The holy Roman Church, founded on the words of our Lord and Saviour, firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, heretics and schismatics can become participants in eternal life, but they will depart ‘into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels’ (Matt. 25:41), unless they are joined to the Catholic church before the end of their lives. Council of Florence, Session 11
There is nothing more chilling than the thought of being completely cut off from the Source of Life.
If a man does not abide in Me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire and burned. John 15: 6
Two surefire ways of being cut off from Christ's Mystical Body are heresy and schism.
One common claim in our time is that P. Francis is a heretic and is therefore outside of the Church and no longer Pope. In order to address this statement it is necessary to understand what this word heretic means, when it severs one from the Church, and how this would apply to a Pope.
In previous posts we discussed the dogma that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church. In this post we examine heresy.
Formal Heresy
A heretic is properly speaking, a baptized Catholic who obstinately professes what is contrary to what the Church has definitively proposed for belief. This profession is formal heresy.
God is the reason we believe, and our faith as a Christian is primarily in Him, secondarily in His revealed truths recognized in Church doctrine.
Now, whoever believes, assents to someone’s words; so that...the person to whose words assent is given seems to hold the chief place and to be the end as it were; while the things...which one assents to...hold a secondary place. Consequently he that holds the Christian faith aright, assents, by his will, to Christ, in those things which truly belong to His doctrine. …[A] man may deviate from the rectitude of the Christian faith…because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice …because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind. Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith but corrupt its dogmas. ST II-II,11, 1
Faith is not only an intellectual conviction, but a choice of the will. Hence, formal heresy is not to be confused with ignorance or mere difference of opinion.
It is a stubborn choice of one's own opinions over the defined doctrine of Christ's Church, and therefore a rejection of Christ.
Accordingly, certain doctors seem to have differed…even in matters of faith, which were not as yet defined by the Church; although if anyone were obstinately to deny them after they had been defined by the authority of the universal Church, he would be deemed a heretic. ST II-II, 11, 2, ad 3
Manifest Formal Heresy
The rejection of the Faith of the Church by a manifest heretic is not concealed, while an occult heretic's rejection is hidden. (Here is my source for these distinctions.)
Manifest formal heresy is particularly pernicious because it is intended to corrupt the Faith of others.
Moreover a man professes his faith by the words that he utters... Wherefore inordinate words about matters of faith may lead to corruption of the faith… ST II-II, 11,2, ad 2
The sentence for manifest formal heresy is excommunication, being severed from the Mystical Body.
What [heretics] really intend is the corruption of the faith, which is to inflict very great harm indeed. Consequently we should consider what they directly intend, and expel them... ST II-II, 11,3, ad 2
Occult formal heresy is not aimed at the corruption of others' faith, but involves only the individual's faith. It is disputed whether occult formal heretics remain members of the Church. These heretics would include 'cafeteria Catholics' who privately, but obstinately, reject the Church's teaching on contraception, for example. In this case they remain visibly at least, members. No doubt their heresy is a grave matter and a mortal sin, but the question is whether even a hidden rejection of the Church or of her Faith automatically severs a person from the Church. The common opinion in theological tradition is that it does not.
Material Heresy
One who holds to a false belief without knowing it is contrary to Church dogma should not be called a heretic. Examples would include the person in the pew who, on account of bad catechesis, believes the Eucharist to be a mere symbol. Or perhaps there is a person who has not had the opportunity to learn about the Catholic Church and holds something contrary to true doctrine. Such a belief is called material heresy.
By formal is meant intentionally and obstinately rejecting or refusing to submit to the teaching authority of the Church. By material is meant an act that is objectively heresy, whether or not it has been chosen under that aspect. St. Thomas does not make the distinction between formal and material heresy but he does refer to the formal and material aspects of Faith. Formal heresy is the rejection of the formal aspect of our Faith which is the teaching authority of Christ through His Church. Material heresy is the belief of something contrary to particular article(s) of Faith.
Another way to label this is objective heresy versus subjective. Heresy is always objectively sinful but may not be subjectively sinful in a particular case. St. Thomas refers to "imperfect sins," i.e. venial sins, in which there is lacking either knowledge or deliberate choice, "Because the consummation of sin is in the consent of reason." ST II-II, 35, 3 ad corp. Material heresy could be a venial sin, when accompanied by culpable ignorance. But if the ignorance is not culpable, i.e. it is invincible, then there would be no sin, only error.
