A favorite line from Pseudo-traditionalists is “it’s not infallible.” They say “Pope” Francis’ apostolic exhortation wasn’t infallible, Vatican 2 wasn’t infallible, and the canonization of “Pope” Paul VI wasn’t infallible. What’s implied is the absurdity that when the pope issues decrees, encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, canon laws, or a universal catechism without the charism of infallibility, it means those teachings could be heretical.
The question about what’s infallible and what’s not is not the concern of this study. The only concern for now is the treatment of what is thought to be non-infallible Church teachings in the minds of psuedo-traditionalists.
In the case of the Vatican 2 religion, pseudo-traditionalists recognize that their religion has heretical tenets and are looking for a way to explain how their religion is still Catholic. They’ve spent too much time and energy to admit that the position of sedevacantism is the answer. Therefore, sedevacantism is out of the question.
In the case of Feeneyite sedevacantists, the argument is made that the Roman Catechism of Trent, Canon Law, and the Pope St. Pius X Catechism aren’t infallible. Therefore, the teaching of baptism of desire found in these three sources can be rejected because it’s heretical and contrary to John 3:5 and Trent’s canons. [1]
There are three main reasons why this pseudo-traditionalist novelty is absurd.
1. Heresy is a denial of Catholic dogma. Religious assent, both external and internal, is required for non-infallible teachings of the Church. Religious assent can’t be given to heresy without loss of profession of faith. The Catholic Church can’t require a denial of its own dogmas.
2. All non-infallible decrees, encyclicals, apostolic exhortations, canon laws, etc. would have to be taken with a grain of salt. Suspicion would necessarily follow from all of these teachings. Fear of error would always be present.
3. Protestant churches are heretical even though they are not infallible. If the Catholic Church can promulgate heresy by universal catechism (for instance), it would be the height of hypocrisy for the same church to condemn Protestantism for promulgating heresy.
Infallibility means there’s no possibility of error. That doesn’t imply the Church can be heretical outside the charism of infallibility. You won’t find heresy promulgated in any form by the Catholic Church. The possible errors that might be found in non-infallible Church teachings would be very limited. An example might be the Holy Office condemnations under Popes Paul V, Urban VIII, and Alexander condemning Galileo and/or heliocentrism. However, Pope Benedict XV rejects the absolute affirmation of geocentrism in In Praeclara Summorum.
All heresy is error, but not all error is heresy. The possibility of error in non-infallible documents should not be understood as a “possibility of heresy.”
Both sides [Vatican 2 traditionalists and Feeneyite sedevacantists] start with a [false] premise and work out how that premise is true by looking at everything anachronistically. That’s not how it’s supposed to be done. You don’t start with a conclusion and then try to find an argument to prove your conclusion by twisting, ignoring, and rejecting facts, evidence, and reason.
In 1958, Rev. John A. McHugh, OP. and Rev. Charles J. Callan, OP. explain in their Moral Theology study [3] how non-infallible teachings are to be regarded by the faithful and why.
760. Many tenets of the Church, indeed, have not the prerogative of infallibility–for example, decrees of the Popes not given ex cathedra, decisions of Congregations made with Papal approval, teachings of Bishops to particular members of the Church, doctrines commonly held by Catholics as theological truths or certain conclusions. These decrees, decisions, etc., receive not the assent of Catholic faith, but what is called religious assent, which includes two things, viz., external and internal assent.
(a) External assent should be given such teachings–that is, the homage of respectful silence due to public authority. This does not forbid the submission of difficulties to the teaching authority, or the scientific examination of objections that seem very strong.
