15 Heresy and Heretic

Heresy and Heretic

A Complete Theological, Canonical, Scriptural,

and Historical Study

 

  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 (Bellarmin, Suarez, Wernz-Vidal, etc.)  

            4.1.2.3. Reconciling the Two Opinions  

        4.1.3. Objections  

            4.1.3.1. From 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 Schema 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 Formula of Pope Hormisdas as a Crucial Guide  

        10.5.1. This Formula 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. In 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. The 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 Post-1963…  

15. Conclusion  
16. Sources  

 

 

 

1. Introduction

 

The terms “heresy” and “heretic” possess precise definitions, both theological and canonical, with an essential distinction between the 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 unnecessary 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.

 

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 guilt — 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 doctrine, immutable and defined before 1963, rejects any subsequent deviation as contrary to the apostolic faith. Theologians affirm that heresy — especially formal — entails the automatic loss of every ecclesiastical office, rendering the See of Peter vacant 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 1917 Code of Canon Law, a fundamental distinction exists between formal heresy, characterized by voluntary pertinacity, and material heresy, devoid of pertinacity and due to invincible ignorance.

 

The bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of Paul IV (1559) seems to impose ipso facto sanctions for any 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 infallible?

 

2. Definition of Heresy

 

In the 1917 Code of Canon Law, the definition of heresy is not found directly, but it derives from that of the heretic, as 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 name of Christian, denies with obstinacy or doubts a truth that must be believed by 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 by divine and Catholic faith.” Heresy is therefore a grave doctrinal error that contradicts a dogma of faith defined by the Church.

 

In theology manuals, it is classically given as follows: “Haeresis est error circa fidem, quo quis, post baptismum susceptum, aliquam veritatem de fide divina et catholica pertinaciter negat vel pertinaciter dubitat.” (Translation: “Heresy is an error touching the faith, by which someone, after having received baptism, denies or doubts with pertinacity a truth of divine and Catholic faith.”)

 

According to the Dictionary of Catholic Theology (art. Heresy, t. VI, col. 2211, ed. 1912): “A doctrine that opposes immediately, directly and contradictorily the truth revealed by God and authentically proposed 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 (denial of the divinity of Christ, condemned by Nicaea in 325), Pelagianism (denial of original sin, condemned by Carthage in 418), or modernism (condemned by Pius X in Pascendi Dominici gregis, 1907: “Modernismus est veluti collectum omnium haeresium”: Modernism is like the collection of all heresies).

 

Refutation of modernist counter-arguments: Some post-1963 claim that heresy is “relative” or “interpretative,” allowing “developments” that contradict prior dogmas. This is refuted by Vatican I (Dei Filius, ch. 4): “III. Si quis dixerit, dogmata ab Ecclesia proposita posse aliquando secundum progressum scientiae a sensu diverso recipere quam quo illa intellexit et intelligit, anathema sit” (“III. If anyone says that it can happen that dogmas proposed by the Church must sometimes, according to the progress of science, be received in a different sense than that which the Church has understood and understands; let him be anathema.”), thus Kleutgen demonstrates (Theologia Wirceburgensis, 1880, t. I) that the unity of faith requires the immutability of 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 name of Christian, denies with pertinacity (obstinacy) or doubts some truth of faith that must be believed by divine and Catholic faith. This is the classical definition, admitted by all theologians. It is already found in St. Jerome (In Tit., III, 10), in St. Augustine (De haeres., n. 88), in St. Thomas (II-II, q. 11, a. 1), and it is formulated juridically in the Code of Canon Law, can. 1325, §2.

 

The First Vatican Council (sess. III, ch. 3 de fide et ratione) declares anathema those who deny that a truth can be revealed: “Si quis dixerit, rationem humanam ita independentem esse, ut fides ei a Deo praecipi non possit, anathema sit.” (“If anyone says that human reason is so independent that faith cannot be commanded to it by God, let him be anathema.”) In another article, St. Thomas (Summa Theologiae, II-II, q. 5, a. 3) 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 1917 Code of Canon Law (canon 1325, §2) stipulates in effect: “Post receptum baptismum, si quis, pertinaciter, dogma catholicæ fidei denegat vel de ea dubitet, est hæreticus” (“After baptism, he who denies or doubts with pertinacity a dogma of Catholic faith is a heretic”).

 

Heresy is therefore a fault against the faith. It consists essentially in the free choice of an opinion in opposition to 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, freely and obstinately rejects it. “Est hæreticus formalis, qui veritatem revelatam, pro tali cognitam, pertinaciter negat” (“Formal heretic is he who obstinately denies a revealed truth, known as such”) (Dictionary of Catholic Theology, art. Heresy, t. VI). 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, 1933, t. VII) that the public and notorious heretic loses his office by full right, 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 to hold it.

