Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8

Author Topic: Question on material vs formal heresy  (Read 300331 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline AnthonyPadua

  • Supporter
Question on material vs formal heresy
« on: October 24, 2025, 08:38:50 AM »
If someone during the Arian crisis belied the Arian doctrine that Christ was god but not true God because they thought/believe that the Catholic Church taught it, would they be a material or formal heretic?
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Question on material vs formal heresy
« Reply #1 on: October 24, 2025, 09:05:06 AM »
I think you hit on the definition of formal heresy in your question ... "because they thought the Catholic Church taught it".  If they truly believe that and are inculpably ignorant, their accepting something because (they think) the Church taught it speaks to having the correct formal motive of faith, and thus the term "formal" in "formal heresy".  Now, the term has been warped and distorted the past couple centuries to meaning that they're "sincere".  While sincerity is necessary (i.e. you have to sincerely believe the Church taught it and not due to some ulterior motive), it's not sufficient.  Protestants, for instance, even the most sincere, are all formal heretics by definition since they do not believe what they believe due to the authority of the Church, i.e. with the correct supernatural formal motive of faith.

Now, that's for most NORMAL heresies.

Problem with Trinitarian / Christological heresies is that if you don't have true belief in the Holy Trinity, you're not simply a heretic, but an infidel, since you do not actually believe in the Holy Trinity, and there can be no supernatural faith without explicit (true) believe in the Holy Trinity.

So I would hold that Arians were infidels.  Aside from Trinitarian and Christological issues, however, I would hold that if someone does believe the Church taught something then they would be definition be only material heretics.
Logged

Offline Catholic Knight

Re: Question on material vs formal heresy
« Reply #2 on: October 26, 2025, 04:39:28 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on October 24, 2025, 09:05:06 AM
I think you hit on the definition of formal heresy in your question ... "because they thought the Catholic Church taught it".  If they truly believe that and are inculpably ignorant, their accepting something because (they think) the Church taught it speaks to having the correct formal motive of faith, and thus the term "formal" in "formal heresy".  Now, the term has been warped and distorted the past couple centuries to meaning that they're "sincere".  While sincerity is necessary (i.e. you have to sincerely believe the Church taught it and not due to some ulterior motive), it's not sufficient.  Protestants, for instance, even the most sincere, are all formal heretics by definition since they do not believe what they believe due to the authority of the Church, i.e. with the correct supernatural formal motive of faith.

Now, that's for most NORMAL heresies.

Problem with Trinitarian / Christological heresies is that if you don't have true belief in the Holy Trinity, you're not simply a heretic, but an infidel, since you do not actually believe in the Holy Trinity, and there can be no supernatural faith without explicit (true) believe in the Holy Trinity.

So I would hold that Arians were infidels.  Aside from Trinitarian and Christological issues, however, I would hold that if someone does believe the Church taught something then they would be definition be only material heretics.

The formal aspect of the theological virtue of Faith is God revealing.  The material aspect is the doctrine itself.  The formal aspect of the sin of heresy is pertinacity in the will against what he knows the Church teaches.  The material aspect is error in the intellect regarding the doctrine the Church teaches.  For the Catholic, this cleanly applies.  However, for the Protestant, it does not cleanly apply.  Why?  Because even though a Protestant knows that the Church teaches a doctrine that he rejects, he does not know that the Church is the the proximate rule of Faith.  Therefore, you cannot say that Protestants are formal heretics by definition if you mean within the context of the sin of heresy.
Logged

Offline AnthonyPadua

  • Supporter
Re: Question on material vs formal heresy
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2025, 04:44:54 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on October 24, 2025, 09:05:06 AM
I think you hit on the definition of formal heresy in your question ... "because they thought the Catholic Church taught it".  If they truly believe that and are inculpably ignorant, their accepting something because (they think) the Church taught it speaks to having the correct formal motive of faith, and thus the term "formal" in "formal heresy".  Now, the term has been warped and distorted the past couple centuries to meaning that they're "sincere".  While sincerity is necessary (i.e. you have to sincerely believe the Church taught it and not due to some ulterior motive), it's not sufficient.  Protestants, for instance, even the most sincere, are all formal heretics by definition since they do not believe what they believe due to the authority of the Church, i.e. with the correct supernatural formal motive of faith.

Now, that's for most NORMAL heresies.

Problem with Trinitarian / Christological heresies is that if you don't have true belief in the Holy Trinity, you're not simply a heretic, but an infidel, since you do not actually believe in the Holy Trinity, and there can be no supernatural faith without explicit (true) believe in the Holy Trinity.

So I would hold that Arians were infidels.  Aside from Trinitarian and Christological issues, however, I would hold that if someone does believe the Church taught something then they would be definition be only material heretics.
Can someone be a material infidel? Like the example of the Arians?
Logged

Offline Ladislaus

  • Supporter
Re: Question on material vs formal heresy
« Reply #4 on: October 26, 2025, 05:59:48 PM »
Quote from: AnthonyPadua on October 26, 2025, 04:44:54 PM
Can someone be a material infidel? Like the example of the Arians?

No.  Explicit faith in the Holy Trinity and Incarnation are absolutely necessary by necessity of means for salvation, and if you do not have that you cannot have the formal motive of faith.

Now, an infidel may or may not be culpable or, culpable to varying degrees, but that's the false notion of material/formal that's been promoted the past couple hundred years, where it's the equivalent of sincerity.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
« previous next »