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

Poll

R&R ONLY: Do you have moral certitude that Leo XIV is a manifest, public, heretic?

Yes
3 (23.1%)
No
9 (69.2%)
other (please explain)
1 (7.7%)

Total Members Voted: 13

Author Topic: R&R ONLY: Do you have moral certitude Leo XIV is a manifest, public heretic?  (Read 2332 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Pax Vobis

  • Supporter
  • *****
  • Posts: 13165
  • Reputation: +8288/-2565
  • Gender: Male
Absolutely false.

You merely have to know that your opinion contradicts Church teaching and adhere to it anyway.

Pertinacity is the opposite of things like where you mis-speak, a slip of the tongue, or just say something in passing and then as soon as you're corrected on the matterm you retract it.

In all things, the litmus test is if you knew that your opinion was condemned by Church teaching, you'd abandon it, vs. ... you just don't care and you decide that the Church is wrong.

If some erstwhile Catholic were to say, "I know the Church teaches that Our Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament, but I don't believe it.  I think it's just a symbol."

That doesn't require admonition.  That person is a manifest heretic.  Most of the time, such as these simply leave the Church ... and there's no formal warning, correction, or admonition required for everyone to realize that this guy does not have the faith and is not Catholic.  So every one of the millions who abandoned the Church after Vatican II, they all were considered Catholics until they got their 2 admonitions?  Church doesn't have time, nor does it need to waste time declaring the obvious.

If some erstwhile Catholic announces, "Yeah, Catholics are wrong, and the Orthodox are right." and then starts going to an Orthodox church ... that person ceases to be Catholic, and no warnings or corrections are required.  We've had a couple posters here decide to become apostate by declaring their allegiance to the Orthodox.

Does it require admonition / correction (even one, much less two) in order for it to be objectively true that those people are no longer Catholic?  Or course not.

That's Prot-like interpretation of Scripture regarding the 2 warninings.  It's not necessarily in all cases.
I’m talking about the canon law process.  Martin Luther was called to a court.  There’s a legal process.  

Offline ByzCat3000

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1957
  • Reputation: +519/-147
  • Gender: Male
Absolutely false.

You merely have to know that your opinion contradicts Church teaching and adhere to it anyway.

Pertinacity is the opposite of things like where you mis-speak, a slip of the tongue, or just say something in passing and then as soon as you're corrected on the matterm you retract it.

In all things, the litmus test is if you knew that your opinion was condemned by Church teaching, you'd abandon it, vs. ... you just don't care and you decide that the Church is wrong.

If some erstwhile Catholic were to say, "I know the Church teaches that Our Lord is present in the Blessed Sacrament, but I don't believe it.  I think it's just a symbol."

That doesn't require admonition.  That person is a manifest heretic.  Most of the time, such as these simply leave the Church ... and there's no formal warning, correction, or admonition required for everyone to realize that this guy does not have the faith and is not Catholic.  So every one of the millions who abandoned the Church after Vatican II, they all were considered Catholics until they got their 2 admonitions?  Church doesn't have time, nor does it need to waste time declaring the obvious.

If some erstwhile Catholic announces, "Yeah, Catholics are wrong, and the Orthodox are right." and then starts going to an Orthodox church ... that person ceases to be Catholic, and no warnings or corrections are required.  We've had a couple posters here decide to become apostate by declaring their allegiance to the Orthodox.

Does it require admonition / correction (even one, much less two) in order for it to be objectively true that those people are no longer Catholic?  Or course not.

That's Prot-like interpretation of Scripture regarding the 2 warninings.  It's not necessarily in all cases.
My position isn’t based on this in any way, it’s purely an academic curiosity for me, but doesn’t the 1917 code of canon law define this (Orthodoxy) as schism and/or heresy rather than apostasy?  I’m pretty sure even in the 1917 code apostasy is defined as completely leaving the Christian faith.  
I don’t really mind per se being called “apostate” but I believe it’s inaccurate according to your own canons 


Offline Catholic Knight

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 917
  • Reputation: +250/-84
  • Gender: Male
So, it's a theological term, the distinction between some of the "5 Opinions" regarding a heretic pope.  It's opposed to an "occult" heretic.  There's one opinion (held by very few) that occult heresy removes someone from membership in the Church, so "manifest" is used simply to explain that you don't hold that heretics simpliciter lose membership in the Church, by excluding occult heresy.

Yes, but Pax Vobis is saying that it is a canonical term, but I haven't seen that specific term being used as such.

Offline Catholic Knight

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 917
  • Reputation: +250/-84
  • Gender: Male
Here is a good article that shows that establishing pertinacity does not always require admonitions from the competent authority:

https://medium.com/@MarkEscober1993/the-admonitions-of-titus-3-10-are-not-always-necessary-f958faf7896f?postPublishedType=initial

Offline Catholic Knight

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 917
  • Reputation: +250/-84
  • Gender: Male
When one uses the term "heretic" without any qualification, then it is interpreted as "formal heretic".  The 1917 Code of Canon Law includes pertinacity in its definition of "heretic".