15 Heresy and Heretic

Heresy and Heretic

 

Table of contents

1. Introduction

2. Definition of Heresy

3. Definition of the Heretic

4. Distinctions

4.1. Formal/Material Distinction

4.1.1. Formal Heretic

4.1.2. Material Heretic

4.1.2.1. Common opinion: they are separated from the Church

4.1.2.2. A less common opinion (Bellarmine, Suarez, Wernz-Vidal)

4.1.2.3. Reconciling the two opinions

4.1.3. Objections

4.1.3.1. Modernist theologians

4.1.3.2. “A formal declaration is necessary”

4.1.3.3. Material heresy could be excused

4.2. Additional Distinctions

4.2.1. Public vs Occult

4.2.2. Positive vs Negative

4.2.3. Internal Forum vs External Forum

5. Treatment of the Material Heretic

5.1. Excommunication: No latae sententiae excommunication

5.2. Loss of Office Ipso Facto?

6. Canonical Consequences for the Formal Heretic

7. Theological Foundation of this Distinction

8. Here is a scheme of the various situations of heretics

9. Degree of Errors or Opposition to the Faith: Theological Notes or Censures

10. Semi-Heresy and the Semi-Heretic

10.1. Semi-Arianism (4th century)

10.2. Semi-Pelagianism (5th century)

10.3. Semi-Nestorianism and the Three Chapters (5th-6th centuries)

10.4. Pope Honorius I (7th century)

10.5. The Infallible Formulary of Pope Hormisdas as a Crucial Guide

10.5.1. This Formulary is of great authority…

10.5.2. Application to Contemporary Situations

10.5.3. The example of the SSPX

10.6. Refutation of Counter-Arguments

10.7. Brief

11. The Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio

11.1. Its Text

11.2. Reconciliation with Traditional Doctrine

11.2.1. Presumption of Pertinacity

11.2.1.1. All

11.2.1.2. Clerics

11.2.2. Material Heretic and Sanctions

11.2.3. Context of the Bull

12. Practical Distinction between Formal and Material Heretic

12.1. Verification of the Error

12.2. Evaluation of Publicity

12.3. Canonical Admonition

12.4. Context and Circumstances

12.5. Practical Example

13. Current Catholic Perspective (Sedevacantist)

14. Counter-Arguments and Refutation

14.1. The bull includes material heresy…

14.2. Without legitimate authority after 1963..

15. Conclusion

16. Sources

 

1. Introduction

The terms “heresy” and “heretic” possess precise definitions, both theological and canonical, with an essential distinction between formal and material notions. This study treats in a single whole the question of heresy and that of heretics, because it is impossible to separate them without exposing oneself to useless repetitions. Moreover, theologians have always studied them simultaneously. It is appropriate, however, to distinguish the dogmatic problem — which relates to heresy considered as doctrine —, the moral problem — which relates to heresy considered as sin — and the canonical problem — which relates to heresy considered as a delict (A. Michel, “Hérésie. Hérétique”, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. VI, 2nd part, col. 2208).

The first problem concerns heresy considered objectively. In the other two, heresy is considered formally. Indeed, in Catholic theology, material heresy is an objective error against the faith, but without subjective culpability — for example due to invincible ignorance. Formal heresy, on the other hand, implies a conscious and voluntary obstinacy, which renders it sinful on the moral plane and punishable on the canonical plane.

This immutable doctrine, defined before 1963, rejects any later deviation as contrary to the apostolic faith. Theologians affirm that heresy — especially formal — entails the automatic loss of every ecclesiastical office, rendering vacant the See of Peter since the heretical innovations of Vatican II.

The question of whether a public heresy, whether formal or material, entails ipso facto sanctions, such as excommunication or loss of office, is crucial for understanding the protection of the Catholic faith and ecclesiastical discipline.

According to the immutable doctrine of the Catholic Church, founded on the Scriptures, the Fathers, the Doctors, the ecumenical councils and the Code of Canon Law of 1917, a fundamental distinction exists between formal heresy, characterized by voluntary pertinacity, and material heresy, deprived of pertinacity and due to invincible ignorance.

The bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of Paul IV (1559) seems to impose ipso facto sanctions for every public heresy, raising a question about its application to material heretics. This development clarifies this doctrine, explains how to distinguish in practice the formal heretic from the material heretic in the case of public heresy, and reconciles the bull with traditional theology. Indeed the Bull of Paul IV declares every office lost for every heretic, while Tradition distinguishes formal and material heresy and does not admit the loss of office for a material heretic. How to reconcile a disciplinary bull, considered in its included doctrine as infallible, with the constant and unanimous Tradition, itself also infallible?

2. Definition of Heresy

In the Code of Canon Law of 1917, the definition of heresy is not found directly, but it follows from that of the heretic, as it is set forth in canon 1325 § 2 (Latin): “Post receptum baptismum si quis, nomen retinens christianum, pertinaciter aliquam ex veritatibus fide divina et catholica credendis denegat aut de ea dubitat, haereticus [est].” French translation: “After having received baptism, if someone, while retaining the Christian name, obstinately denies or doubts a truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, he is a heretic.”

The definition of heresy is therefore: “Heresy is the act, by a baptized person claiming to be Christian, of denying or doubting with obstinacy a truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.” Heresy is therefore a grave doctrinal error that contradicts a dogma of faith defined by the Church.

In the manuals of theology, it is classically given as follows: “Haeresis est error pertinax manifeste contrarius fidei in eo, qui fidem Christi in veritate professus est.” (Translation: “Heresy is an obstinate error manifestly contrary to the faith in him who has truly professed the faith of Christ.”) (Charles-René Billuart, Summa Summae S. Thomae sive Compendium theologiae, t. III, Tractatus de fide, diss. V, art. II, § I, p. 838.)

According to the Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique (A. Michel, art. “Hérésie. Hérétique”, t. VI, 2nd part, col. 2211): “A doctrine that opposes immediately, directly and contradictorily the truth revealed by God and proposed authentically as such by the Church.” That is to say an error (obstinate or not, formal or material) against a truth of divine and Catholic faith.

Historical examples of heresies: Arianism (negation of the divinity of Christ, condemned by Nicaea in 325), Pelagianism (negation of original sin, condemned by Carthage in 418), or Modernism (condemned by Pius X in Pascendi dominici gregis, 8 September 1907, paragraph “Iam systema universum” [“Considering now the whole system”]: “omnium haereseon conlectum”: the synthesis of all heresies).

Refutation of modernist counter-arguments: Certain post-1963 persons affirm that heresy is “relative” or “interpretative”, allowing “developments” that contradict previous dogmas. This is refuted by Vatican I (Dei Filius, canons IV, De fide et ratione, canon 3; DS 3039 = D 1818): “Si quis dixerit, fieri posse, ut dogmatibus ab Ecclesia propositis, aliquando secundum progressum scientiae sensus tribuendus sit alius ab eo, quem intellexit et intelligit Ecclesia; anathema sit.” (“III. If anyone says that it can happen that one must sometimes, according to the progress of science, attribute to the dogmas proposed by the Church a sense other than that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.”), as Kleutgen demonstrates (Theologia Wirceburgensis, 1880, t. I) that the unity of the faith requires the immutability of the dogmas against any contrary evolution.

3. Definition of the Heretic

As we have just seen, a heretic is a baptized person who commits a heresy. The heretic is a baptized person who, while retaining the Christian name, obstinately denies or doubts some truth of faith that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith. This is the classical definition, admitted by all theologians. It is already found in Saint Jerome (cited by Gratian, Decretum, C. 24, q. 3, c. 27, col. 997–998, and by Saint Thomas, II-II, q. 11, a. 1, objection 1), in Saint Augustine (Epistula 43, I, 1), in Saint Thomas (II-II, q. 11, a. 1, corpus; a. 2, ad 3; q. 5, a. 3, corpus), and it is formulated juridically in the Code of Canon Law, can. 1325, § 2.

The First Vatican Council (Dei Filius, canons III, De fide, canon 1; DS 3031 = D 1810) declares anathema those who deny that a truth can be revealed: “Si quis dixerit, rationem humanam ita independentem esse, ut fides ei a Deo imperari non possit, anathema sit.” (“If anyone says that human reason is so independent that faith cannot be imposed on it by God, let him be anathema.”) In another article, Saint Thomas (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 5, a. 3, corpus) teaches the same thing by saying that he who obstinately denies the truth of a single article does not have the faith, even for the other articles, but is an infidel. The Code of Canon Law of 1917 (canon 1325, § 2) indeed stipulates: “Post receptum baptismum si quis, nomen retinens christianum, pertinaciter aliquam ex veritatibus fide divina et catholica credendis denegat aut de ea dubitat, haereticus [est].” (“After having received baptism, if someone, while retaining the Christian name, obstinately denies or doubts a truth that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith, he is a heretic.”).

Heresy is therefore a fault against the faith. It consists essentially in the free choice of an opinion in opposition to the revealed teaching. It is a sin and a delict. It excludes from the communion of the Church, even before any sentence of excommunication and loss of office in the Church.

4. Distinctions

4.1. Formal/Material Distinction

4.1.1. Formal Heretic

It is he who, knowing that a truth is revealed and defined by the Church, rejects it freely and obstinately. “Formales illi sunt, quibus Ecclesiae auctoritas est sufficienter nota” (“Those are formal to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known”) (Louis Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, 3rd ed., Prato, Giachetti, filii et soc., 1909, thesis XI, p. 292; also cited by A. Michel, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. VI, 2nd part, col. 2220). He is fully guilty, a sinner, and excommunicated latae sententiae (canon 2314, § 1), losing every office ipso facto (canon 188, 4°), as Wernz-Vidal teaches (Ius canonicum, t. II, De personis, pp. 517–518) that the public and notorious heretic loses his office by the law itself, without any declaration.

Conditions:

– Valid baptism: Only the baptized can be heretics, because they are bound to the Catholic faith (canon 1325), to know it and hold it.

– Material object: The rejection or doubt must bear on a dogma “de fide divina et catholica” (Vatican I, Dei Filius, cap. 3; DS 3008 = D 1789): “plenum revelanti Deo intellectus et voluntatis obsequium fide praestare tenemur” (we are bound to render by faith to God who reveals the full homage of the intellect and the will).

– Pertinacity: A constant and voluntary opposition is required for formal heresy, absent in the material case, as Franzelin demonstrates (Theses de Ecclesia Christi, 1887, pp. 405–407) that pertinacity is required for the formal crime.

Formal heresy is the obstinate rejection or doubt, after baptism, of a truth revealed by God (in Scripture or Tradition) and proposed as to be believed “de fide” by the infallible magisterium of the Church (council, ex cathedra, or ordinary universal teaching). It implies:

– A full consciousness of this revealed truth, accepted by the faith of the baptized, as Saint Thomas Aquinas explains (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 4, a. 1, corpus): “Fides est habitus mentis, qua inchoatur vita aeterna in nobis, faciens intellectum assentire non apparentibus.” (Faith is a disposition of the mind by which eternal life begins in us, making the intellect assent to things that are not seen). The heretic must have been exposed to the revealed truth, either by the teaching of the Church, or by a formal admonition.