– Material object: The rejection or doubt must bear on a dogma “de fide divina et catholica” (Vatican I, Dei Filius, ch. 3): “Fides est assentire Deo revelanti.” (Faith is adherence to God who reveals).

– Pertinacity: A constant and voluntary opposition is required for formal heresy, absent in the material case, as Franzelin demonstrates (op. cit.) 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 universal ordinary teaching). It implies:

– Full consciousness of this revealed truth, accepted by the faith of the baptized, as St. Thomas Aquinas explains (Theological Summa, II-II, q. 4, a. 1): “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 adhere to things 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, through pride, ill will or attachment to a personal opinion.

– “Pertinacity”: a voluntary resistance to the correction of the Church. This obstinacy must persist even after a correction or a clear warning from 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 repentance, let them be deprived of every benefice, dignity, pension, office or other charge, if they had any in the Church, and be declared infamous; after two monitions, those who are clerics must be deposed.”

 

Potential counter-arguments and refutation:

Post-1963 innovators claim that the formal heretic requires an “official declaration,” but this is refuted by Cum ex apostolatus officio (Paul IV, 1559): “Si quilibet[…] in haeresim inciderit[…] ipso facto absque aliqua declaratione privatus existat” (“If anyone[…] falls into heresy[…] he is, by the fact itself, without any declaration, deprived [of his office]”). As Bellarmin affirms (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II) that a manifestly heretical pope ceases by that very fact (ipso facto) to be pope and head of the Church. We shall see later 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, through ignorance or non-voluntary error. “Est hæreticus materialis, qui eam ignorantiae vel erroris causa negat” (Dictionary of Catholic Theology, ibid.). He is in error objectively, but without subjective guilt or pertinacity.

 

Material heresy is an error on a point of defined doctrine, but without deliberate intention or clear knowledge of opposing the Church. It occurs:

– Through invincible ignorance or sincere error, without formal guilt or pertinacity, as Franzelin explains (Theses de Ecclesia Christi, 1876) 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, because of the external violation.

 

Shared by many theologians, this position rests on the fact that the Church, a visible society, requires not only baptism but also an external profession of the true faith (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 1943, n. 22)

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

 

Gerardus Van Noort, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, Bussum (Tome 1), 1920, p. 151: “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 also separated from the Church.

Indeed external membership requires not only external signs of faith and communion, but a true profession of the Catholic faith; now, he who professes publicly a heresy, even material, no longer professes the Catholic faith.”

 

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 or 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 professes externally a heretical doctrine, even through ignorance, he no longer manifests externally the true faith, and is thereby 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 (Bellarmin, Suarez, Wernz-Vidal, etc.)

 

These authors hold that membership in the visible Body is lost only by 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.

 

St. Robert Bellarmin (De Ecclesia militante, ch. 3) says explicitly:

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

“The heretics who, through 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: the 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 incontestably belong to the (soul of the) Church. Thus, one understands that some theologians say 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 dogmas can change with time.
2. St. Pius X, in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), condemns modernism as a heresy that seeks to relativize dogmas under the pretext of evolution.
3. Pertinacity, the 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 Bellarmin clearly affirm that 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, because 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 external manifestation that renders pertinacity presumed, unless the contrary is proved.

 

4.2. Additional Distinctions

 

4.2.1. Public vs. Occult

The formal heretic “public” manifests his error externally (by words, writings, teachings) and is juridically sanctioned, losing his jurisdiction: Canon 2264: “Any act of jurisdiction, both in the external forum and in the internal forum, posited by an excommunicated person, is illicit; but if there has been a condemnatory or declaratory sentence, it is even invalid, except what is prescribed in can. 2261, §2.” The “occult” heretic keeps his error in his conscience without making it public; he is not treated as a heretic in the canonical sense, although his interior sin remains grave if it is formal, as Prümmer explains (Manuale Theologiae Moralis, 1931, t. I, n. 446) that occult heresy does not entail censures, but is internal. In any case as formal it deserves hell like every mortal sin.

 

4.2.2. Positive vs. Negative

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

– Negative heresy: Pertinacious doubt about a dogma.