(b) Internal assent should be given such teaching–that is, the submission of the judgment of the individual to the judgment of the teacher who has the authority from Christ and assistance from the Holy Spirit. This internal assent differs, however, from the assent of faith, inasmuch as it excludes fear of error, but not of the possibility of error, and it may later on be suspended, called into doubt, or even revoked. Pope Pius X in his Motu proprio, “Praestantiascripturae Sacrae” (Nov. 18, 1907), indicated the binding force of the decrees both of the Pontifical Biblical Commission and of all doctrinal decrees: All are bound in conscience to submit to the decisions of the Biblical Commission which have been given in the past and which shall be given in the future, in the same way as to the decrees which appertain to doctrine, issued by the Sacred Congregations and approved by the Supreme Pontiff; nor can they escape the stigma both of disobedience and temerity, nor be free from grave guilt as often as they impugn their decisions either in word or writing; and this over and above the scandal which they give and the sins of which they may be the cause before God by making other statements on these matters which are very frequently both rash and false. (Reaffirmed by the Biblical Commission on Feb. 27, 1934.)
761. The objects, therefore, which formally or reductively pertain to the virtue of faith, are as follows:
(a) Divine faith has for its object all the truths revealed by God as contained in the Canonical scriptures approved by the Church, and in the teachings received by the Apostles from Christ or the Holy Spirit and handed down to the Church as Tradition. Private revelations in exceptional cases may also be the object of divine faith.
(b) Catholic faith has for its object all the truths formally revealed in scripture and Tradition that have been defined as such by the Church. The definitions of the Church are either solemn (e.g., those given in the Creeds, ex cathedra definitions of the Popes, decisions of Ecumenical Councils) or ordinary (e.g., those contained in the universal preaching, practice or belief of the Church, encyclical letters [see Humani Generis, n.20]). Equivalent to definitions are the condemnations of error opposed to revealed truths.
(c) According to some theologians ecclesiastical faith has for its object all infallible decisions of the Church about matters not revealed, but connected with revelation, or necessary for the exercise of the teaching office of the Church. Such are: (i) definitions, that is, definitive declarations of theological conclusions or of dogmatic facts, disciplinary laws made for the entire Church, canonization of the saints, solemn approbation of religious Orders, express or special recognition of Doctors of the Church, declaration of the relation of private revelations to the public revelation; and (ii) censures, that is, condemnations of teachings, on account of falsity, as heretical, near to heresy, savoring of heresy, erroneous, rash, etc.; on account of their expression, as equivocal, ambiguous, presumptuous, captious, suspected, ill-sounding, offensive to pious ears, etc.; on account of their tendency, as scandalous, schismatical, seditious, unsafe, etc. Examples: The definitions concerning the sense of the book Augustinus, the suitability of the terms “consubstantial” and “transubstantiation,” the agreement of the Vulgate with the original scriptures, the lawfulness of the insertion of the Filioque.
(d) Religious assent has for its object all doctrinal pronouncements of the Church that are not infallible, but are yet official and authoritative. Examples are ordinary instructions and condemnations given by Pontifical Congregations and Commissions. The Syllabus of Modern Errors issued by Pius IX was most likely not an infallible or definitive document, although many of the errors it rejects are contrary to dogma, and hence, even apart from the Syllabus, they are to be rejected as opposed to Catholic faith. Likewise, many of its tenets are drawn from encyclical letters. Papal allocutions, radio addresses, and the doctrinal parts of Apostolic Constitutions, in themselves, are in this class.
(e) Respect is due to the judgment of the Church even in non-doctrinal matters and where no obligation is imposed by her, on account of her position and the careful examination given before decision. Example: It would be disrespectful to reject without good reason a pious belief which the Church after mature deliberation has permitted to be held.
Footnotes
[1] For a complete refutation of baptism of desire deniers, see: http://www.lulu.com/shop/steven-speray/baptism-of-desire-or-blood-a-defense-in-brief-ad-majorem-dei-gloriam/paperback/product-21415837.html
[2] https://archive.org/stream/moraltheologyaco35354gut/35354.txt
These problems appear to be circular. Firstly, actually proving that certain statements are heretical, I argue has not been proven by either side.
SPERAY REPLIES: I have proven that heresies abound in the Vat2 religion.
The SSPX generally believes the reign of V2 has been erroneous but they don’t specify if they believe it is heretical or not.
SPERAY REPLIES: Oh, they have definitely implied it.