– A voluntary error: a deliberate assent to a proposition contrary to Revelation, with knowledge of its contradiction. He must knowingly and freely choose to oppose this truth, by pride, bad will or attachment to a personal opinion.

– A “pertinacity”: a voluntary resistance to the correction of the Church. This obstinacy must persist even after a correction or a clear warning of the ecclesiastical authority. For example, canon law (1917, canon 2314) stipulates that for an individual to be considered a heretic (formal), he must persist in his error after one or two formal admonitions:

Ҥ1. All apostates from the Christian faith, all heretics or schismatics and each of them:

1° Incur by the fact itself an excommunication;

2° If after monition, they do not come to resipiscence, let them be deprived of every benefice, dignity, pension, office or other charge, if they had any in the Church, and let them be declared infamous; after two monitions, those who are clerics must be deposed.”

Potential counter-arguments and refutation:

The post-1963 innovators pretend that the formal heretic requires an “official declaration”, but this is refuted by Cum ex apostolatus officio (Paul IV, 1559, § 6): “sintque ipsi sic promoti, et assumpti, eo ipso absque aliqua desuper facienda declaratione, omni dignitate, loco, honore, titulo, auctoritate, officio, et potestate privati” (“and that those who have been thus promoted and elevated be, by the fact itself, without any declaration having to be made on this subject, deprived of every dignity, place, honor, title, authority, office and power”). As Bellarmine affirms (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. XXX) that a manifestly heretical pope ceases by that very fact (ipso facto) to be pope and head of the Church. We shall see further on that in practice certain declarations are made, if chaos in the Church is to be avoided.

4.1.2. Material Heretic

He who rejects a truth of faith without knowing that it is revealed and defined, by ignorance or involuntary error. “materiales vero, qui invincibili ignorantia circa ipsam Ecclesiam laborantes, bona fide eligunt aliam regulam directricem” (“Those are material, on the other hand, who, suffering from invincible ignorance concerning the Church itself, choose in good faith another directing rule”) (Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, t. I, 1909, thesis XI, p. 292; also cited by A. Michel, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. VI, 2nd part, col. 2220). He is in error objectively, but without subjective culpability nor pertinacity.

Material heresy is an error on a point of defined doctrine, but without deliberate intention nor clear knowledge of opposing the Church. It occurs:

– By invincible ignorance or sincere error, without formal culpability nor pertinacity, as Franzelin explains (Theses de Ecclesia Christi, 1887, p. 384, note 1, and pp. 405–407) that material error is that which proceeds from invincible ignorance or invincible error.

4.1.2.1. Most common opinion: they are separated from the Church

For membership in the Church, there exists an important theological opinion (not certain, but common).

This most common opinion is that public material heretics are also (like formal heretics) separated from the Church, even without formal pertinacity, by reason of the external violation.

Shared by numerous theologians, this position rests on the fact that the Church, visible society, requires not only baptism but also an external profession of the true faith (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, 29 June 1943, n° 22 in the English translation; French translation, paragraph “Pourtant, au sens plein de l’expression”)

And membership in the visible Church also requires objective adhesion to the doctrine of the Church. Public error, even involuntary, breaks the visible unity.

Gerardus Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, t. II : Christ’s Church, English translation and revision of John J. Castelot and William R. Murphy, Westminster (Maryland), The Newman Press, 1959, chap. II, art. I, scholion 1, b, n° 153, p. 241 (French translation of the English): “It is certain that public and formal heretics are separated from membership in the Church. The most common opinion is that public and material heretics are equally separated from the Church.”

Indeed external membership requires not only exterior signs of faith and communion, but a true profession of the Catholic faith; now, he who publicly professes a heresy, even material, no longer professes the Catholic faith. (Van Noort, ibid., p. 241.)

Thus:

– the public material heretic is separated from the visible Body,

– but he can belong to the soul of the Church if he is in grace.

It is a juridico-sociological separation, not moral nor penal.

This common opinion is shared with Card. Billot (Tractatus De Ecclesia, T.I, Pars II, Caput I, Quaestio VII, Thesis XI), Journet, etc.

Therefore, if someone exteriorly professes a heretical doctrine, even by ignorance, he no longer manifests exteriorly the true faith, and finds himself by that fact separated from the visible Body (not guilty, but objectively outside the visible society).

However, this is not certain doctrine, but the most common opinion; certain doctrine requires pertinacity for the crime of heresy.

4.1.2.2. A less common opinion (Bellarmine, Suarez, Wernz-Vidal, etc.)

These authors maintain that membership in the visible Body is lost only by the voluntary and notorious rupture (obstinacy).

The public material heretic of good faith remains a member of the Body, because he has not willed to separate himself from the visible authority nor from the unity of communion.

Saint Robert Bellarmine (De Ecclesia militante, cap. 3) says explicitly:

“Haeretici qui per ignorantiam aliquid credunt contra doctrinam Ecclesiae, non sunt propter hoc haeretici, nec ab Ecclesia separantur.”

“Heretics who, by ignorance, believe something against the doctrine of the Church, are not for that reason heretics, nor separated from the Church.”

4.1.2.3. Reconciling the two opinions:

It is perhaps very appropriate here to make another distinction, already mentioned above, namely between the body and the soul of the Church, between the visible members and the unknown members of the Church. This distinction especially appeared in relation to baptism of desire: those sacramentally baptized constitute the body of the Church, persons of good will with baptism of desire belong to the soul of the Church. Likewise, one can affirm that material heretics do not belong to the body of the Church because they do not have its faith, but to the soul of the Church because they err in ignorance, and one cannot sin in ignorance, therefore insofar as they are in the state of grace, they belong incontestably to the (soul of the) Church. Thus one understands that some theologians say that they do not belong and others that they do belong to the Church.

4.1.3. Objections:

4.1.3.1. Modernist theologians could affirm that the notion of heresy must be interpreted in a broader or less strict manner, taking into account “doctrinal progress” or the “living sense of the faith”. This argument is invalid according to traditional Catholic doctrine, because:

1. The Vatican Council (1870), cited above, explicitly rejects the idea that the sense of the dogmas can change with time.

2. Saint Pius X, in Pascendi dominici gregis (8 September 1907, paragraphs “Sic igitur in modernistarum doctrina” [“Thus therefore, in the doctrine of the modernists”] and “Evolvi tamen ac mutari dogma” [“That dogma nevertheless evolves and changes”]), condemns modernism as a heresy that seeks to relativize the dogmas under pretext of evolution.

3. Pertinacity, key element of heresy, implies a conscious rejection, which excludes involuntary errors or subjective interpretations.

4.1.3.2. Some could argue that a formal declaration of the Church is necessary for a heretic to lose his office.

Refutation: Canon 188, 4°, and theologians like Wernz-Vidal and Bellarmine clearly affirm that the loss of office is ipso facto for a public and notorious heretic. No declaration is required, because public heresy is an objective act that breaks communion with the Church.

4.1.3.3. Material heresy could be excused, even in a cleric, by reason of invincible ignorance.

Refutation: For a cleric, especially a bishop or a pope, invincible ignorance is hardly admissible, because they have the obligation to know the Catholic faith. Moreover, public heresy, by its nature, implies an exterior manifestation that renders pertinacity presumed, except proof to the contrary.

4.2. Additional Distinctions

4.2.1. Public vs Occult

The “public” formal heretic manifests his error exteriorly (words, writings, teachings) and is juridically sanctioned, losing his jurisdiction: Canon 2264: “Every act of jurisdiction, both of the external forum and of the internal forum, posed by an excommunicate is illicit; and, if a condemnatory or declaratory sentence has been pronounced, it is even invalid, except what is prescribed in canon 2261, § 3; otherwise, it is valid, and even licit, if it has been requested by the faithful in conformity with the aforementioned canon 2261, § 2.”

The “occult” heretic keeps his error secret without rendering it public; he is not treated as a heretic in the canonical sense, although his secret sin remains grave if it is formal, as Prümmer explains that occult heresy does not entail censures, if it is internal. In any case as formal he merits hell like every mortal sin.

Indeed Prümmer distinguishes: a public sin is always external, but an occult sin can be external or internal.

“Haeresis est interna, si solo actu interno intellectus et voluntatis committitur; externa, si aliquo modo externe manifestatur. Haeresis externa est occulta vel publica.”

Translation: “Heresy is internal when it is committed by the sole interior act of the intellect and the will; it is external when it is manifested exteriorly in some manner. External heresy is occult or public.”

He adds that purely internal heresy does not entail ecclesiastical penalty, while external heresy, even occult, can entail the penalties provided when the other conditions are fulfilled.

Certain reference: Dominique M. Prümmer, Manuale theologiae moralis secundum principia S. Thomae Aquinatis, t. I, 15th edition revised by Joachim Overbeck O.P., Herder, Barcelona–Freiburg im Breisgau–Rome, 1961, nos 514–517, especially n° 515, pp. 364–366.

4.2.2. Positive vs Negative

– Positive heresy: Direct rejection of a dogma (ex.: negation of transubstantiation).

– Negative heresy: Pertinacious doubt on a dogma.

We find the distinction in canon 1325 §2 of the 1917 Code:

“§2. Every person who after having received baptism and while retaining the Christian name, obstinately denies some of the truths of the divine and Catholic faith that must be believed, or doubts them, is a heretic”

4.2.3. Internal Forum vs External Forum

An additional nuance on the internal vs external judgment of heresy — that is to say the distinction between the internal forum and the external forum of the Church — according to the pre-conciliar manuals of dogmatic theology (ex.: Tanquerey, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae, 18th ed., 1921, t. I, n° 933, p. 606 ; Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, 1909, t. I, Thesis XXI, quaestio XI, § 1, pp. 456–458): the internal forum concerns the sin of the soul judged by God or in confession, while the external forum pertains to the visible ecclesiastical judgment to sanction public error, thus limiting the contagion without waiting for a proven internal pertinacity. The Church judges visible acts (external forum) to protect the common good, without pretending to sound internal intentions (internal forum), reserved to God or to confession. The external forum concerns the ecclesiastical judgment aiming to limit the contagion of public error (cfr. William H. W. Fanning, The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Ecclesiastical Forum”, English text reproduced on Wikisource — definition of the external forum and the internal forum).

5. Treatment of the Material Heretic

Contrary to the formal heretic, the material heretic does not incur the same automatic sanctions, because he lacks pertinacity and subjective culpability. The material heretic, in the external forum, is not presumed pertinacious as long as the thing is not established. Here are the details of his status:

5.1. Excommunication: No latae sententiae excommunication: Automatic excommunication (canon 2314, § 1) applies only to the formal heretic, because it requires a voluntary pertinacity. The material heretic, acting by ignorance or sincere error, is not considered as a conscious rebel against the Church (Cardinal Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, 1909, thesis XI).

