop to legitimately retain his office, a measure of doubt would always
exist, and hence everything would be left to the private judgment of each
individual to determine (as is the case with Sedevacantism). With wounded human
nature as it is, this would wreak havoc in the Church with no certain means of
resolution. For this reason, the theologians who disagreed on whether interior
faith is required for Church “membership” all agree that the visibility of the
Church is not dependent upon that which is hidden in the heart of man. All the
great theologians also recognize the distinction between being joined to the
Body of the Church (for purposes of jurisdiction) and the Soul of the Church
(for purposes of spiritual goods), especially when speaking about the Pope. For
example, Bellarmine says that “the occult heretics are united and are members
although only by external union [the Body]; on the contrary, the good
catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union [the Soul], not by
the external.”13 While Suarez held that a Pope who is an occult heretic is not
a “member” of the Church (the Soul), he did concede that he would still be the
“head” of the Church (the Body). He says: “The Pope heretic is not a member of
the Church as far as the substance and form [the Soul] which constitute the
members of the Church; but he is the head as far as the charge and action [the
Body]; and this is not surprising, since he is not the primary and principal
head who acts by his own power, but is as it were instrumental, he is the vicar
of the principal head, who is able to exercise his spiritual action over the
members even by means of a head of bronze; analogously, he baptizes at times by
means of heretics, at times he absolves, etc., as we have already said.”14
Bouix (who, like Suarez, also held the opinion that internal faith was
necessary for “membership” in the Church) responds to those who would argue
that a non-member of the Church cannot be the “head” of the Church, by making
the same distinction between the governing power (which takes place in the
Body) and the supernatural union (which takes place in the Soul). He wrote: “To
the argument that, not being a member of the Church, the heretical Pope is not
the head of the Church either, (…) one can give the following answer: I concede
that the Pope heretic is not member and head of the Church in so far as the
supernatural life which commences by faith and is completed by charity, by
which all the members of the Church are united in one body supernaturally alive
[the Soul], but I deny that he might not be member and head of the Church as
far as the governing power proper to his charge [the Body]. Indeed, it is not
absurd that Christ wishes that the Pope (the same might be said of a bishop in
relation to the diocese), while he might not be part of this body
supernaturally alive due to heresy, should nevertheless still conserve the
power of governing the Church, exactly as if he had not lost the supernatural
life mentioned above.”15
The Major
Error of Sedevacantism
The false
idea that the sin of heresy alone causes the loss of ecclesiastical office is a
principal error of Sedevacantism. Because Sedevacantists know they have no
authority to judge a Pope for the crime of heresy under canon law, they appoint
themselves as the judge and jury of the sin of heresy by appealing to Divine
law. The error of the Sedevacantist, in this respect, is thus twofold: First,
the sin of heresy is a matter of the internal forum of which God alone is the
judge. Second, the sin of heresy alone does not cause the loss of office. We
cannot overemphasize this crucial point. The Sedevacantist thesis has been
erected upon the false foundation that the internal sin of heresy (against
Divine law) causes the loss of office and jurisdiction in the Church. While
many quotations from leading Sedevacantists could be provided, let us look at
just a few from Fr. Anthony Cekada, one of the leading Sedevacantist priests in
America, who has been teaching this erroneous position for many years. In fact,
this is Fr. Cekada’s favorite defense of Sedevacantism, which he uses in almost
every one of his “rebuttals” of his opponents’ arguments (including attempts to
respond to articles written by the authors of this book).16
In response
to an article written by Mr. Thomas Sparks, Fr. Cekada wrote his own piece
called “Sedevacantism Refuted?” After conceding Mr. Sparks’ point that a Pope
cannot incur the ecclesiastical censure of excommunication because a Pope is
not subject to canon law (which we will clarify in Chapters 9 and 10), Fr.
Cekada says the following: “Like many who have written against Sedevacantism,
one fundamental flaw runs through Mr. Sparks’ article: he seems utterly unaware
of the distinction between human ecclesiastical (canon) law and divine law, and
how this distinction applies to the case of a heretical pope.” “Heresy is both
a crime (delictum) against canon law and a sin (peccatum) against divine law.
