What the Salamanca canonists explain on this point in their commentary is in total agreement with the canonical doctrine and tradition of the Church. Cardinal Billot was simply wrong on this point. Fr. Francesco Bordoni, a qualificator of the Universal Inquisition in the seventeenth century and an eminent jurist and canonist who wrote two highly authoritative works on the investigation and prosecution of heretics and suspected heretics; is indisputably a much higher authority on these points of law than Cardinal Louis Billot, who distinguished himself as a dogmatic theologian. First, in Bordoni’s earlier work published in 1648, he defines heresy according to a formulation which he points out is in essence in agreement with those definitions that have been handed down by the doctors, to which he provides a reference to the verbal formulation: «Est error intellectus voluntarie assertus ab homine Baptizato ex parte contrarius fidei Catholicæ. Hæc definitio in re non discrepat ab aliis per doctores traditis quas ad verbum refert Farin. Q. 178. Initio. »* Again, in his posthumously published work (1693), he defines heresy in essentially the same terms: «Est error intellectus ex parte contrarius fidei, voluntarie, & pertinaciter assertus ab Homine usum rationis habente, valide baptizato aqua fluminis.» ** In his definition, St. Alphonsus, in the following century, defined heresy with a formulation nearly identical to that of Fr. Bordoni: «Hæresis est error intellectus, et pertinax contra Fidem, in eo qui Fidem suscepit. » In the mentioned passage of St. Alphonsus, references are provided to passages in the works of two Spanish theologians, Gabriel Vásquez SJ (1549 or 1551 – 1604) and Tomás Sánchez SJ (1550 – 1610). Both of them are also frequently cited by Fr. Bordoni. Fr. Bordoni then explains individually the terms which together make up the definition of heresy, and first, that it is an error of the intellect according to which one thinks something to be true which is actually false; and thus consists in the disbelief of those things which are taught by divine faith.*** Heresy is in part but not in the whole against faith, since he who disbelieves all of the articles, and thus the entire substance of faith from which it is composed, is not merely said to be a heretic, but is properly an apostate, such as one who from being a Christian would become a Jєω, a Pagan, a Turk or a Gentile.**** It is an asserted error (error assertus) for one does not end up as a heretic for the mere narrating of heresy, and thus heresy consists in assertively judging or saying something knowingly against faith, but not doing something against it, such as tearing up images, worshipping idols, etc.; but indeed, such deeds are significative of heresy, and render those who perpetrate them violently suspect of heresy, as is taught by all.***** Secondly, it is voluntarily asserted (voluntarie assertus), and since it is a sin it must be voluntary, which pertains to the substance of sin, since, according to Augustine and Chrysostom, there is no sin unless it is voluntary – and voluntary, according to Aristotle, is that which is in the agent knowing the individual things that are in an action, so that for one to be said to have committed the sin of heresy, it is necessary that he know and be aware that he errs in faith, and disbelieves in something of those things which the Church commands must be believed, otherwise the error would not be voluntary if the one making it would not know that his words and error are contrary to determinate points of faith. Whence to say that heresy is a voluntary error is to say the same that it is pertinacious, for one is said to be a pertinacious heretic who knows and is aware that what he says or doubts is something against faith, but nevertheless wills to hold the error against faith. Therefore one is a willful and pertinacious heretic who holds or doubts something he knows to be against the Catholic faith, or who knows his opinion to be contrary to the Catholic Church. ****** * P. Francesco Bordoni, Sacrum Tribunal Iudicuм In Causis Sanctæ Fidei Contra Hæreticos Et Hæresi Suspectos, Caput Nonum De Hæresi et Hæreticis, Romæ, MDCXLVIII p. 188. ** P. Francesco Bordoni, MANUALE CONSULTORUM In Causis S. Officii contra Hæreticuм pravitatem refertum quamplurimis dubiis novis, & veteribus resolutis, Parmæ, MDCXCIII, p. 32. *** «Dixi 1. Quod hæresis est error Intellectus, errat enim Intellectus, dum putat esse verum, quod revera falsum est, quia errare est unum pro alio putare, ex d. Aug. relato cap. In quibus 6. 22 q. 2. Error ergo huius generis consistit in discredere ea, quæ docet divina Fides. » (MANUALE CONSULTORUM p. 32) **** «Dixi sexto, qoud hæresis ex parte, & non in totum est contraria fidei, quia qui discrederet omnes articulos, ac proinde omnem fidei rationem, quæ ex illis componitur, non diceretur simplex hæreticus, sed proprie Apostata, ut si quis ex Christiano fieret Iudeus, vel Paganus, Turca, vel Gentilis …» [Bordoni, SACRUM TRIBUNAL IUDIcuм IN CAUSIS SANCTÆ FIDEI CONTRA HÆRETICOS ET HÆRESI SUSPECTOS, p. 190] ***** «Dixi tertio, quod hæresis est error assertus, nam quis non evadit hæreticus per solem narrationem hæresis … Ex quo infertur, hæresim consistere in iudicando, seu dicendo assertive aliquid scienter contra fidem, non autem faciendo aliquid contra eandem, ut lacerando imagines, adoranda Idola &c. Verum quidem est quod similia facta sunt signitiva hæeresis reddentia perpetrantes illa suspectos vehementissime de hæresi, ut docent omnes …» [Ibid. p. 189] ****** «Dixi secundo, quod hæresis est error voluntarius, quia cuм iste error sit peccatum, necessrium est, quod sit voluntarium, siquidem voluntarium est de substantia peccati, quia nullum peccatum nisi voluntarium secundum Aug. & D. Chrysostomum … Voluntarium secundum Aristot. Est id, quod est in agente cognoscente singula, in quibus est actio, ut quis dicatur commisse peccatum hæresis, necesse est, quod sciat, & advertat se errare in fide, & discredere aliquid eorum, quæ Ecclesia præciput esse credenda, aliter actus huius erroris non esset voluntarius, si errans ignoraret suum dictum, & errorem esse contrarium determinatis de fide. Unde dicere, quod hæresis est error voluntaruius idem est ac dicere, est error pertinax, nam ille dicitur hæreticus pertinax qui licet sciat, & advertat, seu dubitet se dicere aliquid contra fidem, nihilominus vult tenere errorem contra fidem. Ille igitur est hæreticus voluntarius, & pertinax qui tenet aliquid quod scit, vel dubitat esse contra Catholicam fidem, seu qui scit suam opinionem esse contrariam Ecclesiæ Catholicæ. Sed de hac pertinacia infrs, quæst. 5» [Ibid. p. 189]