5.2. Loss of Office “Ipso Facto”? : According to the 1917 Code, the loss of an ecclesiastical office (canon 188, 4°) or the incapacity to receive one (canons 2265, § 1, 2°, and § 2; cf. 2314, § 1) applies to clerics who commit grave delicts, like public and notorious heresy. However, for the material heretic, this sanction does not apply automatically:

– If he occupies an office (priest, bishop, etc.) and professes a material heresy without rendering it public, he conserves his office as long as his error remains occult or not judged by the ecclesiastical authority.

– If his error becomes public (for example, by teaching an erroneous doctrine without knowing that it is heretical), a process or a monition is required to establish his intention. Without proven pertinacity, he does not lose his office ipso facto, but a ferendae sententiae sentence can limit his ministry.

5.3. Setting aside to protect the faithful?

The material heretic is not systematically set aside from the Church so as “not to contaminate the other faithful”, contrary to the public formal heretic, of whom Saint Thomas says: “After the first and second admonition, one must avoid the heretic” (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 11, a. 3, sed contra, citing Titus 3, 10): “Haereticum hominem, post primam et secundam correptionem, devita.” However, if the material heretic propagates his error (for example, by preaching or teaching publicly a false doctrine, even without malice), the Church must intervene to limit his influence:

– A formal admonition must be addressed to him to limit his teaching: canon 2315, suspect of heresy: “Suspectus de haeresi, qui monitus causam suspicionis non removeat, actibus legitimis prohibeatur, et clericus praeterea, repetita inutiliter monitione, suspendatur a divinis ; quod si intra sex menses a contracta poena completos suspectus de haeresi sese non emendaverit, habeatur tanquam haereticus, haereticorum poenis obnoxius.” (“To the suspect of heresy, who after monition does not remove the cause of the suspicion, let the legitimate acts be forbidden; if he is a cleric, let him moreover, after a second useless monition, be suspended ‘a divinis’. If within the six months completed after having contracted the penalty, the suspect of heresy has not amended himself, let him be held as a heretic, subject to the penalties of heretics.”)

– If he persists after having been instructed, his ignorance ceases to be invincible, and he becomes a “formal heretic”, then entailing the full sanctions, as Van Noort explains (Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, 1920) that the public material heretic can be admonished and restricted for the protection of the faithful.

– In practice, a public material heretic cleric can be suspended from his functions (by a “ferendae sententiae” sentence) to avoid confusion among the faithful, even without immediate excommunication, according to Billot (op. cit.): a public material error can be restricted by reason of scandal.

5.4. Correction and Instruction:

The privileged approach toward the material heretic is pastoral charity: he must be instructed and corrected to return to the truth. Some authors hold (against the common opinion n°3 above) that as long as there is no pertinacity, he remains a member of the Church and can receive the sacraments (Prümmer and Noldin limit this to private receptions when no scandal appears), except if his public error causes a manifest scandal necessitating an intervention, as Hurter demonstrates (Compendium Theologiae Dogmaticae, 1907, t. III) that public material error must be restricted so that a scandal not be caused.

5.5. Refutation of Modernist Counter-Arguments:

The post-1963 innovators pretend that the material heretic is “always innocent” and merits no measure, but this is refuted by Saint Pius X in Pascendi dominici gregis (8 September 1907, third part, disciplinary measures, II–III), who condemns the idea that error, even material, can be tolerated when it corrupts the faith; in the present crisis, the errors of Vatican II, if propagated by ignorance, justify the rejection of the offices of the modernists to protect the faithful.

Briefly, we must clearly denounce all heresies, warn the faithful to protect them against material heretics and separate ourselves from pertinacious heretics (formal) and note their ipso facto excommunications. The material heretic, even public, does not incur latae sententiae excommunication nor ipso facto loss of office, because he lacks pertinacity. However, if his public error causes a scandal (disturbance of the faithful), the Church must impose disciplinary measures (ferendae sententiae), like a suspension, to protect the common good (see Mgr Charles Journet, L’Église du Verbe Incarné, vol. I, 1955).

6. Canonical Consequences for the Formal Heretic

– Latae sententiae excommunication (canon 2314, § 1).

– Incapacity to receive or exercise an ecclesiastical office (canons 2263 and 2265; cf. canon 188, 4° for the vacancy), even for a pope, as Bellarmine demonstrates (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30) that a manifestly heretical pope ceases ipso facto to be pope and head of the Church.

– Privation of the sacraments (except in danger of death, canon 2260, § 1; cf. canon 2261, § 3).

– Loss of jurisdiction if the heresy is public and notorious (canons 188, 4°, and 208; cf. canon 2264 on acts of jurisdiction).

– Explicit setting aside to protect the faithful, in conformity with Saint Thomas (Summa theologiae, II-II, q. 11, a. 3, corpus).

– Absence of ecclesiastical procedure: delicate question! Even if the Bull “Cum ex apostolatus officio” (Paul IV) and Saint Robert Bellarmine affirm that the manifest heretic loses the office ipso facto, some classical theologians (like Cajetan or John of Saint Thomas) insist on the necessity of a juridical ascertainment of public heresy to draw canonical consequences from it.

Cajetan, in his De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Concilii (ed. Pollet, 1936, chap. XIX–XX, pp. 124–127), argues that an ecclesiastical declaration is required for the external effects, in order to avoid chaos in the visible Church.

Cajetan writes indeed:

“Papa manifestus haereticus non est ipso facto depositus.”

Translation: “The manifestly heretical pope is not deposed by the fact itself.”

He then expressly rejects the thesis of a deposition accomplished by the sole fact of heresy, without human judgment.

Reference: Thomas de Vio, cardinal Cajetan, De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, in Scripta theologica, vol. I, ed. Vincentius M. Iacobus Pollet, Institutum Angelicum, Rome, 1936, chap. XIX, nos 272–274, p. 124 ; chap. XX, especially n° 277, pp. 125–127.

John of Saint Thomas maintains that a prior juridical ascertainment of the heresy and of the incorrigibility is necessary, then that Christ deposes the pope with the ministry of the Church. He likewise refuses to attribute to the cardinals alone the declaratory judgment.

Consulted reference: Jean de Saint-Thomas, Cursus theologicus, commentary of II-II, q. 1, a. 7, disputatio II, articulus III ; French translation of Fr. Pierre-Marie O.P., Le Sel de la terre, n° 90, autumn 2014, and English translation of Fr. Juan Carlos Ortiz. The coordinates Lyon, 1663, pp. 133–140, are given by the translators.

7. Theological Foundation of this Distinction

– Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 11): Formal heresy is a grave sin against the faith, while material heresy is an error without malice. For the material heretic, the absence of pertinacity distinguishes him from the formal, but his public error can justify an intervention, as Billot teaches that the material heretic is not considered as a rebel against the Church (Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, thesis XI). According to Saint Thomas Aquinas (Summa Theologica, II-II, q. 5, a. 3, corpus; cf. q. 11, a. 2, ad 3), formal heresy (heresy properly speaking) requires pertinacity, absent in material heresy: “si enim non pertinaciter, iam non est haereticus, sed solum errans” (“for, if it is not with pertinacity, he is no longer a heretic, but only in error”)

– Saint Augustine (De fide et symbolo, X, 21): “Sed haeretici de Deo falsa sentiendo ipsam fidem violant; schismatici autem discissionibus iniquis a fraterna caritate dissiliunt, quamvis ea credant quae credimus.” (“But heretics, by professing false opinions about God, violate the faith itself; schismatics, by unjust divisions, separate themselves from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe.”) defining heresy as separation from charity; intention determines culpability.

– Pre-1963 doctrine insists on revealed truth and the unity of the Church: the material heretic is a case of wandering to correct, not of rebellion to punish immediately, but limited if public.

8. Scheme of the various situations of heretics

8.1. Material heretics

8.1.1. As regards the external forum, they are ipso facto outside the Church.

8.1.1.1. Reason: by heresy, they no longer have the faith of the Church.

8.1.1.2. Explanation: to be a member of the Body of the Church, one must profess the faith of the Church.

8.1.1.3. This is the most common opinion among classical authors (Van Noort, Billot, Journet, etc.).

8.1.2. As regards the internal forum, they can nevertheless remain members of the Soul of the Church if they are in the state of grace.

8.1.2.1. Reason: he who sins by invincible ignorance is not guilty of this sin.

8.1.2.2. Explanation: he can be in the state of grace if he has, moreover, no mortal sin on his conscience.

8.1.3. No ipso facto excommunication.

8.1.4. No ipso facto loss of functions and jurisdiction.

8.1.5. They must however be admonished by the Church as quickly as possible.

8.1.6. The ecclesiastical authority can take measures to prevent their nefarious influence on the community.

8.2. Formal heretics

8.2.1. Occult formal heretics

8.2.1.1. Definition

8.2.1.1.1. Their heresy exists only in the internal forum and remains secret, unknown to the Church.

8.2.1.1.2. Example: a member of a heretical secret society.

8.2.1.2. Consequences in the internal forum

8.2.1.2.1. Loss of the state of grace.

8.2.1.2.2. Ipso facto, they are outside the Church before God.

8.2.1.2.3. If they exercise an ecclesiastical charge, they are occult usurpers.

8.2.1.2.4. They know all this in their conscience and sin gravely.

8.2.1.3. Consequences in the external forum

8.2.1.3.1. They are considered as members of the Church.

8.2.1.3.2. No excommunication.

8.2.1.3.3. No loss of functions nor of jurisdiction.

8.2.1.3.4. Jesus Christ, invisible High Priest, supplies the missing jurisdiction so that the Church can continue to function.

8.2.1.3.4.1. Reason: fidelity to His promise of the indefectibility of the Church.

8.2.1.3.4.2. Example: a pope secretly member of a heretical secret society.

8.2.1.4. Case where their secret heresy is discovered only after their death

8.2.1.4.1. They were, from the moment of their formal heresy, ipso facto separated from the unity of the faith and therefore outside the Church before God, although this heresy was discovered only later.

8.2.1.4.2. No excommunication is pronounced after their death, because the Church does not judge the dead juridically: “De mortuis Ecclesia non judicat”.

8.2.1.4.3. This ascertainment pertains to the doctrinal and historical forum, not to the judicial forum: one judges their works and their doctrine and one recognizes that they were no longer, before God, members of the Church.

8.2.1.4.4. If the proof of heresy is not certain but only probable, they are considered as suspects of heresy and not as formal heretics.

8.2.1.4.5. By reason of the indefectibility of the Church, all their actions and decisions remain valid.

8.2.1.4.5.1. Indeed, like every ecclesiastical sanction, the bull of Paul IV applies only to public formal heresies.

8.2.1.4.5.2. It never applies to occult heresies, since it is impossible to sanction an unknown crime.

8.2.2. Public formal heretics

8.2.2.1. Definition

8.2.2.1.1. They have publicly expressed a heresy and persist with obstinacy.

8.2.2.2. Persons concerned

8.2.2.2.1. Laity.

8.2.2.2.1.1. After an admonition, they are held as formal heretics.

8.2.2.2.2. Clerics.

8.2.2.2.2.1. They are presumed to know the faith and are therefore considered as formal heretics according to the common opinion.