The material Mr. Sparks quotes deals with heresy as a delictum and with the
ecclesiastical censure (excommunication) that the heretic incurs.” “This is
mostly irrelevant to the case of a heretical pope. Because he is the supreme
legislator and therefore not subject to canon law, a pope cannot commit a true
delictum of heresy or incur an excommunication. He is subject only to the
divine law.” “It is by violating the divine law through the sin (peccatum) of
heresy that a heretical pope loses his authority – ‘having become an unbeliever
[factus infidelis],’ as Cardinal Billot says, ‘he would by his own will be cast
outside the body of the Church.’”17 Using his own words, Fr. Cekada “seems
utterly unaware” that the sin of heresy does not, by itself, cause a Pope to
“lose his authority.” Notice also that Fr. Cekada ended by quoting Cardinal
Billot as an authority in defense of his theory. What Cekada failed to mention
(or even indicate by an ellipsis) is that he only provided his readers with
half of the sentence. If one takes the time to look up the complete sentence,
it becomes clear that the Cardinal is not speaking merely of the internal sin
of heresy, but of public and notorious heresy, which is the canonical crime of
heresy in the external forum. Here is the full sentence from Cardinal Billot:
“Given, therefore,
the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously heretical, one must
concede without hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical
power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be
cast outside the body of the Church.”18 What the half sentence giveth, the
complete sentence taketh away. Because “notorious heresy” is a “crime” under
canon law (see canons 2197, 2º and 2197, 3º of the 1917 Code) means that
Cardinal Billot, like his predecessor theologians, held that the crime of
heresy (not the sin of heresy) causes the loss of ecclesiastical office. And,
as we will see later, the person must be a public and notorious heretic by the
Church’s judgment, not simply by the private judgment of individual priests or
Catholics in the pew. For now, it is crucial to realize that, contrary to what
Fr. Cekada and those Sedevacantists who follow him believe, the sin of heresy
alone neither prevents a man from being elected Pope, nor does it cause a Pope
to fall from the pontificate, since the internal sin does not sever the
external bonds of unity, which themselves suffice for a Pope to retain his
office. If the sin of heresy alone caused a Pope to lose his office, a Pope who
fell into occult (secret) heresy would also cease to be Pope which, as we saw
earlier, is not only contrary to the teaching of Bellarmime (the
Sedevacantists’ favorite theologian), but, as Bellarmine himself said, also
contrary to “all the theologians” he cited in his book De Ecclesia.19 Another authority
Fr. Cekada often cites in his articles is the wellknown commentary on canon law
by Wernz-Vidal. Yet this commentary also explicitly teaches that a heretical
Pope loses his office, not for the sin of heresy, but for the crime of heresy,
which Fr. Cekada himself denies. Speaking of the case of a manifestly heretical
Pope, Wernz and Vidal say “the General Council declares the fact of the crime
by which the heretical pope has separated himself from the Church and deprived
himself of his dignity.”20 Fr. Cekada’s position is also contradicted by
Suarez, Cajetan, and John of St. Thomas who, in his treatise on the deposition
of a heretical Pope (found in Cursus Theologici), states no less than twelve
times that it is the crime of heresy that causes the Pope to lose his office. For
example, he says:
“By what
power should a deposition happen with regard to the pope? The entire question
hinges on two points, namely one, a declarative sentence, by which it is
declared - but by whom? - that the pope has committed the crime… and two, the
deposition itself, which must be done after the declarative judgment of the
crime.”21 And a little later: “The Church is able to declare the crime of a
Pontiff and, according to divine law, propose him to the faithful as a heretic
that must be avoided. (…) the deposition of the pope with respect to the
declaration of the crime in no way pertains to the cardinals but to a general
council.”22 Fr. Cekada will search in vain for a complete sentence from his
theology manuals which says the internal sin of heresy alone severs one from
the Body of the Church. As noted above, if his theory were true, the Church
would never have certainty that an elected Pope was a true Pope or an antipope
– a believer or a pretender – since man is unable to see into the heart of
another man. Consequently, there would be no certainty regarding the Pope’s
binding decrees, and this uncertainty would infect the entire Church. This
practical consequence alone is sufficient to reveal the error of Fr. Cekada’s
primary defense of the Sedevacantist thesis. Fr. Cekada used the same
fallacious argument in response to John Salza’s article against Sedevacantism
in the April 2011 edition of Catholic Family News.23 In the article, Mr. Salza
explains that expulsion from the Body of the Church is not a matter of sin in
the internal forum, but requires a determination of the crime in the external
forum. In Cekada’s “rebuttal” article called “Salza on Sedevacantism: Same Old
Fare,”24 he begins by glibly stating: “Mr. Salza does nothing more than recycle
the same mythical objections to Sedevacantism that I and others have answered
over and over for at least twenty years.” Then, under his subtitle “Crime and
Sin Confused,” Cekada actually confuses “Crime and Sin” as he unwittingly points
out that Salza’s arguments “pertain to the canonical crime of heresy…and not to
the sin of heresy” (emphasis in original). Amen Fr. Cekada! We concur. Fr.