So I think this ambiguity is what sustains the R&R attachment to the “heretical pope” idea here.
SPERAY REPLIES: There is no ambiguity with religious liberty, communicatio in sacris with non-Catholics, and the redefinition on the nature of the church.
Sometimes they’ll suggest or say that a certain V2 authority’s statement was heretical, but that it wasn’t infallible as you mention and so they think that the person can get away with heresy and the people don’t have to believe it, but then that person isn’t a heretic because “we can’t judge them”, or something of that line of thinking. However, if they admit that the V2 “popes”, prior to their elections, held to certain heretical teachings, then this would disqualify them from being elected as popes and being able to become popes, since they would be heretics incapable of being elected. For some reason this logic also seems to not be grasped, I believe they keep bringing up the “heretical pope” issue which I don’t think is relevant when sedes argue that such people were heretics incapable of being elected as pope.
But in any event, clearing any of the ambiguity is necessary to prevent this going back and forth.
SPERAY REPLIES: There is no ambiguity except in the minds of those who don’t have ears to hear.
Personally I still think there is a little ambiguity on each side: sedes must absolutely prove certain statements as heretical (not simply take ambiguous statements and claim they are heretical) – I understand we may disagree over that this has been achieved. And then on the SSPX end we want to specify what degree of error they believe the V2 statements to be (they do not seem to specify, in my reading). That’s my reading of this all.
SPERAY REPLIES: What’s ambiguous about the redefinition of the nature of the Church? How is saying that all baptized non-Catholics have a RIGHT to be called Christian not a heresy?
The authentic magisteirum (i.e. non-infallible ordinary magisteirum), which any validly ordained bishop exercises when he preaches, is not infallible, and hence, not protected from heresy. To argue otherwise, is to claim that the non-infallible magisterium is at least partly infallible, which is absurd. Furthermore, historical examples clearly demonstrate that the authentic magisterium can propagate heresy.
You didn’t even bother reading the article. It’s a blaspheming lie to say the Church has propagated heresy.
The authentic magisterium is exercised every time a bishop gives a sermon. Are you suggesting that bishops can’t teach heresy?
Did you read the article? Where do you see the word magisterium? I’ve said many times on this blog that bishops have taught heresy and listed Nestorius as an example.
When a bishop (including the pope) teaches heresy, he immediately loses his office as did Nestorius.
Formal (pernicious) heresy causes one to lose their office. Furthermore, it is the duty of competent authorities to prove heresy.
It is possible that a bishop can teach heresy without actually knowing it is heresy.
Pertinacity is presumed by law. Heresy is already proved when it contradicts dogma. No authority is needed. Nestorius lost his office immediately after his heresy as Pope St. Celestine implied and St. Bellarmine argues.
It doesn’t matter if a bishop knows whether his teaching is heretical or not. Even if a bishop is personally ignorant or not pertinacious, he still loses his office because it’s presumed in the external forum they know better. They are considered formal heretics. As St. Bellarine taught, “For men are not bound, or able to read hearts; but when they see that someone is a heretic by his external works, they judge him to be a heretic pure and simple, and condemn him as a heretic.”
You sound like another person who has commented under the pseudonym “yep” under the article Harrison professes heresy. Yep was a follower of the John of St. Thomas and wouldn’t answer the questions I asked.
Bellarmine says that compentent authorities can judge a pope, so you aren’t in much better position than that’ll John of St Thomas.
Wrong! He was clear that no one can judge a pope. Bellarmine: “Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself [NOT BY JUDGMENT OF MEN] to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church.”
Notice that the pope ceased to be pope and member of the Church “and for this reason he can be judged.” Bellarmine is careful and explains it nicely.
Only the crime of heresy can cause a person to lose office not merely the sin (which we cannot judge). For the crime to occur the heresy must be obstinate so the putative heretic must be admonished twice (Titus 3:10) by a superior (or in the case of the pope his proper counsellors) before they may be deemed to have lost office.
Total nonsense!