8.2.2.2.2.2. Exception: if they prove that they were in ignorance, they are then considered as material heretics.

8.2.2.3. Consequences

8.2.2.3.1. Ipso facto outside the Church.

8.2.2.3.2. Ipso facto excommunication.

8.2.2.3.3. Ipso facto loss of functions and jurisdiction.

8.2.2.3.3.1. For clerics who are formal heretics.

8.2.2.3.3.2. For clerics who have demonstrated that they were at first only material heretics, after two admonitions they lose their functions and their jurisdiction, since they then become formal heretics.

9. Degree of Errors or Opposition to the Faith: Theological Notes or Censures

The theological notes of errors (also called negative theological censures) are the judgments pronounced by the Church or theologians on erroneous doctrinal propositions, to indicate their degree of opposition to the faith or to Catholic theology. There exists a traditional and precise classification of these censures, especially codified by scholastic theologians like Saint Robert Bellarmine, Melchior Cano, Domingo Bañez, John of Saint Thomas, Billuart, and synthesized in the 19th century by Adolphe Tanquerey in his Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae.

These notes protect the unity of the faith against deviations, as Franzelin explains in De divina Traditione et Scriptura (2nd ed., 1875, thesis XII, scholion II, pp. 157–163) that the theological notes are qualificatives that indicate of what type is the error of a proposition, and to what extent it diverges from the doctrine of the Church. In the present sedevacantist perspective, these notes confirm that the errors of Vatican II, such as religious liberty or ecumenism, are haereticae, entailing ipso facto the loss of every ecclesiastical office, rendering vacant the See of Peter, because every opposition to defined doctrine is a rupture with Revelation.

Number of theological notes of errors: There exist 12 to 16 notes (according to the fineness of the distinction), classified from the most grave to the least grave. Here is the classical list, following the descending order of gravity:

9.1. Heresiarch / Formal heretic:

Preliminary remark: this n° 1 designates a person and not a proposition. It is therefore not a note in the strict sense but a person in the highest degree of error.

Definition: He who denies a truth of faith defined as revealed by God and proposed as such by the Church, and who propagates it.

Latin formula: Propositio haeretica a Persona haeretica formali.

Gravity: The most grave. This diffusion of the supernaturally mortal error renders him so bad and dangerous in the highest degree. The proposition and this person are formally heretical. Separation from the Church.

Doctrinal and canonical implications: Implies pertinacity (obstinacy) and full consciousness, leading to latae sententiae excommunication (canon 2314 § 1 of the 1917 Code) and ipso facto loss of office (canon 188, 4°).

Pastoral judgment: Necessitates an urgent doctrinal correction. If persistence after warning: formal heresy, loss of the faith, separation from the Church.

Classical theological references: Vatican I, Dei Filius, chap. III, DS 3011 = D 1792; chap. IV, DS 3020 = D 1800 ; Franzelin, De divina Traditione et Scriptura, 2nd ed., 1875, thesis XII, scholion II, p. 158 ; Saint Thomas, IIa IIae, q. 11, a. 1-4.

9.2. Propositio haeretica — Heretical proposition

Definition: Proposition denying a defined truth of faith (dogma) — de fide definita. Latin formula: Propositio haeretica.

Gravity: Supreme. The obstinate refusal (after warning) constitutes a mortal sin against the faith and falls under latae sententiae excommunication (cf. CIC 1917, can. 2314 § 1).

Doctrinal and canonical implications: Formally denies an article of faith defined by an ecumenical council or by the Sovereign Pontiff.

Pastoral judgment: Necessitates an urgent doctrinal correction. If persistence after warning: formal heresy, loss of the faith, separation from the Church.

Classical theological references: Vatican I, Dei Filius, chap. III, DS 3011 = D 1792; chap. IV, DS 3020 = D 1800 ; Franzelin, De divina Traditione et Scriptura, 2nd ed., 1875, thesis XII, scholion II, p. 158 ; Saint Thomas, IIa IIae, q. 11, a. 1-4.

9.3. Propositio haeresi proxima — Proposition next to heresy

Definition: proposition that opposes a doctrine that the almost unanimous consent of theologians holds as revealed and that, according to their judgment, is close to an ecclesiastical definition, but that has not yet been proposed as revealed truth by a solemn judgment nor by the ordinary and universal magisterium.

Latin formula: Propositio haeresi proxima.

Gravity: very grave; it approaches heresy without being formally heretical, because the contradicted doctrine has not yet been proposed infallibly by the Church as revealed.

Doctrinal implications: if the contradicted truth has already been proposed by the Church as revealed, either by a solemn judgment, or by the ordinary and universal magisterium, the proposition is no longer only next to heresy: it is heretical.

References: First Vatican Council, dogmatic constitution Dei Filius, chap. III, 24 April 1870, DS 3011 = D 1792 ; Jean-Baptiste Franzelin, Tractatus de divina Traditione et Scriptura, 2nd edition, Rome, Typographia Polyglotta S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1875, thesis XII, scholion II, pp. 160–161 ; Adolphe Tanquerey, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae, 18th edition, Rome–Tournai–Paris, Desclée et Socii, 1921, t. II, n° 205, 2°, pp. 115–116.

9.4. Propositio errori haeretico proxima — Close to heretical error:

Definition: Similar to a heresy by its formulation or its consequences, without contradicting it directly.

Latin formula: Propositio errori haeretico proxima.

Gravity: Very serious.

Doctrinal and canonical implications: Proposition that, if it is developed or maintained, leads logically to heresy.

Pastoral judgment: To condemn, especially in seminaries and teaching. Classical theological references: Billuart, De Fide, diss. IV, art. IV ; Gousset, Théologie morale, I, ch. IV.

9.5. Propositio erronea — Erroneous: Definition: Contradicts a doctrine held as theologically certain, even if it is not revealed. Latin formula: Propositio erronea. Gravity: Serious, but less than the preceding. Doctrinal and canonical implications: Goes against a certain conclusion, drawn logically from a dogma. Pastoral judgment: Can be tolerated in debate, but not in magisterial or catechetical teaching. Classical theological references: Franzelin, De divina Traditione et Scriptura, 2nd ed., 1875, thesis XII, scholion II, pp. 160–161.

9.6. Propositio temeraria — Temerarious: Definition: Contradicts an opinion unanimously held by theologians or the ordinary teaching of the Church, without sufficient motive. Latin formula: Propositio temeraria. Gravity: Less than formal error, but very imprudent. Doctrinal and canonical implications: Undermines doctrinal unity; sign of intellectual pride. Pastoral judgment: Attitude to correct in priests and teachers. Seed of future errors. Classical theological references: Franzelin, Tractatus de divina Traditione et Scriptura, 2nd ed., 1875, thesis XII, scholion II, pp. 161–162; Melchior Cano, De locis theologicis, lib. XII ; Jean de Saint-Thomas, Cursus theologicus, t. I.

9.7. Propositio sapit haeresim — Smells of heresy: Definition: Formula or proposition that has the odor of a heresy, without being directly heretical. Latin formula: Propositio sapit haeresim. Gravity: Medium to grave according to the context. Doctrinal and canonical implications: Can trouble the faith of simple faithful. Often employed against Jansenist or Lutheran propositions. Pastoral judgment: To correct, especially in catechesis. Classical theological references: Unigenitus (1713), numerous propositions are sapit haeresim ; DS 2502 = D 1451, final censure after proposition 101; Franzelin, Tractatus de divina Traditione et Scriptura, 2nd ed., 1875, thesis XII, scholion II, p. 162

9.8. Propositio suspecta de haeresi — Suspect of heresy: Definition: Proposition that makes one suspect that it contains a heresy, without one being able yet to demonstrate it with certainty. Latin formula: Propositio suspecta de haeresi. Gravity: Moderate. Doctrinal and canonical implications: Can serve to circumvent the faith, weakens orthodoxy. Pastoral judgment: Watch, interrogate the author, demand clarification. Classical theological references: Franzelin, De divina Traditione et Scriptura, 2nd ed., 1875, thesis XII, scholion II, p. 162 ; Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, 28 August 1794, propositions 22 and 28, DS 2622 and 2628 = D 1522 and 1528.

9.9. Propositio male sonans / Piarum aurium offensiva — Ill-sounding / Offensive to pious ears: Definition: Proposition expressed in shocking, inappropriate, disrespectful terms, even if the substance can be orthodox. Latin formula: Male sonans, offensiva piarum aurium. Gravity: Weak, but not negligible. Doctrinal and canonical implications: Can shock, scandalize the faithful, even if the intention is orthodox. Pastoral judgment: To reformulate, especially in sermons, catechisms and publications. Classical theological references: Unigenitus Dei Filius (8 September 1713, final censure after proposition 101, DS 2502 = D 1451) ; Franzelin, De divina Traditione et Scriptura, 2nd ed., 1875, thesis XII, scholion II, pp. 162–163, citing p. 163 Heinrich Kilber, De fide, n° 228.

9.10. Propositio scandalosa — Scandalous: Definition: Proposition that leads other persons to error, to doubt, or to sin, even if it is exact in itself. Latin formula: Propositio scandalosa. Gravity: Variable, but potentially grave according to circumstances. Doctrinal and canonical implications: Scandal is a sin against charity and prudence (cf. S. Thomas, IIa IIae, q. 43). A proposition can be objectively scandalous even if the intention is not bad. Pastoral judgment: To proscribe in publications and preaching; must be denounced in seminaries. Classical theological references: Unigenitus Dei Filius (8 September 1713, final censure after proposition 101, DS 2502 = D 1451), number of propositions condemned as scandalosae ; S. Thomas, Summa Theol., II-II, q. 43, a. 1–7, notably a. 1, corpus and ad 2–4, and a. 2–3.

9.11. Propositio schismatica — Schismatic: Definition: Proposition that contradicts the submission due to the Sovereign Pontiff or to the legitimate Catholic hierarchy. Latin formula: Propositio schismatica. Gravity: Very grave, offense against the unity of the Church. Doctrinal and canonical implications: Schism is a voluntary rupture of submission to the supreme ecclesiastical authority. It can exist without formal heresy, but often leads to it. Pastoral judgment: To condemn absolutely. Implies the canonical penalty of latae sententiae excommunication (CIC 1917, can. 2314). Classical theological references: Gratian, Decretum, C. 24, q. 1, c. 34, and q. 3, c. 26 ; S. Thomas, II-II, q. 39, a. 1, corpus and ad 3; a. 3–4 ; Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, proposition 6, DS 2606 = D 1506.

9.12. Propositio impia / blasphema — Impious / Blasphemous: Definition: Propositions injurious toward God, His holiness, His saints, His mysteries or His word. Latin formula: Propositio impia, blasphema. Gravity: Very grave. Doctrinal and canonical implications: Direct offense to the divine Majesty or to what is holy. Often used against blasphemies. Pastoral judgment: To condemn without appeal. Can necessitate severe canonical penalties. Classical theological references: Catechism of the Council of Trent, III, on the 2nd Commandment ; S. Thomas, II-II, q. 13, a. 1, corpus and ad 2; a. 2, corpus.