 

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

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

 

4.2.3. Internal Forum vs. External Forum

An additional nuance on the internal vs. external judgment of heresy — that is the distinction between the internal forum and the external forum of the Church — according to pre-conciliar dogmatic theology manuals (ex.: Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, 1927, t. III, n. 1245; Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, 1909, t. I, Thesis XXI): 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 contagion without waiting for proved internal pertinacity. The Church judges visible acts (external forum) to protect the common good, without claiming to probe internal intentions (internal forum), reserved to God or to confession. The external forum concerns the ecclesiastical judgment aimed at limiting the contagion of public error (cf. Catholic Encyclopedia, “Ecclesiastical Forum” — 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 guilt. 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  : The automatic excommunication (canon 2314, §1) applies only to the formal heretic, because it requires voluntary pertinacity. The material heretic, acting through ignorance or sincere error, is not considered 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 (canon 2314, §1) applies to clerics who commit grave delicts, such as public and notorious heresy. However, for the material heretic, this sanction does not apply automatically:

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

– If his error becomes public (for example, by teaching an erroneous doctrine without knowing that it is heretical), a trial or monition is required to establish his intention. Without proved 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 to “not contaminate the other faithful,” contrary to the public formal heretic, of whom St. Thomas says: “After the first and second admonition, one must avoid the heretic” (Theological Summa, II-II, q. 11, a. 3): “Post primam et secundam admonitionem devita haereticum.” 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 suspicion, let legitimate acts be forbidden; if he is a cleric, moreover, after a second useless monition, let him be suspended ‘a divinis’. If within 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,” entailing then 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 heretical 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 because 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 no. 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 intervention, as Hurter demonstrates (Compendium Theologiae Dogmaticae, 1907, t. III) that public material error must be restricted so that a scandal is not caused.

 

5.5. Refutation of Modernist Counter-Arguments:

 

Post-1963 innovators claim that the material heretic is “always innocent” and deserves no measure, but this is refuted by St. Pius X in Pascendi Dominici Gregis (1907), who condemns the idea that error, even material, can be tolerated when it corrupts the faith; in the current crisis, the errors of Vatican II, if propagated through ignorance, justify the rejection of the offices of modernists to protect the faithful.

 

In brief, we must clearly denounce all heresies, warn the faithful to protect them against material heretics and separate ourselves from pertinacious (formal) heretics 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), such as 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

 

– Excommunication “latae sententiae” (canon 2314, §1).

– Incapacity to receive or exercise an ecclesiastical office (canon 188, §4), even for a pope, as Bellarmin demonstrates (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, ch. 30) that a manifestly heretical pope ceases ipso facto to be pope and head of the Church.

– Deprivation of the sacraments (except in danger of death, canon 2261).

– Loss of jurisdiction if the heresy is public and notorious (canon 2264).

– Explicit setting aside to protect the faithful, in accordance with St. Thomas.

 

– Absence of ecclesiastical procedure: delicate question! Even if the Bull “Cum ex apostolatus officio” (Paul IV) and St. Robert Bellarmin affirm that the manifest heretic loses the office ipso facto, some classical theologians (like Cajetan or John of St. Thomas) insist on the necessity of a juridical constatation of public heresy to draw canonical consequences. Cajetan, in his Tractatus de Fide (1530), argues that, although heresy deprives internally of jurisdiction, an ecclesiastical declaration is required for external effects, in order to avoid chaos in the visible Church. John of St. Thomas, in Cursus Theologicus (1643, disp. 20, art. 2), maintains that public heresy renders the pope ipso facto deposed, but a constatation by the cardinals or an imperfect council is necessary to declare the vacancy and proceed to an election. These opinions, although minority, offer a complete panorama, reinforcing the sedevacantist argument by showing that even prudent theologians confirm the automatic loss, with or without formal procedure, in the face of a manifest heresy like that of Vatican II.

 

7. Theological Foundation of This Distinction

 

– St. Thomas Aquinas (Theological Summa, 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 a rebel against the Church (Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, vol. I, thesis XI). According to St. Thomas Aquinas (Theological Summa, II-II, q. 11, a. 2), formal heresy (heresy properly speaking) requires pertinacity, absent in material heresy: “Et ideo qui pertinaciter in errore circa ea quae sunt fidei versatur, ille proprie haereticus dicitur.” (“Thus, he who perseveres obstinately in an error concerning the things of the faith is properly called a heretic.”)

 

– St. Augustine (Contra Faustum, XX, 3): “Haereses autem et schismata hoc vitio non habent caritatem: haeresis falsa opinione, schisma dissensione propria.” (“Heresies and schisms lack charity by this vice: heresy by false opinion, schism by proper dissension.”) defining heresy as separation from charity; intention determines guilt.

