Of course, the distinction here is that Bellarmine is discussing the secret/occult heretic, whom he believes are still members of the Church.
Here is my previous reply to Ladislaus.
Ladislaus. Why are you constantly ignoring the word OCCULT in this quotation? That is the key to understanding this quote properly.
I wasn’t ignoring it, just waiting for someone to bring it up before I addressed it.
The first point is that when considering how heresy separates a person from the Church, the distinction to be consider is between notorious and occult heresy. Material heretics, Formal heretics, Public heretics, etc., (when these terms are properly understood), are all notorious heretics and outside the Church. So only notorious and occult heresy relate to this question.
Now, occult heresy can be understood as the sin of heresy committed by an interior act alone (entirely occult), or the sin of heresy combined with externally heretical acts (externally occult.) Both legally and theologically, the internal mortal sin of heresy combined with externally heretics acts – even if the heretical acts are performed publicly for all the world to see– are only considered occult, if they do not rise to the level of heretical notoriety by fact. In other words, everything less than notorious by fact, is occult. (Whether you know it or not, the Material Hierarchy Thesis that you yourself hold is based on this.)
Cardinal Billot wrote: Heretics are divided into occult and notorious. Occult heretics are, in the first place, those who by a purely internal act disbelieve dogmas of faith proposed by the Church. Those also are occult, who do indeed manifest their heresy by external signs, but not by a public profession. You will easily understand that many men of our times fall into the latter category—those, namely, who either doubt or positively disbelieve matters of faith, and do not disguise the state of their mind in the private affairs of life, but who have never expressly renounced the faith of the Church, and, when they are asked categorically about their religion, declare of their own accord that they are Catholics.”
In case you’re wondering, the phrase “by a public profession,” means by a “notorious profession.” A notorious profession is essentially a public admission of heresy. Without getting to far into this point, suffice it to say that none of the recent Popes have been guilty of a notorious profession of heresy.
Fr. Glieze provides the canonical explanation for why heresy that is not notorious is reduced to occult: “In a strictly juridical sense, we speak only about occult or notorious heresy, and the notion of public heresy is reduced to that of occult heresy. In this juridical sense (which is the sense used in canon law), any external act that has not been noted by the authority is occult.”
Cardinal Billot provides the theological explanation. He begins by noting that “Baptism, of its very nature gathers men into the visible body of the Catholic Church, and its effect will always be joined to it, unless there be something in the recipient of baptism that prevents it—something incompatible with the social bond of ecclesiastical unity.” He goes on to explain that as long as heresy “stays within the mind, or is confined to manifestations that do not suffice for notoriety, it by no means prevents one from being joined to the visible structure of the Church; and by this fact the baptismal character (by which we are made to be of the body of the Church) necessarily continues to have its effect, or rather retains its natural corollary, since there is not yet anything contrary to impede or expel it.”
Only heresy that suffices for notoriety will sever the juridical bond (or social bond) of “profession of the true Faith." If the heresy is not notorious with a notoriety of fact, baptism will continue to produce its effect and the heretic will remain united to the Body of the Church - unless, of course, he openly leaves the Church of how own accord, which will sever the juridical bond of communion.
Here’s how the Catholic Encyclopedia defines notoriety:
Catholic Encyclopedia: “Notoriety is the quality or the state of things that are notorious; whatever is so fully or officially proved, that it may and ought to be held as certain without further investigation, is notorious. (…) Notoriety, in addition to this common idea, involves the idea of indisputable proof, so that what is notorious is held as proved and serves as a basis for the conclusions and acts of those in authority, especially judges. (…) Canonists have variously classified the legal effects of notoriety, especially in matters of procedure; but, ultimately, they may all be reduced to one: the judge, and in general the person in authority, holding what is notorious to be certain and proved, requires no further information, and therefore, both may and ought to refrain from any judicial inquiry, proof, or formalities, which would otherwise be necessary.”
For heresy to be deemed notorious by fact, a judge would have to consider it so clearly proven that no further investigation is required. And if the heretical acts do not meet that criterion, they are occult and the person is only considered an occult heretic, both legally and theologically.
This is essentially the argument Bishop Sanborn uses to explain why the recent Popes, the cardinals, and the other members of the hierarchy legally retain their offices.
Topic: Tony La Rosa: Benedict XVI Is the True Pope! (Read 47104 times)