9.13. Propositio idolatrica / superstitiosa / magica — Superstitious / Magical / Idolatrous: Definition: Propositions that attribute to creatures or non-revealed practices a supernatural spiritual power. Latin formula: Propositio superstitiosa, idolatrica, magica. Gravity: Very grave (direct violation of the 1st commandment). Doctrinal and canonical implications: Contradicts the supernatural faith in God alone. Proposes a deviant religion. Pastoral judgment: To extirpate. Can necessitate exorcism or canonical interdict. Classical theological references: Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the 1st Commandment ; S. Thomas, II-II, q. 92–96, notably q. 92, a. 1–2; q. 94, a. 1; q. 95, a. 1–2; q. 96, a. 2.

9.14. Propositio turpis / obscena — Shameful / Obscene: Definition: Immoral or immodest propositions, in particular on sexuality, the sacraments or morals. Latin formula: Propositio turpis, obscena. Gravity: Morally grave, especially if enunciated publicly. Doctrinal and canonical implications: The Church condemns all that offends purity. Pastoral judgment: To censure formally. Can corrupt youth and scandalize. Classical theological references: Leo XIII, Officiorum ac munerum, 25 January 1897, Decreta generalia, title I, chap. IV, nos 9–10 ; S. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, lib. IV.

9.15. Propositio subversiva hierarchiae ecclesiasticae — Subversive of the ecclesiastical hierarchy: Definition: Propositions that deny or relativize the divine hierarchy of the Church, that is to say the distinction between the pope, the bishops, the priests and the faithful. Latin formula: Propositio subversiva hierarchiae ecclesiasticae. Gravity: Very grave. Doctrinal and canonical implications: Denies the divine institution of the power of jurisdiction and of magisterium. It is the typical error of conciliarism or of democratic modernism. Pastoral judgment: To repress. Leads to Protestantism, to Jansenism, or to modernism. Classical theological references: Vatican I, Pastor aeternus, chap. I and III (DS 3050 sqq.) ; Syllabus Errorum (1864), errors 37-40; Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, propositions 7–8, DS 2607–2608 = D 1507–1508; The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. III, New York, Robert Appleton Company, 1908, third group.

Joseph Sollier mentions it expressly among the theological censures under the form subversiva hierarchiae. Translation: “subversive of the hierarchy”.

Reference: Joseph Sollier, “Theological Censures”, The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. III, Robert Appleton Company, New York, 1908, third group of censures.

9.16. Propositio seditionem parens — Bearing sedition: Definition: Propositions that incite to revolt against legitimate authority, ecclesiastical or civil, under pretext of religion. Latin formula: Propositio seditionem parens. Gravity: Variable, but often grave. Doctrinal and canonical implications: It is the doctrinal instrument of insubordination. Condemned by Saint Thomas as a grave sin against social and ecclesial peace. Pastoral judgment: Must be corrected and prevented in the faithful inclined to systematic criticism or to doctrinal independency. Classical theological references: Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (1 November 1885, nos 5, 18 and 31), on the relations between Church and State ; S. Thomas, II-II, q. 42, a. 1, ad 2; a. 2, corpus and ad 3 (on sedition). NB: It is more a moral and political qualification than a classical theological note.

Classical references:

– Adolphe Tanquerey, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae, 18th ed., 1921, t. II, nos 203–207, pp. 114–116.

– Billuart, De Virtutibus Theologicis, Dissert. V, art. 3.

– Jean de Saint-Thomas, Cursus Theologicus, t. I.

– Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum, texts of Clement XI, Unigenitus Dei Filius, final censure, DS 2502 = D 1451, and of Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, notably DS 2606–2608, 2622 and 2628; for the classification: Joseph Sollier, “Theological Censures”, 1908.

– Melchior Cano, De locis theologicis, book XII, cited by John Cahill O.P., The Development of the Theological Censures after the Council of Trent (1563–1709), Fribourg, The University Press, 1955, pp. 15–16.

NB: These exhaustive notes prove that Vatican II is heretical, confirming the Sede vacante. Final refutation: The post-1963 affirm that the notes are “historical” or “not applicable”, but this is refuted by Pius X (Pascendi: non-literal summary: Modernist ambiguity is heretical), because they protect the immutable faith ; Franzelin, o.c., writes that the theological notes must be respected for the protection of the faith.

10. Semi-Heresy and the Semi-Heretic

The study of semi-heresy constitutes an essential element of theological reflection within the Catholic Church. This term designates positions that are not fully heretical, but that weaken orthodoxy by ambiguities, compromises or attitudes favorable toward heretics, without explicitly embracing heresy.

According to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church and of the councils, and in accord with the present sedevacantist vision, it is appropriate to understand that semi-heresy occupies a dangerous gray zone between the pure doctrine of the faith and its complete rejection. This vision, rooted in immutable Tradition, refutes the counter-arguments that minimize semi-heresy as mere subjective interpretations, by pointing to the objective condemnations in the history of the Church. Such counter-arguments, often motivated by a desire of compromise with modern errors, are invalidated by the clear anathemas of the councils and pontifical documents, which punish every form of complicity with heresy.

Another excess consists in considering semi-heretics as heretics. This will blur the understanding of the present situation of the Church because heretics (formal) are not members of the Church but semi-heretics still are.

Definition of Semi-Heresy according to the Teaching of the Church

Semi-heresy, as understood in theological tradition, designates a theological position that is not completely heretical, but that departs from orthodoxy by favoring ideas linked to a heresy or by encouraging them. The prefix “semi-” implies an intermediate or ambiguous attitude, often oriented toward compromise, ambiguity in formulations or a partial influence of heretics without adopting all the implications. This differs from complete heresy, which consists in an explicit denial of a defined dogma, but is also condemnable because this undermines the purity of the faith: and it can be “temeraria”, “male sonans”, “suspecta de haeresi”, even “proxima haeresi”.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) and the sources before 1963, such as the writings of the Fathers of the Church, describe currents called ‘semi-Arians’, ‘semi-Pelagians’ etc. These “semi-heresies” include elements like: an attempt at reconciliation between orthodoxy and heresy; a doctrinal ambiguity allowing heretical interpretations; or the facilitation of heresy by weakening orthodoxy. The Church has condemned historical currents qualified by authors as semi-Arians, semi-Pelagians, etc. on several occasions, because this threatened the unity of the faith, as fixed in the councils and pontifical bulls. The counter-arguments affirming that semi-heresy is only a polemical label are refuted by the objective criteria of the Church: if a position opens the door to heresy, it falls under anathema, independently of intentions, as this appears in the Formulary of Pope Hormisdas (519), which pronounces anathema on heretics and their partners of communion.

Historical Examples of Semi-Heresy

The history of the Church offers numerous examples of semi-heresy, which illustrate how such positions have been condemned to preserve the integrity of doctrine.

10.1. Semi-Arianism (4th century): This group, also known under the name of homoiousians, affirmed that the Son of God was “of similar nature” (homoiousios) to the Father, but avoided the consubstantiality (homoousios) as defined at the Council of Nicaea (325). They sought a middle way between Arianism, which denied the divinity of the Son, and orthodoxy. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), their position was a compromise that weakened orthodoxy and was interpretable as favoring Arianism. Many of them, like the Macedonians, were condemned in councils (Constantinople I, 381, canon 1, English translation), although some returned to orthodoxy under the pressure of figures like Athanasius. The counter-arguments that present the semi-Arians as mere misunderstandings are invalidated by their condemnation at Nicaea and in later synods, which qualified every deviation from the homoousios as heretical.

10.2. Semi-Pelagianism (5th century): Appeared among monks in southern Gaul around 428, it attempted a compromise between Pelagianism, which denied the necessity of grace, and the teaching of Augustine on its absolute necessity. The semi-Pelagians recognized grace for salvation, but affirmed that man could take the initiative by his free will, without prevenient grace. The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) describes it as a doctrine that did not deny the necessity of grace, but exaggerated the role of the human will, thus favoring Pelagianism. It was condemned at the Council of Orange (529, canons 3–8, particularly canon 5; Denzinger, D 176–181; cf. Boniface II, Per filium nostrum, 25 January 531, D 200a–b), which confirmed the teaching of Augustine. The counter-arguments, such as those affirming that the semi-Pelagians had orthodox intentions, fail because their position minimized universal original sin, which contradicts Tradition.

10.3. Semi-Nestorianism and the Three Chapters (5th-6th centuries): In the controversy on the Three Chapters (writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa; Constantinople II, 553, sentence against the Three Chapters, anathemas 12–14, English translation), these authors were condemned by the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II, 553), although they were not fully Nestorians. Their formulations, influenced by the School of Antioch, separated too strongly the natures of Christ, favoring Nestorianism. They were considered post-mortem as semi-heretics, because their ideas offered a fertile ground to heresy.

10.4. Pope Honorius I (7th century): The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III, 680-681) condemned Honorius post-mortem as heretic, because he favored the Monothelite heresy by negligence: he “did not extinguish from its beginning, as it suited the apostolic authority, the flame of the heretical teaching, but maintained it by his negligence” (Leo II, Cum diversa sint, Epistola IV to the bishops of Spain, PL 96, col. 414 B ; translation from the Latin), without professing it formally. Pope Leo II confirmed this, noting that Honorius had allowed the immaculate faith to be soiled (Leo II, Cum unus, Epistola VII to Ervig, PL 96, col. 419 D). The sources before 1963, such as the Enchiridion of Denzinger (editions before 1963), and the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), recognize this as a case of semi-heresy, because it was not a formal ex cathedra declaration, but a weakening of orthodoxy. The counter-arguments issuing from later interpretations, affirming that Honorius was not a true heretic, are refuted by the conciliar anathemas and the confirmation of Leo II, which show that negligence toward heresy equals favoring it.

These examples show that the Church has always condemned semi-heresy to maintain purity, in accord with the Formulary of Pope Hormisdas (519), which pronounces anathema on heretics and their partners of communion, echoing 2 John 1:10-11.

10.5. The Infallible Formulary of Pope Hormisdas as a Crucial Guide

A particularly important point in the study of semi-heresy is the Formulary of Pope Hormisdas of 519, also known under the name of Libellus Hormisdae, which contains an infallible doctrine and serves as a guide for behavior toward heretics and semi-heretics. This document, drafted by Pope Hormisdas (514-523) to put an end to the Acacian schism, was a confession of faith that the Eastern bishops had to sign to restore unity with Rome. The schism, provoked by the Henotikon of Emperor Zeno in 482 and supported by Patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, had separated the Greek and Roman Churches by a compromise with Monophysite tendencies, which undermined the Council of Chalcedon (451). After the death of Emperor Anastasius in 518 and the advent of the orthodox Emperor Justin I, the Formulary was signed on 28 March 519 at Constantinople (Johann Peter Kirsch, “Pope St. Hormisdas”, The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. VII, 1910), restoring unity.