 

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

 

8. Schema 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. It is the most common opinion among classical authors (Van Noort, Billot, Journet, etc.).

8.1.2. As regards the internal forum, they can however 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, otherwise, 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. Ecclesiastical authority can take measures to prevent their harmful 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 secret heretical 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 members of the Church.

8.2.1.3.2. No excommunication.

8.2.1.3.3. No loss of functions or 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 a member of a secret heretical society.

8.2.1.4. Cases 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 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 constatation pertains to the doctrinal and historical forum, not the judicial forum: one judges their works and their doctrine and 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 suspects of heresy and not 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 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 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 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 passed 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 St. Robert Bellarmin, Melchior Cano, Domingo Bañez, John of St. 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 (1870s) that theological notes are qualifiers 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 current 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 the See of Peter vacant, because any 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 no. 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 supernaturally mortal error renders him so bad and dangerous to 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: Requires urgent doctrinal correction. If persistence after warning: formal heresy, loss of faith, separation from the Church.

Classical theological references: Denzinger no. 3020 (Vat. I, Dei Filius); Tanquerey, Synopsis theol. dogmat., I, no. 76; St. 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. 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: Requires urgent doctrinal correction. If persistence after warning: formal heresy, loss of faith, separation from the Church.

Classical theological references: Denzinger no. 3020 (Vat. I, Dei Filius); Tanquerey, Synopsis theol. dogmat., I, no. 76; St. Thomas, IIa IIae, q. 11, a. 1-4.

 

9.3. Proxima haeresi — Close to Heresy

Definition: Proposition that contradicts a revealed doctrine not yet solemnly defined, but proposed as such by the universal ordinary Magisterium. Latin formula: Propositio proxima haeresi.

Gravity: Very grave; pre-heretical.

Doctrinal and canonical implications: Denies a truth de fide divina, taught unanimously by the dispersed bishops but united to the Pope (Magisterium ordinarium universale).

Pastoral judgment: Formal correction necessary.

Grave danger for the faith; risk of evolution toward formal heresy.

Classical theological references: Van Noort, De vera religione; Vatican I, Dei Filius, DS 3011; Mgr. G. Van der Vorst, Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis, 1923.

 

9.4. Propositio errori haeretico proxima — Close to Heretical Error:

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

Latin formula: Propositio errori haeretico proxima.

Gravity: Very serious.

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

Pastoral judgment: To be condemned, especially in seminaries and teaching. References classical theological: 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: Tanquerey, I, no. 76; Pesch, Praelectiones dogmaticae, I, no. 425.

 

9.6. Propositio temeraria — Temerarious:   Definition: Contradicts an opinion unanimously supported 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 be corrected in priests and teachers. Seed of future errors. Classical theological references: Melchior Cano, De locis theologicis, lib. XII; John of St. Thomas, Cursus theologicus, t. I.

 

9.7. Propositio sapit haeresim — Smacks of Heresy:   Definition: Formula or proposition that has the odor of a heresy, without being directly heretical. Latin formula: Propositio sapit haeresim. Gravity: Average to grave according to context. Doctrinal and canonical implications: Can disturb the faith of simple faithful. Often used against Jansenist or Lutheran propositions. Pastoral judgment: To be corrected, especially in catechesis. Classical theological references: Unigenitus (1713), numerous propositions are sapit haeresim; Denzinger 2420 sqq.

 

9.8. Propositio suspecta de haeresi — Suspect of Heresy:   Definition: Proposition that makes one suspect that it contains a heresy, without being able 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: To watch, question the author, require clarification. Classical theological references: St. Thomas, De Veritate, q. 14, art. 9; Auctorem fidei, 1794 (numerous propositions of the Synod of Pistoia).

 

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 may 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 be reformulated, especially in sermons, catechisms and publications. Classical theological references: Unigenitus (1713); Tanquerey, De locis theologicis, no. 42.

 

9.10. Propositio scandalosa — Scandalous:   Definition: Proposition that leads other persons to error, doubt, or 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 be proscribed in publications and preaching; must be denounced in seminaries. Classical theological references: Unigenitus (1713), number of propositions condemned as scandalosae; S. Thomas, Summa Theol., IIa IIae, q. 43, a. 1-7.

 

9.11. Propositio schismatica — Schismatical:   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 supreme ecclesiastical authority. It can exist without formal heresy, but often leads to it. Pastoral judgment: To be condemned absolutely. Implies the canonical penalty of latae sententiae excommunication (CIC 1917, can. 2314). Classical theological references: Gratian, Decretum, C. 24, q. 1; S. Thomas, IIa IIae, q. 39; Denzinger 2598 (Cum ex Apostolatus of Paul IV, 1559).

