CathInfo.com

Public defection from the "Faith" and public defection from the "Church" are NOT the same thing.  Where did you get this false interpretation?  Public defection from the Church (i.e., leaving the Church) is only a TYPE of public defection from the Faith.

"On page 139 of The Renunciation of an Ecclesiastical Office, Fr. Gerald McDevitt writes: 'The defection of faith must be public. It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non-catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that the canon demands.' The Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac comments on Canon 2197 in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law (pp. 349-350), that public defection from the faith means: 'Public defection from the faith, by formal heresy or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society. The offense must be public, that is, generally known or liable to become so before long. (Can. 2197)'"

Kramer, Paul. To deceive the elect: The catholic doctrine on the question of a heretical Pope . Kindle Edition.

Most canonists maintain that public defection from the faith does require joining or publicly adhering to a sect, since that is how canon law itself describes public defection, but there are a few canonists who do not.  But the act has to be at least as notorious as joining a sect.  Publicly leaving the Church and publicly denouncing the Catholic faith, for example, would be equivalent to joining a sect.  But since we are implicitly discussing sede-vacantism, none of the Popes since Vatican II, including Pope Francis, have committed an act of heresy that is equivalent to leaving the Church and joining a sect. 

PS. If someone can explain how to post screenshots of pages from books, as Catholic Knight does, I will include them going forward.  

But the particular context in which you are using the words meets the canonical definition of a crime. The difference between the sin of heresy and the canonical crime of heresy, is that the former only requires an interior act, whereas a crime requires both and interior and exterior act of heresy. 

When I asked you to show where the Church has teaches that "the public sin of manifest formal heresy" severs a person from the Church by its nature, you quoted Pius XII's teaching that the admissum of heresy severs a person from the Church by its nature.  But "the public sin of manifest formal heresy" requires both a interior act (formal) and exterior (manifest) act of heresy, and therefore meets the canonical definition of a crime. 

So, unless you believe heresy by an internal act alone (a thought) severs a person from the Church by its nature, you should be in favor of translating admissum as crime, since that more accurately reflects your opinion.

The sin of heresy can be either an interior act alone or it can also be manifested externally.  That the Church defines the external manifestation of heresy as a crime does not detract from the sin of heresy being a sin whether internal alone or manifested externally.  Therefore, interpreting Pope Pius XII's use of the term "admissum" as sin, as do the authors I quoted above, does not in any way detract from the proposition that "the public sin of manifest formal heresy per se separates the heretic from the Church".    

separates the heretic from the Church

See this is the complex part of this principle which has to be delved into deeper.  As it's written, it's too general.


1.  HOW is one separated from the Church?

Spiritually, obviously, due to sin.  But also, physically separated (i.e. the office is lost)?  This is one of the main things that St Bellarmine and everyone else of his time debated.  Everyone agreed on the "spiritual separation" but they disagreed on the physical separation happening WITHOUT some physical legal, govt act by the Church.

Conclusion - There is no conclusion.  It's debatable.

2.  WHEN is one separated from the Church?

Is it immediately?  Or is there a time period of "correction" as St Paul tells us, is necessary.

In the case of Martin Luther...when he hung up his 99 heresies on the door of the church, was he immediately separated from the Church?  Maybe.  Maybe not.  Spiritually, it probably depends on if he understood what he wrote was heresy, or if he was confused about some points of doctrine (which, at the time, was very corrupted due to corrupt clerics).  This is why the Church has a hearing/trial to distinguish the pertinacity/mindframe of the heretic.  

After such a hearing occurred, Martin Luther did recant maybe 30-40 of his "issues" so it's not like he was 100% sure/firm on his errors.

Also, did Martin Luther immediately lose his office of priest/prior (whatever his office was, i'm not sure)?  I don't think he did.  He might have been suspended until the trial/hearing but nothing was lost "immediately".  And his act of heresy was public, manifest, etc.

Conclusion - again, no conclusion.  It takes an act of the Church to decide these matters.  Canon law has a process.  Even if spiritually, the person is judged by God immediately...but no one can know that "at first".  Only the heretic knows what he believes.  We are human beings, who live in the physical world.  It takes physical action, and human efforts to discern heresy and judge accordingly.