The text of the Formulary underlines the necessity of preserving the rule of the true faith and of not departing from the prescriptions of the Fathers. A key passage, cited by Johann Peter Kirsch (“Pope St. Hormisdas”, The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. VII, New York, Robert Appleton Company, 1910), says: “Prima salus est, regulam rectae fidei custodire et a constitutis Patrum nullatenus deviare. Et quia non potest Domini Nostri Jesu Christi praetermitti sententia dicentis: Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam. Haec quae dicta sunt rerum probantur effectibus, quia in sede apostolica immaculata est semper Catholica conservata religio.” (“The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the right faith and to depart in nothing from what has been established by the Fathers. And because the sentence of Our Lord Jesus Christ cannot be ignored: “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church” [Matthew 16:18]. These words are proved by the facts, because in the Apostolic See, the Catholic religion has always been conserved immaculate.”) Then follows the anathematization of heretics such as Nestorius, Eutyches and others, including Acacius (Denzinger, DS 364 = D 171): “itemque condemnamus et anathematizamus Acacium Constantinopolitanum quondam episcopum ab Apostolica Sede damnatum, eorum complicem atque sequacem, vel qui in eorum communionis societate permanserint: quia quorum se communioni miscuit, ipsorum similem meruit in damnatione sententiam.” (“Likewise, we condemn and anathematize Acacius, formerly bishop of Constantinople, condemned by the Apostolic See, their accomplice and their follower, as well as those who remained in the society of their communion: because he has merited a sentence of condemnation similar to that of those to whose communion he had mixed himself.”)

Therefore Patriarch Mgr Acacius was not heretic, but only was he anathematized for his communion, his friendly relations, his agreements with a deviant doctrinal policy (Henotikon), therefore heretical, cause of schism.

10.5.1. This Formulary is of great authority… according to the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. It responds to the criterion of Saint Vincent of Lérins (Commonitorium, chap. II, ed. R. S. Moxon, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1915, p. 10): “quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est” (what has been believed everywhere, always and by all). Mgr Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, in his Defensio Declarationis Cleri Gallicani (part III, book X, chapter VII ; ed. F. Lachat, t. XXII, 1879, p. 272–274, especially p. 273), declares that this Formulary was used in the following centuries with the same introduction and conclusion, adapted to the new heresies and heretics, and that the bishops addressed it to the popes like Hormisdas, Agapitus, Nicholas I and Adrian II at the Eighth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople IV, 869-870). Bossuet underlines that what has been spread everywhere, propagated in all centuries and consecrated by an ecumenical council cannot be rejected by any Christian.

This confirms its certainty as guide: it forbids every contact with heretics that is not oriented toward their conversion, echoing 2 John 1:10-11: “If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house and do not say greeting to him; for he who says greeting to him participates in his evil works.”

In the context of semi-heresy, this Formulary serves as a guide for behavior: he who maintains communion with heretics, without requiring their conversion, shares their lot (the anathema), even if he is not formally heretic. This applies to semi-heretics, who favor heresy by ambiguity or compromise.

The counter-arguments affirming that the Formulary is purely historical and not binding for contemporary situations are refuted by its repeated use in the councils and its universal application, as Bossuet teaches; it is not a subjective interpretation, but an objective doctrine that punishes every complicity with heresy. Briefly, the Formulary, pontifical profession of faith, received and reused (Vatican I, Pastor aeternus, chap. IV), enjoys a very high authority; several theologians maintain its infallible character by its insertion in the constant teaching.

10.5.2. Application to Contemporary Situations

From the sedevacantist point of view semi-heresy is evident in the contemporary groupings that seek compromises with what is considered as apostate Rome. The teaching before 1963, including Cum ex apostolatus officio (Pope Paul IV, 1559), affirms that a heretic automatically loses his office, without formal declaration. Sedevacantism argues that the post-1963 “popes” have undergone this fate by public heresies, as in the documents of Vatican II, and that every recognition of them implies a semi-heresy.

10.5.3. The example of the SSPX

A prominent current example is the Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX), under the direction of Mgr Fellay, who seeks agreements with what sedevacantists consider as heretical Rome. There are four agreements: Fellay as judge at Rome (Bernard Fellay, sermon of Arcadia, 10 May 2015, cited in La Stampa, Vatican Insider, 3 June 2015) ; jurisdiction for confession (Francis, Misericordia et misera, 20 November 2016, n° 12), marriages (Commission Ecclesia Dei, letter signed G. L. Müller and G. Pozzo, 27 March 2017, published 4 April, French text, paragraphs 2–4) and for ordinations (Alfonso de Galarreta, sermon at Saint-Nicolas-du-Chardonnet, 2 July 2016, transcription published by La Porte Latine, 7 July 2016). These are communion with heretics, falling under the anathema of the Formulary of Hormisdas, because they do not require conversion.

The counter-arguments, such as those affirming that these agreements are purely practical and without doctrinal compromise, are refuted by Scripture (2 Jn 1:10-11) and the interpretation of Bossuet of the Formulary, which condemns every contact without aim of conversion. Sedevacantism refutes this by pointing to the infallible promise that the gates of hell will not prevail (Mt 16:18), implying that a heretical “Rome” is not the true Church. It is still necessary to distinguish between material communion and formal by the different members of the SSPX.

Moreover, figures like John XXIII (1958) are seen as semi-heretics by suspicions under Pius XII, without formal condemnation, and his choice of name echoing an antipope. The retrospective view reveals clearly an ambiguity favoring modernism.

10.6. Refutation of Counter-Arguments

The counter-arguments often affirm that semi-heresy is subjective or that intentions excuse it. This is invalidated by the objective criteria of the councils: intentions do not matter if the position favors heresy. Political contexts, as with Justinian, change nothing in the theological condemnation. Indeed the absence of bad intention does not excuse the objectivity of the error nor its danger; but pertinacity remains the dividing line of formal heresy.

Sedevacantism refutes the “recognize and resist” positions (like the SSPX) as inconsistent, because they recognize a heretic as pope, contradicting the teaching before 1963 that heretics have no jurisdiction. The Formulary of Hormisdas reinforces this: communion with heretics leads to the same lot, without exception for “good intentions”.

10.7. Brief

Semi-heresy is classically the position of a baptized person who does not profess a “propositio haeretica” with pertinacity, and who is not formally heretic; according to the cases, he can fall under “temeraria”, “suspecta”, etc. As a weakening of orthodoxy, semi-heresy is a persistent danger, condemned by the Church many times. From the sedevacantist point of view, it is appropriate to avoid every compromise with contemporary errors, under pain of anathema. The infallible Formulary of Pope Hormisdas offers a clear guide in this matter. Tradition requires a vigilance to preserve the pure doctrine. As long as a baptized person does not profess a “propositio haeretica” with pertinacity, he is not formally heretic; according to the cases, it can fall under “temeraria”, “suspecta”, etc. ‘Semi-heresy’ is a term of historico-polemical usage; if you want the technical censures remain those of the manuals (propositio haeretica, proxima haeresi, temeraria, suspecta, male sonans, etc.).

11. The Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio

11.1. Its Text

Promulgated on 15 February 1559 by Paul IV, in a context of Protestant threat, the bull aims to prevent the infiltration of heretics into ecclesiastical offices. The key passage (§ 3, extract) stipulates: “sancimus, statuimus, decernimus, et definimus, quod […] omnes, et singuli Episcopi, Archiepiscopi, Patriarchae, Primates, Cardinales […] qui hactenus […] deviasse, aut in haeresim incidisse […] deprehensi, aut confessi, vel convicti fuerint, et in posterum deviabunt, aut in haeresim incident […] sint etiam eo ipso, absque aliquo iuris, aut facti ministerio, suis […] officiis Ecclesiasticis […] penitus, et in totum, perpetuo privati” Translation of § 3: “We sanction, statute, decree and define that […] all and each of the bishops, archbishops, patriarchs, primates, cardinals […] who until now […] will have been discovered, will have confessed or will have been convicted of having deviated [from the faith] or of having fallen into heresy […] and who, in the future, will deviate or will fall into heresy […] be also, by the fact itself, without any intervention of law or of fact, entirely, totally and perpetually deprived of their […] ecclesiastical offices […]”. French summary of § 6: We add and declare that if ever it happened that a bishop, even acting as archbishop, patriarch, primate or cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, or legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, before his promotion or his elevation to the cardinalate or to the pontificate, had deviated from the Catholic faith or had fallen into heresy, his promotion or his elevation, even if it has been made with the unanimous agreement and the consent of all the cardinals, is null and void, and no right can be acquired by him who has been thus promoted or elevated, even if he has obtained peacefully the possession of this dignity or this office.

In § 6, the bull specifies: “sintque ipsi sic promoti, et assumpti, eo ipso absque aliqua desuper facienda declaratione, omni dignitate, loco, honore, titulo, auctoritate, officio, et potestate privati” Fluid translation: “and that those who have been thus promoted and elevated be, by the fact itself, without any declaration having to be made on this subject, deprived of every dignity, place, honor, title, authority, office and power”

The bull seems to include every public heresy without explicit distinction between formal and material, which necessitates a clarification to harmonize with traditional doctrine.

11.2. Reconciliation with Traditional Doctrine

Catholic doctrine clearly distinguishes formal heresy from material heresy, and the bull inserts itself in this theological framework. The following points reconcile the bull with the doctrine:

11.2.1. Presumption of Pertinacity: A public heresy is presumed pertinacious, especially in a cleric, bound to know the faith.

11.2.1.1. All: Saint Thomas extends this to all (Summa Theologica, I-II, q. 76, a. 2, corpus; translation from the Latin): “everyone is bound to know in general the truths of the faith and the universal precepts of the law, and each one in particular is bound to know what regards his state or his function.”

11.2.1.2. Clerics: Wernz–Vidal, Ius Canonicum, t. VII: “Clerici, qui in sacris disciplinis sunt instituti et fidei doctores esse debent, ignorantia fidei excusari non possunt.” (“Clerics, formed in the sacred disciplines and called to be doctors of the faith, cannot be excused by ignorance in matter of faith.”)

– Rule

It is a rule that is vaster than for the matter of heresy, it holds for every dolus or fraud, therefore it behaves as a principle of law: Code of Canon Law of 1917, canon 2200 § 2, establishes a general principle “Posita externa legis violatione, dolus in foro externo praesumitur, donec contrarium probetur.” (“The exterior violation of the law being posed, dolus is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved.”) Perversion — of faith — heresy: violation — of law — dolus. Heresy is like a dolus of violation of the law of the faith. The law or the rule of faith is that one must believe all that is revealed.

– Holy Scripture

This is in accord with Catholic doctrine, which stipulates that clerics, as pastors of the faithful, are held to a higher standard of knowledge and of responsibility. Cf. Ezekiel 33:6 (Vulgate): “Quod si speculator viderit gladium venientem, et non insonuerit buccina […] sanguinem autem ejus de manu speculatoris requiram” — (“But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not sound the trumpet[…] I will require his blood from the hand of the watchman.”)