 

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 be condemned without appeal. May require severe canonical penalties. Classical theological references: Catechism of the Council of Trent, III, on the 2nd Commandment; S. Thomas, IIa IIae, q. 13.

 

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 supernatural faith in God alone. Proposes a perverted religion. Pastoral judgment: To be extirpated. May require exorcism or canonical interdict. Classical theological references: Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the 1st Commandment; S. Thomas, IIa IIae, q. 92-96.

 

9.14. Propositio turpis / obscena — Shameful / Obscene:   Definition: Immoral or immodest propositions, particularly on sexuality, the sacraments or morals. Latin formula: Propositio turpis, obscena. Gravity: Grave morally, especially if stated publicly. Doctrinal and canonical implications: The Church condemns everything that offends purity. Pastoral judgment: To be formally censured. Can corrupt youth and scandalize. Classical theological references: Leo XIII, Officiorum ac Munerum, 1897 (Index Librorum Prohibitorum); S. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, lib. IV.

 

9.15. Propositio subversiva hierarchiae ecclesiasticae — Subversive of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy:   Definition: Propositions that deny or relativize the divine hierarchy of the Church, that is 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 magisterium. It is the typical error of conciliarism or democratic modernism. Pastoral judgment: To be repressed. Leads to Protestantism, Jansenism, or modernism. Classical theological references: Vatican I, Pastor aeternus (DS 3050 sqq.); Syllabus Errorum (1864), errors 37-40. NB: This note does not exist explicitly as such in the classical list. The traditional theological censure would rather be “erronea” or “haeretica” according to the cases.

 

9.16. Propositio seditionem parens — Seditious:   Definition: Propositions that incite to revolt against legitimate authority, ecclesiastical or civil, under the 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 St. Thomas as a grave sin against social and ecclesiastical peace. Pastoral judgment: Must be corrected and prevented in the faithful inclined to systematic criticism or doctrinal independentism. Classical theological references: Leo XIII, Immortale Dei (1885), on the relations between Church and State; S. Thomas, IIa IIae, q. 42 (on sedition). NB: It is more a moral and political qualification than a classical theological note.

 

Classical references:

– Adolphe Tanquerey, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae, t. I, no. 74–76.

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

– John of St. Thomas, Cursus Theologicus, t. I.

– Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum, intro on theological censures.

– Melchior Cano, De locis theologicis, book XII.

 

NB: These exhaustive notes prove that Vatican II is heretical, confirming the Sede vacante. Final refutation: Post-1963 claim that the notes are “historical” or “not applicable,” but this is refuted by Pius X (Pascendi: “Modernist ambiguity is heretical”), because they protect immutable faith; Franzelin, o.c., writes that 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 to heretics, without explicitly embracing heresy.

 

According to the teaching of the Fathers of the Church and the councils, and in agreement with the current 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 simple subjective interpretations, by pointing to the objective condemnations in the history of the Church. Such counter-arguments, often motivated by a desire for 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 current situation of the Church because the (formal) heretics are not members of the Church but the 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 deviates 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 partial influence of heretics without adopting all their implications. This differs from complete heresy, which consists in an explicit denial of a defined dogma, but is also condemnable because it undermines the purity of the faith: and it can be “temeraria,” “male sonans,” “suspecta de haeresi,” or even “proxima haeresi.”

 

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) and pre-1963 sources, such as the writings of the Fathers of the Church, describe currents called ‘semi-Arians’, ‘semi-Pelagians’ etc. These “semi-heresies” include elements such as: 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. several times, because it threatened the unity of faith, as fixed in the councils and pontifical bulls. 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 appears in the Formula of Pope Hormisdas (519), which pronounces anathema on heretics and their partners in communion.

 

Historical Examples of Semi-Heresy

The history of the Church offers numerous examples of semi-heresy, which illustrate how such positions were 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 consubstantiality (homoousios) as defined by 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, although some returned to orthodoxy under the pressure of figures like Athanasius. Counter-arguments that present the semi-Arians as simple misunderstandings are invalidated by their condemnation at Nicaea and in subsequent synods, which qualified any deviation from 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 human will, thus favoring Pelagianism. It was condemned at the Council of Orange (529), which confirmed the teaching of Augustine. 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 over the Three Chapters (writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus and Ibas of Edessa), 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 fertile ground to heresy.