Crimes incur penalties. Warnings are part of the penal code. Cardinals and Popes don’t incur penalties because they aren’t under the penal code. And even admonishment is not always necessary for priests, bishops, theologians, etc. to incur penalties.
Pope Pius XII said the sin of heresy severs one from the BODY [that’s external forum] of the Church by its very nature. We can and do judge sin.
You can’t hold an office in the Church if you’re not in the Church.
Stop spreading Salza and Siscoe’s stupid lies.
If this is a reference to Mystici Corporis Christi 23 it does not say that. it says “not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy”. There is nothing there to establish that he is speaking of the sin rather than the crime of heresy or schism.
Wrong. In his encyclical, Pope Pius XII continued the next two sentences, “Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin” and “Let everyone then abhor sin” using the Latin, “peccando” and “peccatum.” What is clear from the context is that Pope Pius XII was referring to sin and redemption, not crime and punishment.
The Ecclesiastical Review presented an article on the Mystical Body and Church Coextensive containing the following paragraph:
“Mortal sin, as such, does not break the tie which binds a man as a constituent member to the visible Body which is Christ’s. Only such a sin as public heresy, schism, or apostasy does that, and then only because such a sin breaks the tie of visible unity with the Body. Just a natural body, when some one of the extremities grows atrophied and turns black, until at last the soul seems to have withdrawn from that part of the body and the object of the whole body’s solicitude and care until amputation makes it cease at last to be a member, so the Catholic in mortal sin remains a member of the Mystical Body – though a dead member, and continues to be the object of innumerable medicinal activities on the part of the Soul and the other, living members as long as public heresy, apostacy, or the like does not definitively put an end to his membership.”
As we see, it’s the sin that severs an individual by its very nature.
Msgr. Van Noort most certainly understood Pope Pius XII as referring to sin, not crime. He writes:
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 three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. 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 the 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.
Material heretics in good faith remain members of the Church and it is the denial of this that threatens the visibility of the Church not its assertion.
SPERAY REPLIES: I just quoted one of many theologians that said Material Heretics are outside of the Church. Again, “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?” Material heretics are baptized non-Catholics, such as Protestants. A Catholic who innocently professes heresy is a Catholic in error, not a material heretic.
An occult formal heretic remains a member of the Church juridically and may hold office.
SPERAY REPLIES: That’s an opinion held my many saints and theologians, but not all.
Again, it is the denial of this not its assertion which threatens the visibility of the Church.
SPERAY REPLIES: Another opinion.
Certainly, Pius XII held that those who commit the crime of heresy also commit the sin but it is the crime that separates them from the visible body not the sin.
SPERAY REPLIES: WRONG! Pope Pius XII referred to the sin not the crime. I already proved that point. The context is sin, not crime. What’s wrong with you?
To the first: What is the authority for this distinction (which contradict’s Benedict XIV’s definition)?
To the second: Pius XII is precisely distinguishing the effect of sin from the effects of heresy and schism so the context makes it even clearer he is talking about the crime not the sin (although in reality the former is accompanied by the latter but not necessarily vice versa).
To the first, there’s no contradiction.
To the second, the effect of the sin of heresy is the severing from the Church by its nature.
This would all mean Honorius I and John XXII lost the see and their acts were null and void from that moment but no one has ever held this.
Nope, because neither of these popes taught heresy in their day.
Even if Honorius was *not* a heretic, it did not prevent 7 centuries of church leaders from believing so. Yet they never claimed that Honoriu’s acts were invalid, or that he had lost his office ipso facto, and was not a true pope.
Honorius was a true pope. He didn’t teach heresy. He was not a heretic. End of Story.
Francis on the other hand preaches heresy all the time. He blasphemes Our Lord and Our Lady, even denying her Immaculate Conception last week. You can’t argue that he’s ignorant of the dogmas. He’s a formal heretic. End of Story.
You’re a formal heretic.
Coming from a lying heretic like you, that’s a badge of honor. I have thoroughly exposed your lies and stupid arguments. Now go back to hell where you came from.