– The theologians

Here are the classical authors of traditional Catholic theology (before 1963) who teach that clerics, as public doctors of the faith (bishops, priests, and especially a pontiff), are held to a grave and certain knowledge of the truths that they must teach and defend. In them, invincible ignorance in matter of dogma is morally excluded in the cases of public profession of error. That is why the Church legitimately presumes pertinacity and treats exteriorly such a heresy as formal, entailing ipso facto the loss of jurisdiction. However, the theoretical possibility of a purely material heresy cannot be absolutely denied in principle.

Saint Robert Bellarmine (Doctor of the Church, †1621), in De Romano Pontifice (book II, chapter xxx), teaches that the manifest and public heresy of a cleric, especially of a pontiff, entails ipso facto the loss of jurisdiction, and that pertinacity is presumed more easily in a public doctor, without need of prior admonitions to establish the exterior fact. He rejects the idea that ignorance can excuse such an office in notorious public cases, because the charge of doctor renders the knowledge presumed certain; he cites historical examples (like Nestorius) where the public heresy of a cleric has been held as formal without excusable ignorance.

Francisco Suárez (†1617), in the Disputationes de Fide and in the Defensio Fidei Catholicae, affirms that clerics, by their office of public doctors, have a grave obligation to know perfectly the faith that they teach. In the cases of public profession of error, pertinacity is presumed, and the error is treated as formal in the external forum. Suárez insists on the fact that ignorance in such a cleric would be affected or due to negligence.

Indeed Suárez teaches well that the obligation to know the doctrine is more extended in ecclesiastics and particularly in bishops. Yet he does not absolutely exclude interior ignorance. He admits that it can really exist in the internal forum, even concerning an article of faith, while in the external forum heresy and pertinacity are presumed, except very powerful contrary indices.

References: Francisco Suárez, Opera omnia, ed. Charles Berton, t. XII, Paris, Louis Vivès, 1858 : De fide, disp. XIII, sect. VI, nos 5–7, pp. 380–381 : obligation of science proportioned to the function ; De fide, disp. XIX, sect. III, n° 19, p. 476 : presumption in the external forum and possibility of a real ignorance in the internal forum.

Cardinal Louis Billot (†1931), in the Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (Tomus I, thesis XI, edition of 1909), explains that the heresy that cuts from the visible body of the Church is the exterior and notorious heresy. For clerics, especially doctors, invincible ignorance on the dogmas that they must teach is morally excluded in public cases; it would be affected, crass or due to negligence. Billot specifies that the Church judges according to the external signs and presumes formal culpability without having to sound the internal forum.

These authors, among the most authorized of the post-Tridentine tradition, therefore agree on a very strong moral presumption: the charge of public doctor practically excludes invincible ignorance in matter of public faith, and the profession of error is treated as formal in the external forum, with full knowledge presumed. Other classical theologians (like Sylvius, Ballerini, Wernz-Vidal) follow the same line, but the three cited are the most explicit and the most often invoked.

– Refutable

This presumption is however refutable: if the individual proves an invincible ignorance, his error is material, and the ipso facto sanctions do not apply.

Canon 2199: “The imputability of the delict depends on the dolus of the delinquent or on his culpability in the ignorance of the violated law or in the omission of the necessary diligence: consequently, all the causes that increase, diminish, suppress the dolus or the culpability, increase, diminish, suppress by the fact the imputability of the delict.”

This canon establishes that for a penal sanction to apply, there must be a voluntary fault, which excludes invincible ignorance.

Canon 2202: § 1. Violatio legis ignoratae nullatenus imputatur, si ignorantia fuerit inculpabilis ; secus imputabilitas minuitur plus minusve pro ignorantiae ipsius culpabilitate. (§ 1. The violation of an ignored law is in no way imputable if the ignorance is not culpable; in the contrary case, the imputability is more or less attenuated according to the degree of culpability of the ignorance.)

§ 2. Ignorantia solius poenae imputabilitatem delicti non tollit, sed aliquantum minuit. (§ 2. Ignorance of the penalty alone does not suppress the imputability of the delict, but diminishes it in some measure.)

§ 3. Quae de ignorantia statuuntur, valent quoque de inadvertentia et errore. (§ 3. What is said of ignorance applies also to inadvertence and error.)

11.2.2. Material Heretic and Sanctions: See section 4 above.

11.2.3. Context of the Bull:

The bull aims at manifest heretics, whose public and notorious error presumes a voluntary opposition to the faith. Thus Bellarmine demonstrates (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30) that a public heretic, especially a cleric, loses his office ipso facto without formal declaration, because his error breaks communion with the Church.

12. Practical Distinction between Formal and Material Heretic

In practice, distinguishing a formal heretic from a material heretic in the case of public heresy rests on objective criteria in the external forum, without pretending to judge internal intentions. Here are the practical steps, ordered to reflect the ecclesiastical process:

12.1. Verification of the Error:

The error must bear on a defined truth of divine and Catholic faith (de fide definita), like the divinity of Christ (Council of Nicaea, 325) or pontifical infallibility (Vatican I, Pastor aeternus, 18 July 1870, chap. IV, DS 3074 = D 1839). An error on a non-defined doctrine can be proxima haeresi or temeraria, but not heretical in the strict sense (Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, t. I). Example: Affirming that “all religions lead to salvation” contradicts Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus (Council of Florence, Cantate Domino, 4 February 1442 [1441 according to the Florentine style], DS 1351 = D 714), constituting an objective heresy.

12.2. Evaluation of Publicity:

The error is public if it is expressed by words, writings or notorious acts, known by a significant number of persons. An occult error (kept in the conscience) does not pertain to the external forum and does not entail sanctions from the Church (see Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis, 1931, t. I).

12.3. Canonical Admonition:

According to the 1917 Code, a person suspected of heresy must be formally admonished by the ecclesiastical authority (bishop or competent superior) to establish pertinacity. Two admonitions are generally required, except if the heresy is notoriously obstinate (repeated after public correction). Epistle of St Paul to Titus 3:10-11 (Vulgate): “Haereticum hominem post unam et secundam correptionem devita: sciens quia subversus est, qui ejusmodi est, et delinquit, cum sit proprio judicio condemnatus.” French translation: “As for the heretical man, after a first and a second admonition, reject him, knowing that such a man is perverted and sins, being condemned by his own judgment.”

If the individual corrects himself after admonition, his error was material, and he avoids the ipso facto sanctions. If he persists, his heresy becomes formal, entailing excommunication and loss of office ipso facto.

12.4. Context and Circumstances:

– Formation: A cleric (priest, bishop) is presumed to know the truths of faith, rendering invincible ignorance improbable. Bellarmine (op. cit., cap. 30) notes that the public heresy of a cleric is almost always formal.

– Behavior: A desire of correction or an expressed ignorance indicates a material heresy. An obstinate refusal (for example, reaffirming the error after admonition) establishes pertinacity.

– Scandal: If the public error of a material heretic troubles the faithful, disciplinary measures (ferendae sententiae), like a suspension, can be imposed, without presuming excommunication (Billot, op. cit.).

12.5. Practical Example:

Suppose that a priest preaches publicly that “every religion is good and sanctifying”, contradicting the dogma that there is no salvation outside the Church. Here is how to proceed:

– Step 1: Identify the error. This proposition is objectively heretical, if it denies a defined truth.

– Step 2: Note the publicity. If the preaching is given in public or published, the error is public.

– Step 3: Admonition. The bishop admonishes the priest, explaining the error and requiring a retraction. If the priest corrects himself, his error was material, and he remains in communion. If he persists, his heresy becomes formal, entailing excommunication (Code, canon 2314 § 1) and loss of office (Code, canon 188, 4°).

– Step 4: Immediate measures. If the error causes a scandal, the priest can be suspended immediately (ferendae sententiae) to protect the faithful, even if he is material, while awaiting the admonition. The faithful must avoid such a priest so as not to participate in his scandal (2 John 1:10-11).

13. Current Catholic Perspective (Sedevacantist)

In the present crisis, the public heresies of Vatican II (for example, religious liberty or ecumenism) are considered as formal, because they contradict defined dogmas (Syllabus Errorum, Pius IX, 1864, prop. 16; cf. prop. 15 and 77–79) and persist despite the warnings of the faithful, priests and especially the bishops who have kept the faith. According to Cum ex apostolatus officio (§ 6), the occupants of the See of Peter, by professing these manifest heresies, have lost their office ipso facto, without formal declaration.

14. Counter-Arguments and Refutation

14.1. The bull includes material heresy, because it speaks of “some heresy” without distinction.

Refutation: The bull (§ 3) aims at manifest heretics (“deprehensi, aut confessi, vel convicti”), implying a voluntary opposition. Bellarmine (op. cit.) and Wernz-Vidal (op. cit.) confirm that the ipso facto sanctions apply to public formal heresy, not to involuntary material error.

14.2. Without legitimate authority after 1963, admonition is impossible.

Refutation: In the present crisis, the heresies of Vatican II are notoriously pertinacious by reason of their public persistence and of their rejection of Catholic warnings.

15. Conclusion

The Formulary of Hormisdas (sent in 515, received in 519; Denzinger, DS 364 = D 171 for the passage on Acacius) warns: “itemque condemnamus et anathematizamus Acacium Constantinopolitanum quondam episcopum ab Apostolica Sede damnatum, eorum complicem atque sequacem, vel qui in eorum communionis societate permanserint: quia quorum se communioni miscuit, ipsorum similem meruit in damnatione sententiam.” (“Likewise, we condemn and anathematize Acacius, formerly bishop of Constantinople, condemned by the Apostolic See, their accomplice and their follower, as well as those who remained in the society of their communion: because he has merited a sentence of condemnation similar to that of those to whose communion he had mixed himself.”) The faithful must avoid those who propagate public heresy, in conformity with 2 John 1:10-11, relying on objective criteria in the external forum.

Formal heresy is a conscious revolt against a dogma, punished with excommunication and setting aside; material heresy is an involuntary error, without automatic sanctions. The material heretic does not lose his office “ipso facto” nor is he excommunicated “latae sententiae”, but if he publicly propagates his error, he must be corrected or suspended to protect the faithful, without being treated as a formal heretic as long as pertinacity is not established. In canonical praxis, if there is ascertained public defection, one treats the cause in the external forum, independently of the internal psychology.

This development clarifies that the material heretic escapes the automatic sanctions, but can be subject to disciplinary measures if his error becomes public and risks harming the Church, in line with the immutable doctrine.

A public heresy indeed entails ipso facto sanctions (excommunication and loss of office) for the manifest formal heretic, because publicity presumes pertinacity (Code of 1917, canon 2200 § 2).

In practice, the distinction rests on:

1. The verification of the error (on a defined dogma) and of its publicity.

2. The formal admonition to establish pertinacity.

3. The evaluation of the context (formation, behavior, scandal).

In the present situation, the manifest heresies of Vatican II are formal, entailing the ipso facto loss of office for the clerics concerned, in conformity with Cum ex apostolatus officio. This doctrine protects the immutable faith and the unity of the Church.