 

10.4. Pope Honorius I (7th Century):   The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople III, 680-681) condemned Honorius post-mortem as a heretic, because he favored the monothelete heresy by negligence: he “fanned the flame of heresy by his negligence,” without professing it formally. Pope Leo II confirmed this, noting that Honorius had allowed the immaculate faith to be sullied. Pre-1963 sources, such as Denzinger’s Enchiridion (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. Counter-arguments 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 is equivalent to favoring it.

 

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

 

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

 

A particularly important point in the study of semi-heresy is the Formula of Pope Hormisdas of 519, also known as the Libellus Hormisdae, which contains infallible doctrine and serves as a guide for behavior toward heretics and semi-heretics. This document, drawn up by Pope Hormisdas (514-523) to end the Acacian schism, was a profession 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 Formula was signed on March 28, 519 in Constantinople, restoring unity.

 

The text of the Formula emphasizes the necessity of preserving the rule of the true faith and not deviating from the prescriptions of the Fathers. A key passage 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 not to deviate in anything 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 kept immaculate.”) Then follows the anathematization of heretics such as Nestorius, Eutyches and others, including Acacius: “Nos pariter Acacium quondam Constantinopolitanum episcopum eorum socium et participem anathematizamus, una cum his qui in eius communione perseverant; QUIA COMMUNIONEM ALICUIUS AMPLEXARI, SIMILEM MERERI SORTEM EST.” (“We likewise anathematize Acacius, formerly bishop of Constantinople, who became their accomplice and partisan, as well as those who persevere in his communion; FOR EMBRACING THE COMMUNION OF SOMEONE (a heretic), IS TO MERIT A SIMILAR LOT (anathema).”)

 

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

 

10.5.1. This Formula Is of Great Authority…   according to the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. It meets the criterion of St. Vincent of Lérins: “Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus” (What has been believed everywhere, always, by all, belongs to the deposit of the faith). Mgr. Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, in his Defensio Declarationis Cleri Gallicani (Book X, Chapter 7), declares that this Formula was used in subsequent centuries with the same introduction and conclusion, adapted to 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 emphasizes 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 a guide: it forbids all 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 to him ‘welcome’; for he who says welcome to him participates in his evil works.”

 

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

Counter-arguments affirming that the Formula is purely historical and not binding for contemporary situations are refuted by its repeated use in councils and its universal application, as Bossuet teaches; it is not a subjective interpretation, but an objective doctrine that punishes all complicity with heresy. In brief, the Formula, pontifical profession of faith, received and reused, enjoys a very high authority; several theologians maintain its infallible character by its insertion in constant teaching.

 

10.5.2. Application to Contemporary Situations

 

From the sedevacantist point of view semi-heresy is evident in contemporary groupings that seek compromises with what sedevacantists consider as apostate Rome. Pre-1963 teaching, 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 any recognition of them implies 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, which seeks agreements with what sedevacantists consider as heretical Rome. There are four agreements: Fellay as judge in Rome; jurisdiction for confession, marriages and for ordinations. These are communion with heretics, falling under the anathema of the Formula of Hormisdas, because they do not require conversion.

 

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 Bossuet’s interpretation of the Formula, which condemns all contact without purpose of conversion. Sedevacantism refutes this by pointing to the infallible promise that the gates of hell shall not prevail (Mt 16:18), implying that a heretical “Rome” is not the true Church. It is still necessary to distinguish between material and formal communion 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. Retrospective view clearly reveals an ambiguity favoring modernism.

 

10.6. Refutation of Counter-Arguments

 

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 to 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 incoherent, because they recognize a heretic as pope, contradicting pre-1963 teaching that heretics have no jurisdiction. The Formula of Hormisdas reinforces this: communion with heretics leads to the same lot, without exception for “good intentions.”

 

10.7. In 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 heretical; according to 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 any compromise with contemporary errors, under penalty of anathema. The infallible Formula of Pope Hormisdas offers a clear guide in this matter. Tradition requires vigilance to preserve pure doctrine. As long as a baptized person does not profess a “propositio haeretica” with pertinacity, he is not formally heretical; according to cases, it can fall under “temeraria,” “suspecta,” etc. ‘Semi-heresy’ is a historico-polemical term; 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 February 15, 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, excerpt) 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[…] ipso facto, et absque aliqua iuris, aut facti declaratione, omnino, et penitus a suis[…] dignitate[…] officio[…] privatos omnino esse, et fore.” Fluid translation: “We add and declare that if ever it should happen 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 elevation to the cardinalate or the pontificate, has deviated from the Catholic faith or has fallen into heresy, his promotion or elevation, even if it was made with the unanimous agreement and 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 peaceful possession of this dignity or office.”

