Author Topic: Private vs public vs formal vs material heretics (Read 4592 times)

TKGS · « **Reply #5 on:** June 07, 2014, 07:27:58 AM »

Private vs public vs formal vs material heretics

From all I've read, it seems that the following would be correct definitions of all of the above:

Private: Internal, occult, kept hidden in the heart. No one (except, perhaps, his confessor) knows he doubts or rejects any Catholic doctrine. He keeps that doubt hidden from all. He remains a member of the Church.

Public: External, proclaimed. Others know he doubts or rejects a Catholic doctrine. He does not keep his heretical beliefs secret. It doesn't matter how many people he tells, the fact is that he has made it know to others that he disbelieves a Catholic doctrine. He removes himself from the visible unity of the Church and is no longer a member of the Church.

Formal: Must be public. Even though he knows what the doctrine of the Church is, he rejects that doctrine. He is not simply in error of fact, he knows what the facts are. He removes himself from the visible unity of the Church and is no longer a member of the Church.

Material: Could be public or private. He believes something that is contrary to Catholic doctrine but that belief is either unintentional because he has misunderstood or was taught incorrectly. However, he is docile to the magisterium and will correct his beliefs upon learning the truth. He may simply be in error of fact. He remains a member of the Church but, should he learn the truth and obstinately reject it, his heresy becomes formal and he removes himself from the visible unity of the Church and is no longer a member of the Church.

Note: Just as Christ noted that if they are blind they have no guilt but because they say they see their guilt remains, one cannot reasonably consider a cleric to be ignorant of the faith.

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #6 on:** June 07, 2014, 08:16:14 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Material heresy, which is not heresy strictly so called but only error, ("if he is not obstinate, he is no longer in heresy but only in error" - St. Thomas link and "such men are not to be counted heretics" - St. Augustine link )

Quote from: Van Noort
Thus far we have been discussing Catholic teaching. It may be useful to add a few points about purely theological opinions – opinions with regard to the pope when he is not speaking ex cathedra. All theologians admit that the pope can make a mistake in matters of faith and morals when so speaking: either by proposing a false opinion in a matter not yet defined, or by innocently differing from some doctrine already defined. Theologians disagree, however, over the question of whether the pope can become a formal heretic by stubbornly clinging to an error in a matter already defined.

Quote from: Xavier Da Silveira
As is obvious, we are not discussing the possibility of the Pope being in material heresy. No one denies, that mistakenly or by inadvertence, the Supreme Pontiff can fall into material heresy, as a private person.

Only public and formal heretics (this is what St. Robert means by "manifest heretic" for he explains "the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union") lose the pontificate. The sin of heresy, publicly manifested, is necessary to lose interior supernatural faith, membership in the Church, and the papal power. Someone who is only in error, even grave error, but holds what he does only because he sincerely believes it to the be the teaching of the Church is not a heretic but a Catholic who is gravely mistaken.

Nishant,

Are you distinguishing between a type of heresy which results in loss of the pontificate and a type of heresy which results in loss of membership? It's difficult for me to tell. In either event, public heretics (full stop, without regard to the formal material distinction) are not members. If you think otherwise, please do quote a source (preferably one from the 20th century, after MCC which helped clarify this issue) which disagrees with that view.

Nishant · « **Reply #7 on:** June 07, 2014, 11:10:14 AM »

Dear Mith, I cited three Doctors above, and two twentieth century theologians, these latter discussing the specific question of the Pope. Are we agreed at least that the Pope will not cease to be Pope by being merely in material error, but that it is necessary he be a true public and formal heretic?

I could give you other authorities (or more simply, point out that sedevacantist writers today, like Fr. Cekada, as well as Mr. John Lane and Mr. Daly admit that formal heresy is necessary to lose the Papacy) but since you admit that a baptized Catholic can never become a material heretic, then it is seems to me that we largely agree. So, then the only type of public heretic a Pope can become is a public formal heretic, otherwise he is not any type of heretic at all, but only a Catholic in error who is gravely mistaken.

2Vermont · « **Reply #8 on:** June 07, 2014, 11:18:42 AM »

Quote from: Nishant

Dear Mith, I cited three Doctors above, and two twentieth century theologians, these latter discussing the specific question of the Pope. Are we agreed at least that the Pope will not cease to be Pope by being merely in material error, but that it is necessary he be a true public and formal heretic?

I could give you other authorities (or more simply, point out that sedevacantist writers today, like Fr. Cekada, as well as Mr. John Lane and Mr. Daly admit that formal heresy is necessary to lose the Papacy) but since you admit that a baptized Catholic can never become a material heretic, then it is seems to me that we largely agree. So, then the only type of public heretic a Pope can become is a public formal heretic, otherwise he is not any type of heretic at all, but only a Catholic in error who is gravely mistaken.

So, the non-sedevacantist view wrt the possibility of a pope being a heretic is that he is merely a "Catholic who is gravely mistaken"? A pope can be gravely mistaken? On numerous occasions? How is this possible?

SJB · « **Reply #9 on:** June 07, 2014, 11:28:49 AM »

Quote from: Bouscaren and Ellis

Canon 2197 defines the various degrees of publicity.

"Classification as to Publicity. A crime is:

"1. Public, if it is already commonly known or the circuмstances are such as to lead to the conclusion that it can and will easily become so;

"2. Notorious in law, after judgment by a competent judge which has become res iudicata (cf. c. 1902), or after confession by the culprit in open court according to canon 1750;

"3. Notorious in fact, if it is publicly known and was committed under such circuмstances that no maneuver can conceal nor any legal defense excuse it;

"4. Occult, if not public; materially occult if the crime itself is hidden, formally occult if its imputability is hidden.