16. Sources

– Code of Canon Law of 1917, Codex Iuris Canonici Pii X Pontificis Maximi iussu digestus Benedicti Papae XV auctoritate promulgatus, Rome, Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, IX, pars II, 1917, Latin: canons 188, 4°; 208; 1325, § 2; 2197; 2199; 2200; 2202; 2260–2265; 2314–2316. Bilingual reproduction: Faculty of Canon Law of the Institut catholique de Paris, droitcanonique.fr. Canon 2264: annotated edition by Cardinal Gasparri, same place and printer, 1918, pp. 615–616, digital transcription.

– Paul IV, bull Cum ex apostolatus officio, 15 February 1559, §§ 2–3 and 6–7; Latin, reproduction on Daily Catholic.

– Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa theologiae, Latin, Leonine text reproduced by Corpus Thomisticum: I-II, q. 76, a. 2; II-II, q. 4, a. 1; q. 5, a. 3; q. 11, a. 1–4; q. 13; q. 39; q. 42–43; q. 92–96.

– Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice — On the Roman Pontiff, De Controversiis, vol. Ia, books I–II, translation from the Latin of the Ingolstadt edition of 1588 by Ryan Grant, Mediatrix Press, first edition of 20 May 2015. Book II, chapter XXX, pages 318–323 of the PDF file; language: English, translated from Latin.

– Ludovicus Billot S.J., Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi sive continuatio theologiae de Verbo incarnato, tomus prior, De credibilitate Ecclesiae et de intima ejus constitutione, editio tertia, Prati [Prato], Ex officina libraria Giachetti, filii et soc., 1909. Latin. Thesis XI, question VII, pp. 291–304; thesis XXI, question XI, § 1, pp. 456–458.

– Jean-Baptiste Franzelin, Theses de Ecclesia Christi, opus posthumum, Rome, Typographia Polyglotta S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1887, Latin. P. 384, note 1, and pp. 405–407.

– Jean-Baptiste Franzelin, Tractatus de divina Traditione et Scriptura, editio altera ab auctore emendata, Rome, Typographia Polyglotta S. C. de Propaganda Fide, 1875, Latin. Thesis XII, scholion II, pp. 157–163. (Scholion II in this edition; III in other references.)

– Franciscus Xaverius Wernz S.J., Ius canonicum, edition adapted by Petrus Vidal S.J., tomus II, De personis, Romae [Rome], Typis Pontificiae Universitatis Gregorianae; copy bearing the imprimatur of 20 October 1943. Latin; title VII, passage of pp. 517–518.

– Gerardus Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, t. II : Christ’s Church, English translation and revision of John J. Castelot and William R. Murphy, Westminster (Maryland), The Newman Press, 1959, chap. II, art. I, scholion 1, b, n° 153, p. 241. Original Latin; English version translated into French in the text. De vera religione, chap. II.

– Adolphe Tanquerey, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae ad mentem S. Thomae Aquinatis hodiernis moribus accommodata, 18th ed., Rome–Tournai–Paris, Typis Societatis Sancti Joannis Evangelistae, Desclée et Socii, 1921, t. I, De vera religione, De Ecclesia, De fontibus revelationis, n° 933, p. 606; t. II, De fide, De Deo uno et trino, De Deo creante et elevante, De Verbo incarnato, nos 203–207, pp. 114–116. Latin.

– Dominique M. Prümmer, Manuale theologiae moralis secundum principia S. Thomae Aquinatis in usum scholarum, t. I, 15th ed., revised by Joachim Overbeck O.P., Barcelona–Freiburg im Breisgau–Rome, Herder, 1961, nos 514–517, pp. 364–366. Latin. See also Billuart, p. 840, and Franzelin, 1887, p. 407.

– Heinrich Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum, documentary reproductions Latin (Patristica.net) and English (Bibliaclerus). D designates the old numbering; DS the new: Hormisdas, DS 363–365 = D 171–172; Florence, DS 1351 = D 714; Unigenitus, DS 2502 = D 1451; Auctorem fidei, DS 2606–2608, 2622, 2628; Dei Filius, DS 3008 = D 1789, DS 3011 = D 1792, DS 3020 = D 1800, DS 3031 = D 1810, DS 3039 = D 1818; Pastor aeternus, DS 3050–3075, definition DS 3074 = D 1839.

– Pius IX, Syllabus errorum, 8 December 1864, propositions 15–18, 37–40 and 77–80; original Latin, English translation consulted on Papal Encyclicals.

– Council of Trent, session XXIV, 11 November 1563, canon 1 on the sacrament of marriage; session VI, 13 January 1547, canon 9 on justification (DS 1559 = D 819). Original Latin; English translations consulted in Bibliaclerus and Papal Encyclicals.

– A. Michel, “Hérésie. Hérétique”, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, t. VI, 2nd part, col. 2208–2257; French, article reproduced on Wikisource.

– Pius X, encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis, 8 September 1907; Latin, text reproduced by Vatican.va.

– Thomas de Vio Cardinalis Caietanus, Scripta theologica, vol. I, De comparatione auctoritatis Papae et Concilii cum Apologia eiusdem tractatus, edition of Vincentius M. Iacobus Pollet, Romae [Rome], apud Institutum Angelicum, 1936. Latin; chapters XIX–XX, nos 272–282, pp. 124–127.

– Hugo Hurter, Compendium theologiae dogmaticae, 1907, t. III.

– Theologia Wirceburgensis, attributed to Kleutgen, 1880, t. I. Heinrich Kilber, De fide, cited by Franzelin, De divina Traditione, 1875, p. 163, and by A. Michel, DTC, col. 2211.

– Saint Augustine, De fide et symbolo, X, 21; Epistula 43, I, 1; Latin, reproduction of the Opera omnia on Augustinus.it.

– First Vatican Council, dogmatic constitution Dei Filius, session III, 24 April 1870, chapters III–IV and canons III–IV, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. V (1869–1870), pp. 481–493; dogmatic constitution Pastor aeternus, session IV, 18 July 1870, chapters I–IV, Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. VI (1870–1871), pp. 40–47; Latin, reproductions Vatican.va.

– Adolphe Tanquerey, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae, 18th ed., 1921, t. I, n° 933, p. 606; t. II, nos 203–207, pp. 114–116; see the previous notice.

– Charles-René Billuart, Summa Summae S. Thomae sive Compendium theologiae, t.III, Tractatus de fide, dissertatio V, articulus II “De Haeresi”, §§I–II, pp.838–840. Latin; pages 56–58 of the PDF.

– Jean de Saint-Thomas O.P., Cursus theologicus, on II-II, q. 1, a. 7, disputatio II, articulus III; Lyon, 1663, pp. 133–140, coordinates given by the translators. Text cited according to the English translation of Fr. Juan Carlos Ortiz, “On the Deposition of the Pope”, parts 1–2, from the French translation of Fr. Pierre-Marie O.P., Le Sel de la terre, n° 90, autumn 2014.

– Franciscus Suárez S.J., Opera omnia, editio nova a Carolo Berton, tomus duodecimus, Commentaria in Secundam Secundae Divi Thomae: disputationes De fide, De spe, De charitate, Parisiis [Paris], apud Ludovicum Vivès,1858. Latin; De fide, disp. X, section VI, nos 3–6, 10–11, pp. 316–319; disp. XIII, sect. VI, nos 5–7, pp. 380–381; disp. XIX, sect. III, n° 19, p. 476.

– Melchior Cano, De locis theologicis, book XII, Latin: cited by John Cahill O.P., The Development of the Theological Censures after the Council of Trent (1563–1709), Fribourg, The University Press, 1955, Studia Friburgensia, new series 10, pp. 15–16; and in Franzelin, 1875, p. 163. Migne edition, Theologiae cursus completus, t. I, Paris, 1839, chapter IX, col. 615 and following, cited by Cahill, pp. 15–16 (numbering proper to this edition).

– Holy Office, decree Lamentabili sane exitu, 3 July 1907, approved by Pius X, condemned proposition 25, DS 3425 = D 2025; original Latin, Denzinger reproduction and English translation consulted.

– Clement XI, constitution Unigenitus Dei Filius, 8 September 1713, final censure after proposition 101, DS 2502 = D 1451; Latin and English translation consulted in the Denzinger and Bibliaclerus reproductions.

– Pius VI, constitution Auctorem fidei, 28 August 1794, propositions 6–8, 22 and 28 (DS 2606–2608, 2622 and 2628); original Latin, English translation consulted in Bibliaclerus.

– Leo XIII, apostolic constitution Officiorum ac munerum, De prohibitione et censura librorum, 25 January 1897, Decreta generalia, title I, chapters IV–V, nos 9–14; Acta Sanctae Sedis, vol. XXIX (1896–1897), pp. 388–400, and vol. XXX (1897–1898), pp. 39–53; Latin, Vatican.va reproduction.

– Leo XIII, encyclical Immortale Dei, 1 November 1885, nos 5, 18 and 31; original Latin, English translation consulted on Vatican.va.

– Christian Pesch, Praelectiones dogmaticae, t. I, n° 425. See also Franzelin, Tractatus de divina Traditione et Scriptura, 1875, pp. 160–161.

– Thomas-Marie Gousset, Théologie morale, t. I, ch. IV.

– Van der Vorst, Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis, 1923.

– The Catholic Encyclopedia, secondary sources: Johann Peter Kirsch, “Pope St. Hormisdas”, vol. VII, New York, Robert Appleton Company, 1910; Horace Mann, “Pope St. Leo II”, vol. IX, same place and publisher, 1910; Joseph Sollier, “Theological Censures”, vol. III, same place and publisher, 1908. English, New Advent reproductions. Leo II, Epistola IV ad episcopos Hispaniae (Cum diversa sint), PL 96, col. 414 B ; Epistola VII ad Ervigium regem Hispaniae (Cum unus), ibid., col. 419 D ; Migne edition, 1849 ; Latin, Corpus Corporum/Wikisource reproduction.

– Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, Defensio declarationis cleri Gallicani de ecclesiastica potestate, part III, book X, chapter VII, in Œuvres complètes, ed. F. Lachat, t. XXII, Paris, Librairie de Louis Vivès, 1879, p. 272–274, especially p. 273. Latin ; Bibliothèque monastique reproduction.

– Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium, chapter II; Latin edition R. S. Moxon, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1915, p. 10.

– Gratian, Decretum magistri Gratiani, ed. Aemilius Friedberg, Corpus iuris canonici, pars prior, editio Lipsiensis secunda, Leipzig, Ex officina Bernhardi Tauchnitz, 1879, C. 24, q. 1, c. 34, col. 979–980, and q. 3, c. 26–27, col. 997–998. Latin; reproduction of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica and of the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek.

– Roman Catechism, published under Pius V, 1566, part III, first and second commandments; English translation of John A. McHugh and Charles J. Callan, reproduced by Fordham University, Internet Modern History Sourcebook; original Latin.

– Saint Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Theologia moralis, book IV.

– Van Noort, De vera religione, chap. II; see the previous notice.