Cekada then repeats his error by boldly stating: “In the matter at hand, when
canonists and theologians say that ‘heresy’ automatically deprives a pope of
his office, they are referring to the sin of heresy, not to the canonical crime
of heresy” (emphasis in original). Fr. Cekada goes on to provide two quotes
from the canonist Michel who explains the requirements for the sin of heresy,
but who never says such sin “automatically deprives a pope of his office,” as
Cekada claims. That is because the internal sin of heresy alone does no such
thing, and not a single quotation cited by Fr. Cekada in any of his articles
proves otherwise, which is why he is reduced to citing half sentences (out of
context) to support his position. But Fr. Cekada is a master of the rhetorical
skills of the sophists (particularly with his use of ridicule and sarcasm),
which enables him to appeal to the emotions, and hence the will, of his
readers. This tactic serves to divert his readers’ attention away from the
intellectual deficiency and general weakness of his arguments, which, if he
keeps them entertained and laughing, they are less likely to spot.
Unfortunately, this tactic seems to have worked, since a number of unsuspecting
laymen have fallen for the “sin of heresy” theory of Fr. Cekada, and then used
it in their own defense of the Sedevacantist position. One such person is Mr.
Jerry Ming, who wrote an “Open Letter to John Vennari,” the Editor of Catholic
Family News, in response to the aforementioned article by John Salza which Mr.
Vennari published in 2011. Here is an excerpt from the “Open Letter.” See if
any of it sounds familiar: “So, it should be clear to all, that heresy is a
crime against canon law and a sin against the divine law. ‘It is by violating
the divine law through the sin of heresy that a heretical pope loses his
authority – ‘having become an unbeliever…’ as Cardinal Billot says, ‘he would
by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church.’”2
Notice that
Mr. Ming not only parrots Fr. Cekada (a common trait among Sedevacantists), but
he even quotes the same half sentence from Cardinal Billot (out of context) to
make his point! This only goes to show the danger of following Sedevacantist
priests, such as Fr. Cekada, without double-checking their sources to verify
the accuracy of their teachings. To those who wish to presume the accuracy of
their materials, we say caveat emptor.26 One thing is certain, no matter what
authorities Sedevacantists cite, or what quotations they marshal: Any citation
suggesting that formal heresy causes the loss of ecclesiastical office will
necessarily refer to the crime of heresy (formal heresy in the external forum),
not the internal sin of heresy (formal heresy in the internal forum). Another
individual who has embraced Fr. Cekada’s “sin of heresy” theory is Richard
Ibranyi, who has authored numerous books in defense of the Sedevacantis thesis.
Having fallen for Fr. Cekada’s theory, Mr. Ibranyi has now gone on record and
publicly declared that Cardinal Cajetan, and Cardinal Bellarmine himself, a
saint and Doctor of the Church, are “notorious heretics” for holding that an
occult heretic (one who is guilty of the internal sin of heresy) remains a
member of the Church, and a Pope who is an occult heretic retains his office.
Mr. Ibranyi warned his readers: “Beware of notorious heretics, such as Cajetan
and Robert Bellarmine, who…deny the basic dogma that an occult formal heretic
is not a member of the Catholic Church and not Catholic. They hold the formal
heresy, introduced by the scholastics, that an occult formal heretic is a
member of the Catholic Church and Catholic. Hence they believe that an occult
formal heretic [internal forum] can hold an office because they heretically
believe he is a member of the Catholic Church and Catholic.”27 Notice in the
above citation that Mr. Ibranyi accuses the scholastics of teaching what he calls
the “formal heresy” that occult heretics are members of the Church. Does that
mean Mr. Ibranyi considers the great scholastic theologians of the Church to be
heretics as well, for holding that position? Indeed he does! Two months after
publishing the above article (revised November 2013), he came out publicly and declared
that all the Church’s theologians from the year 1250 onward have been
apostates. He wrote: “All of the theologians and canon lawyers from 1250 onward
were apostates. Many theologians and canon lawyers before 1250 were also
apostates, but each case must be studied individually.”28 So, according to
Ibranyi, all the Church’s theologians and canon lawyers from 1250 onward were
apostates, and those before 1250 will have to be judged on a case by case
basis. This, of course, would include the Universal Doctor of the Catholic
Church, St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) and the many holy Popes and councils who
have endorsed his teaching (even referring to St. Thomas’ teaching as the
philosophy and theology of the Church). In the same article, the author went
even further by declaring that “all of the so-called popes and socalled
cardinals from Innocent II (1130-1143) until today were and are apostate
antipopes and apostate anticardinals.” But since these Popes and Cardinals were
not declared guilty of the crime of heresy or apostasy by the Church, Mr.