 

In §6, the bull specifies: “Si quilibet[…] in haeresim inciderit[…] ipso facto, et absque aliqua declaratione, privatus existat.” Fluid translation: “whoever falls into heresy is, by full right and without any declaration, immediately deprived of his dignity and his office.”

 

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

 

11.2. Reconciliation with Traditional Doctrine

 

Catholic doctrine clearly distinguishes formal heresy from material heresy, and the bull fits within this theological framework. The following points reconcile the bull with 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:   St. Thomas extends this to all (Theological Summa, I-II, q. 76, a. 2): “everyone is bound to know in general the truths of the faith and the universal precepts of law, and each in particular is bound to know what concerns his state or his function.”

 

11.2.1.2. The 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, trained in sacred disciplines and called to be doctors of the faith, cannot be excused by ignorance in matters of faith.”)

 

– Rule

 

It is a rule that is broader than for the matter of heresy, it applies to all dolus or fraud, so it behaves like a principle of law: 1917 Code of Canon Law, canon 2200 §2, establishes a general principle “Posita externa legis violatione, dolus in foro externo praesumitur, donec contrarium probetur.” (“The external violation of the law being posited, 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 faith. The law or rule of faith is that one must believe everything that is revealed.

 

– Holy Scripture

 

This is in agreement with Catholic doctrine, which stipulates that clerics, as pastors of the faithful, are held to a higher standard of knowledge and responsibility. Cf. Ezekiel 33:6: “Si autem speculator viderit gladium venientem, et non insonuerit tuba[…] sanguinem ejus de manu speculatoris requiram” — (“But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not sound the trumpet[…] I will require his blood at 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 bound to a grave and certain knowledge of the truths they must teach and defend. In them, invincible ignorance in matters of dogma is morally excluded in cases of public profession of error. That is why the Church legitimately presumes pertinacity and treats externally such heresy as formal, entailing ipso facto loss of jurisdiction. However, the theoretical possibility of a purely material heresy cannot be absolutely denied in principle.

St. Robert Bellarmin (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 loss of jurisdiction, and that pertinacity is presumed more easily in a public doctor, without need of prior admonitions to establish the external fact. He rejects the idea that ignorance can excuse such an office in notorious public cases, because the charge of doctor renders knowledge presumed certain; he cites historical examples (like Nestorius) where the public heresy of a cleric was 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 they teach. In cases of public profession of error, invincible ignorance is morally excluded; 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.

Cardinal Louis Billot (†1931), in the Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (Tomus I, thesis XI, 1909 edition), explains that the heresy that cuts off from the visible body of the Church is external and notorious heresy. For clerics, especially doctors, invincible ignorance on the dogmas 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 external signs and presumes formal guilt without having to probe the internal forum.

These authors, among the most authoritative of the post-Tridentine tradition, therefore agree on a very strong moral presumption: the charge of public doctor practically excludes invincible ignorance in matters 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 most often invoked.

– Refutable

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

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

This canon establishes that for a penal sanction to apply, voluntary fault is required, 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 was inculpable; otherwise imputability is diminished more or less according to the degree of culpability of the ignorance itself.)

• 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 to some extent.)
• 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 Bellarmin demonstrates (De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, ch. 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 claiming 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 truth of defined divine and Catholic faith (de fide definita), such as the divinity of Christ (Council of Nicaea, 325) or pontifical infallibility (Vatican I, Dei Filius, 1870, ch. 3). An error on an undefined 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, 1442, Denzinger, no. 802), constituting an objective heresy.

 

12.2. Evaluation of Publicity:

 

The error is public if it is expressed by words, writings or notorious acts, known to a significant number of persons. An occult error (kept in 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 competent ecclesiastical authority (bishop or superior) to establish pertinacity. Two admonitions are generally required, unless the heresy is notoriously obstinate (repeated after public correction). Epistle of St. Paul to Titus 3:10-11 (Vulgate): “Haereticum hominem post primam et secundam correptionem devita, sciens quia subversus est qui eiusmodi est, et peccat, cum sit proprio iudicio 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 ipso facto sanctions. If he persists, his heresy becomes formal, entailing excommunication and ipso facto loss of office.

 

12.4. Context and Circumstances:

 

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

– Behavior: A desire for correction or 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 disturbs the faithful, disciplinary measures (ferendae sententiae), such as a suspension, can be imposed, without presuming excommunication (Billot, op. cit.).