The difference is in the implicit adherence of the will to Christ and His Church.
Hence it is evident that a heretic who obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error. ST II-II, 5,3, ad corp.
Manifest Material Heresy
It is more sharply disputed whether those who are in material heresy can remain members of the Church even if manifest. St. Thomas quotes St. Augustine:
As Augustine says (Ep. xliii) and we find it stated in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. 3, can. Dixit Apostolus): "By no means should we accuse of heresy those who, however false and perverse their opinion may be, defend it without obstinate fervor, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion, when they have found the truth," because, to wit, they do not make a choice in contradiction to the doctrine of the Church. ST II-II, 2, ad 3
The point is that someone who is earnestly striving for the truth would not knowingly reject a dogma of Faith, but might err about it. This need not lead to a wholesale rejection of the Faith because the Catholic's reason for believing, namely his faith in God's revelation through His Church, which is called the formal aspect of faith, can still remain when there is mere ignorance of a particular defined matter of Faith.
Two things are worth noting here:
a) The first point is that it is not possible to reject a single article of Faith without thereby rejecting the entire Faith.
The reason is that the formal aspect of the object of Faith is the reason why we believe, namely because it has been revealed by God and transmitted to us through His Church. But to knowingly reject one material article of Faith requires that we do not have that formal aspect, i.e. we do not hold those articles because of our Faith in God, but for some other reason. In other words, our faith would not be supernatural at all. (c.f. ST II-II, 5,3)
b) Again it would seem that rejecting a single article of Faith would over time lead to a wholesale rejection of the Church. This latter act when done by a former Catholic, is called apostasy. Apostasy is different in species from formal heresy, because heretics do not by definition turn their back on the Church, whereas apostates do so by definition. Thus, it seems an occult formal heretic, short of apostasy, would still be in the Mystical Body, even though as a dead member (in mortal sin.)
Jerome says on Gal. 5:20 that “whoever expounds the Scriptures in any sense but that of the Holy Spirit by Whom they were written, may be called a heretic, though he may not have left the Church.” ST II-II, 11,2, obj 2
Excommunication
A manifest formal heretic although not canonically excommunicated (ferenedae sententiae), nevertheless would be ipso facto (in fact) outside the Church (laetae sententiae.) The key is in the profession. The exterior act of faith is profession, (ST.II-II, 3, 1) and this profession is necessary to maintain the ecclesial bond. To obstinately profess a faith contrary to the one true Faith severs that bond.
We have Christ's assurance that He will always be with His Church, which he does through His visible representative, the Pope, who is guided by the Holy Spirit.
The Pope is the visible principle of unity in the Faith.
[A] new edition of the symbol [i.e. creed] becomes necessary in order to set aside the errors that may arise. Consequently to publish a new edition of the symbol belongs to that authority which is empowered to decide matters of faith finally, so that they may be held by all with unshaken faith. Now this belongs to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff... Hence our Lord said to Peter whom he made Sovereign Pontiff (Luke 22:32): "I have prayed for thee, Peter, that thy faith fail not, and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren." The reason of this is that there should be but one faith of the whole Church, according to 1 Cor. 1:10: "That you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you": and this could not be secured unless any question of faith that may arise be decided by him who presides over the whole Church...ST II-II, 1,10, ad corp.
Through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the guarantee of infallibility the Pope ensures that dogma is passed down and clarified from generation to generation. Were this not so, there could be no security, and no conviction of one true Faith to be held by the whole Church. To be Catholic is to believe in the Pope's teaching authority.
Although a formal heretic's excommunication does not require a formal pronouncement by the hierarchy, that does not mean we are allowed to judge whether someone is a formal heretic or excommunicate.
[H]eretical, schismatical, excommunicate, or even sinful priests, although they have the power to consecrate the Eucharist, yet...they sin by using it. But whoever communicates with another who is in sin, becomes a sharer in his sin...But not all who are sinners are debarred by the Church’s sentence from using this power: and so, although suspended by the Divine sentence, yet they are not suspended in regard to others by any ecclesiastical sentence: consequently, until the Church’s sentence is pronounced, it is lawful to receive Communion at their hands, and to hear their Mass. ST III, 82, 9, ad corp.