Ibranyi (as a disciple of Fr. Cekada) must hold that they are apostates because
they lost the interior virtue of faith. And, of course, this conclusion assumes
Mr. Ibranyi can peer into and judge the souls of men – men whom he never knew
and who lived hundreds of years ago, to boot. To make such an assertion is to
refute it. This, dear readers, is the spirit and hubris of the Sedevacantist
position, whether the individual Sedevacantist goes back to the year 1130,
1250, or 1958, or any other random year that he arrives at by his private
judgment. St. Thomas observed that a small error in the beginning (in
principle) results in a big error in the end (in the conclusion). The
conclusions of Mr. Ibranyi serve as a case in point.
Sedevacantist
“Proof-Texts”?
Sedevacantists
have managed to dig up a number of “proof-texts” in an attempt to defend their
assertion that the internal sin of heresy alone severs a person from the Body
of the Church (thus, causing a loss of office). As we will see, arguments based
upon these texts were answered long ago by real theologians of the Church.
St. Jerome
The first “proof-text” is a fourth century quotation from St. Jerome, whom
Bellarmine quotes as saying: “…other sinners are excluded from the Church by
sentence of excommunication, but the heretics exile themselves and separate
themselves by their own act from the body of Christ.”29 Sedevacantists have
interpreted this quotation to mean that a Pope whom they privately judge to be
a heretic automatically loses his office, which is not what St. Jerome said.
John of St. Thomas explains that Jerome is referring to the nature of the
crime, which severs one from the body of the Church with no additional censure
attached to it. In this sense, the crime of heresy differs in its nature from
other crimes, such as physically striking the Pope or procuring an abortion,
which are crimes that only sever a person from the Church by virtue of the
additional censure attached to the act.30 As John of St. Thomas explains, by
saying a heretic severs himself from the Body of the Church by his own act,
does not exclude the necessity of the Church to render a judgment, especially
when the person in question is the Pope. He wrote: “Jerome, when he says that a
heretic cuts himself off from the body of Christ, does not exclude the judgment
of the Church in such a grave matter as that of the deposition of the Pope, but
he instead refers to the nature of the crime, which, of itself, cuts one off
from the Church without any other further added censure of the Church,
provided, that is, that he be declared guilty by the Church.”31 As we see,
saying that heresy of its nature severs a man from the Body of Christ does not
preclude a judgment by the Church (who determines that the crime of heresy has
been committed), especially if the person in question still professes to be a
Catholic, and more so if the person is a prelate who holds office in the
Church. Now, Fr. Sylvester Berry provided a slightly different translation of
the citation from St. Jerome (along with a source reference for the quote),
which more clearly shows that St. Jerome was juxtaposing the crime of heresy
(which, by its nature, severs one from the Church) with other crimes (which
sever one from the Church by an additional censure). Here is the translation
provided by Fr. Berry: “An adulterer, a homicide, and other sinners are driven
from the Church by the priests (i.e., by excommunication); but heretics pass
sentence upon themselves, leaving the Church of their own free will” (Serm.
181; P.L. 38980).32 Notice this translation indicates that the heretic in
question is one who leaves the Church of his own free will; it is not simply a
Catholic who makes a heretical statement (which is how the Sedevacantists have
interpreted the quote). A person who leaves the Church of his own free will
(either by the crime of heresy and/or public defection, discussed later),
thereby, without additional censure, severs the external bonds of unity, by
rejecting the Church as the rule of faith, and separating from the Church’s
governing authority. Needless to say, none of the post-conciliar Popes left the
Church of their own free will. On the contrary, they all professed to being
Catholic and they were all recognized by the Church to be members in good
standing. Hence, nothing in this quotation from St. Jerome supports the
Sedevacantist position that a Pope, who is recognized as Pope by the Church,
yet is judged by private opinion to be a heretic, automatically loses his
office.