 

12.5. Practical Example:

 

Suppose 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 sermon 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 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 current crisis, the public heresies of Vatican II (for example, religious liberty or ecumenism) are considered formal, because they contradict defined dogmas (Syllabus Errorum, Pius IX, 1864, prop. 16) 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 aims at manifest heretics (“deprehensi, confessi, vel convicti”), implying a voluntary opposition. Bellarmin (op. cit.) and Wernz-Vidal (op. cit.) confirm that ipso facto sanctions apply to public formal heresy, not to involuntary material error.

 

14.2. Without legitimate authority post-1963, admonition is impossible.

 

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

 

15. Conclusion

 

The Formula of Hormisdas (515, Denzinger, no. 363) warns: “Nos pariter Acacium[…] anathematizamus[…] quia communionem alicuius amplexari, similem mereri sortem est.” (“We anathematize Acacius[…] for embracing the communion of someone (that is a heretic), is to merit a similar lot (in this historical case: excommunication).”) The faithful must avoid those who propagate public heresy, in accordance with 2 John 1:10-11, relying on objective criteria in the external forum.

 

Formal heresy is a conscious revolt against a dogma, punished by 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 propagates his error publicly, 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 a noted public defection, one treats the cause in the external forum, independently of internal psychology.

 

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

 

A public heresy does indeed entail ipso facto sanctions (excommunication and loss of office) for the manifest formal heretic, because publicity presumes pertinacity (1917 Code of Canon Law, 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 current situation, the manifest heresies of Vatican II are formal, entailing ipso facto loss of office for the clerics concerned, in accordance with Cum ex apostolatus officio. This doctrine protects immutable faith and the unity of the Church.

 

16. Sources

 

– 1917 Code of Canon Law, canons 188 §4, 2200 §2, 2314 §1, 2316, 1325, 2314, 188, 2264, 2315, 2316, 2261.

– Paul IV, Cum ex apostolatus officio, February 15, 1559 (Magnum Bullarium Romanum, t. IV, p. 354 sqq.).

– St. Thomas Aquinas, Theological Summa, II-II, q. 11; q. 5, a. 3; q. 11, a. 3; I-II, q. 76, a. 2; II-II, q. 4, a. 1.

– Bellarmin, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, ch. 30.

– Billot, De Ecclesia Christi, 1909, t. I; 1927, t. I.

– Franzelin, Theses de Ecclesia Christi, 1876; De Divina Traditione et Scriptura, Rome 1875.

– Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum, 1933, t. VII.

– Van Noort, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi, 1920; De vera religione, ch. II.

– Tanquerey, Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, t. I; t. III, n. 1245.

– Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis, 1931, t. I.

– Denzinger, Enchiridion symbolorum, no. 802 (Council of Florence, 1442), no. 363 (Formula of Hormisdas, 519); no. 3020; DS 3011; 2420 sqq.; 2598; 3050 sqq.

– Pius IX, Syllabus Errorum, December 8, 1864, prop. 16; prop. 80.

– Council of Trent, Sess. XXIV, can. 1, 1563; Sess. VI, can. 9.

– Dictionary of Catholic Theology, art. Heresy (ed. 1912).

– Pius X, Pascendi Dominici gregis, 1907.

– Cajetan, Tractatus de Fide, 1530.

– Hurter, Compendium Theologiae Dogmaticae, 1907, t. III.

– Theologia Wirceburgensis, 1880, t. I.

– St. Augustine, Contra Faustum, XX.

– Vatican I, Dei Filius, ch. 3-4.

– Adolphe Tanquerey, Synopsis theologiae dogmaticae, t. I, t. III.

– Billuart, De Virtutibus Theologicis, Dissert. V, art. 3; De Fide, diss. IV.

– John of St. Thomas, Cursus Theologicus, t. I; disp. 20.

– Melchior Cano, De locis theologicis, lib. XII.

– Pius X, Lamentabili Sane, 1907, prop. 25.

– Unigenitus, 1713.

– Auctorem fidei, 1794.

– Leo XIII, Officiorum ac Munerum, 1897.

– Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, 1885.

– Pesch, Praelectiones dogmaticae, I.

– Gousset, Théologie morale, I, ch. IV.

– Mgr. G. Van der Vorst, Institutiones Theologiae Fundamentalis, 1923.

– Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, art. Heresy; art. Semipelagianism; art. Arianism.

– Bossuet, Defensio Declarationis Cleri Gallicani, Book X, Chapter 7.

– St. Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium.

– Gratian, Decretum, C. 24, q. 1.

– Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the 1st and 2nd Commandment.

– S. Alphonsus, Theologia Moralis, lib. IV.

– Van Noort, De vera religione, ch. II.