Whether a particular person is a formal heretic is a public judgment that belongs to the appropriate Church authority only and not to the rest of us.
Hence on 1 Cor. 5:11, with such a one not so much as to eat, Augustine’s gloss runs thus: "In saying this he was unwilling for a man to be judged by his fellow man on arbitrary suspicion, or even by usurped extraordinary judgment, but rather by God’s law, according to the Church’s ordering, whether he confess of his own accord, or whether he be accused and convicted." ST III, 82, 9, ad corp.
It is clear from what has been said that the Pope cannot possibly be excommunicated as a formal heretic, much less as a material heretic.
First, since the Pope is the highest spiritual authority on earth subject only to Christ, no one has the authority to pronounce him a heretic, and his punishment belongs only to God. (First Vatican Council, ch. 3, 8)
Second, without an authoritative excommunication, if the Pope could be (automatically) excommunicated laetae sententiae, the faithful would have no assurance that the Pope was actually a member of the Church, which would remove the cause of their confidence in his Papal authority.
Finally, the removal of the cause for confidence in papal authority would make void Christ's promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. (Matt. 16:18)
Therefore, whatever the Pope may appear to say contrary to dogma can be only that: an appearance... or at worst, an error.
As an example of excommunication, Fr. Leonard Feeney of the St. Benedict Center was given the sentence of excommunication because of obstinate disobedience to his Bishop in a grave matter related to his teaching concerning (of all things) the Nulla Salus dogma ("no salvation outside the Church.") The excommunication was eventually lifted for the good of souls. (Note: the justice of this excommunication is contested by members of the St. Benedict Center.)
Excommunication is always meant for the good of souls, as is the lifting of the excommunication. Mother Church is always desirous that heretics renounce their heresy and be reconciled to the Church, that Christ's excruciating suffering and death would not be, for them, in vain.
The Root Sin of Pride
St. Thomas says the motive for heresy is adherence to one's own false opinion through pride, although this word needs to be understood correctly.
Augustine says (De Util. Credendi i) that "a heretic is one who either devises or follows false and new opinions, for the sake of some temporal profit, especially that he may lord and be honored above others"...[T]he proximate end of heresy is adherence to one’s own false opinion, and from this it derives its species, while its remote end reveals its cause, viz. that it arises from pride or covetousness. ST II-II,11,1, obj 2
The reason that heretics promote their own opinions in defiance of the Church is one of two. Either:
a) in seeking their own excellence inordinately, they have trusted in their own intellectual power over God's help and so deceived themselves, or
b) they have knowingly innovated doctrine for some temporal gain, thinking that it does not matter and God will excuse them.
The first sin is pride, and the second is covetousness and presumption.
Nor is a heretic exonerated by his adherence to Scripture.
A man is said to expound Holy Writ in another sense than that required by the Holy Spirit, when he so distorts the meaning of Holy Writ, that it is contrary to what the Holy Spirit has revealed. Hence it is written (Ezek 13:6) about the false prophets: 'They have persisted to confirm what they have said,' viz. by false interpretations of Scripture.ST II-II, 11, 2, ad 2
Heretics sinfully promote their own false interpretations of Scripture in preference to that of the Church.
Heretics are not confused people seeking the truth. They are stubborn people promoting false ideas.
When their root sin is pride, the remedy is humility in submitting one's own judgment to that of the Church, while trusting in Christ's promises and the Holy Spirit's guidance of the Church. When a heretic's root sin is covetousness and presumption, the remedy is prizing union with Christ above all things, and fearing to be separated from Him.
A wonderful antidote to pride, covetousness, and presumption is "the Little Way" of St. Therese: love, humility, and confidence.
Let us ask God to set our hearts aflame with His love. Let us revel in our utter dependence which attracts His mercy. And let us have absolute confidence that He will never ever fail us.
Martyrs have given their life for the dogmas of the Faith, and Christ, whom they imitated, allowed his disciples to walk away [John 6:61-68] rather than retract His most controversial teaching. Heresy is not to be taken lightly. It cuts off a Catholic from Christ's Mystical Body, to his own destruction.
コメント