Mystici
Corporis Christi
A second “proof-text” the Sedevacantists use is taken from the encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi in which Pope Pius XII wrote: “For not every offense (admissum), although it may be a grave evil, is such as by its very own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”33 Notice Pius XII explicitly states that he is referring to the “nature” of these “offenses” which is precisely what John of St. Thomas said St. Jerome was referring to. As mentioned above, the nature of these particular crimes (heresy, schism and apostasy) differs from that of other offenses which only severs one from the Church due to an additional censure attached to them. But, as John of St. Thomas explained above, this does not eliminate the need for the Church herself to render a judgment and declare the crime – especially when the culprit is a prelate who holds office in the Church. Pius XII did not teach that the internal sin of heresy alone causes a prelate to automatically lose his office without the Church itself rendering a judgment, which is how the Sedevacantists interpret the passage. In fact, Msgr. Fenton addressed this point in an article published in the American Ecclesiastical Review in March of 1950. The purpose of Fr. Fenton’s article was to show that this citation from Mystici Corporis Christi was in no way contrary to the teaching of St. Bellarmine, who, as we have seen, taught that the sin of heresy alone does not sever a person from the Body of the Church. Fr. Fenton began by explaining that the teaching of Pius XII was identical to what Bellarmine himself wrote in the fourth chapter of De Ecclesia Militante, when he taught that heresy, schism and apostasy, of their nature, sever a man from the Body of the Church. Fr. Fenton wrote: “In the encyclical, the Holy Father speaks of schism, heresy, and apostasy, as sins [admissum] which, of their own nature, separate a man from the Body of the Church. He thereby follows the traditional procedure adopted by St. Robert himself in his De Ecclesia Militante. The great Doctor of the Church devoted the fourth chapter of his book to a proof that [public] heretics and apostates are not members of the Church.”34 Fr. Fenton then noted that Bellarmine dedicated the tenth chapter of the same book (De Ecclesia Militante) to demonstrating that occult infidels or heretics (those guilty of the sin of heresy by an internal act) are really members of the Body of the Church: “The tenth chapter of the same work is nothing more or less than a demonstration of the fact that occult infidels or heretics are really members.”35 Fenton then noted that what Bellarmine himself wrote in the tenth chapter of the book (that the sin of heresy alone does not separate one from the body of the Church) was obviously not in contradiction to what he wrote in the fourth chapter of the same book (that public heretics are not members of the Church). Just as Bellarmine did not contradict himself in these chapters, so likewise, there’s no reason to believe that when Pius XII repeated Bellarmine’s teaching from chapter four, he intended to contradict what the saint wrote in chapter ten of same book. Fr. Fenton said: “In writing what St. Robert [Bellarmine] included in his fourth chapter, the Holy Father must not be considered as denying what the same great Doctor of the Church taught in the tenth chapter of the same book.”36 The correct interpretation of Pope Pius XII’s teaching is not that he was referring to the internal sin of heresy alone, but to the public offense (the crime) of heresy, which, of its nature, severs a person from the Body of the Church with no further censure attached to the offense. It is also worth noting that the word admissum used by Pope Pius XII, which is sometimes translated as “sin” or “offense,” also means “crime.”37 A crime is a public offense, not merely an internal sin. And the public crime must be determined according to the Church’s judgment, not the private judgment of individuals that is opposed to the public judgment of the Church.38 Van Noort further elaborated on this point by explaining that the internal sin of heresy alone only separates a person from the Body of the Church dispositively. He said “internal heresy, since it destroys that interior unity of faith from which unity of profession is born, separates one from the body of the Church dispositively, but not yet formally.”39 In other words, the sin of heresy disposes a person to be separated from the Body of the Church, but the actual separation does not take place until pertinacity in the external forum is established and the Church renders a judgment (unless, of course, the person openly left the Church of his own free will). Because the Church itself does not judge internals (de internis ecclesia non judica), in order for the sin to be judged by the Church, it must be public. One final point is that this particular Sedevacantist theory - that the internal sin of heresy alone severs a person from the Body of the Church40 - actually approaches heresy, since it logically denies the dogma of the visibility of the Church. If an internal sin of heresy alone severed a person from the Body of the Church, the Church would no longer be a visible society, but an “invisible Church of true believers known to God alone,” which is a heresy of Protestantism. As Pope Leo XIII said, those who “conjure up and picture to themselves a hidden and invisible Church are in grievous and pernicious error...”41 Hence, those who privately interpret this excerpt of Mystici Corporis Christi (or any other citation they manage to dig up) as teaching that a mere internal sin of heresy severs a person from the Church are logically forced to embrace this “grievous and pernicious error.” Such is the case with the promoters of Sedevacantism.
No hay comentarios.:
Publicar un comentario