CathInfo.com

Quote from: Ladislaus
No, it's not.

Does Msgr. Van Noort Contradict Our Position?

      Next, Fr. Kramer makes the bold assertion that our interpretation of Mystici Corporis is not shared by any reputable theologian in the world, and quotes Msgr. Van Noort as his supporting evidence:

Fr. Kramer: “The Salza/Siscoe interpretation of Mystici Corporis is not shared by any academically qualified theologian in the world. Mons. Van Noort wrote:

‘b. Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of three factors — baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy — pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church. The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. 'For not every sin[admissum], however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy'. (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 241 - 242.)”

      Contrary to what Fr. Kramer was led to believe by reading Sedevacantist websites, what Van Noort wrote reflects our interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi perfectly. The context of the quotation from Van Noort concerns what is necessary for a person to be a member of the Church (which is a point that is debated by theologians). Notice, Van Noort explicitly states that the reason public heretics are not members of the Church, is because “they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith,” (i.e., they sever the juridical bond of “profession of the same faith”).  That is precisely what we argue at length in Chapter Three of our book when treating of who can properly be considered a member of the Church!

      And the fact that Van Noort translated admissum as sin (which is likely what Fr. Kramer was referring to) in no way implies that he disagrees with our interpretation of the passage. As we have noted, we have no objection to this translation, as long as it is understood that the internal sin of heresy alone only separates a person from the Body of the Church dispositively, but not formally (or quoad se, but not quoad nos). And we can be absolutely certain that Van Noort agrees with us concerning this point, since he himself taught the exact same doctrine – and he did so the very next page!

      Here is what Msgr. Van Noort wrote one page after the quotation Fr. Kramer cited as “proof” that no theologian agrees with our interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi:

Van Noort: “Internal heresy, since it destroys that interior unity of faith from which unity of profession is born, separates from the bodyof the Church dispositively, but not yet formally.” (Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, p. 242.)

      Van Noort’s interpretation of Mystici Corporis Christi, as well as his theology concerning how the internal sin of heresy severs a person from the Body of the Church (i.e., dispositively) reflects our position perfectly! In fact, Van Noort’s three-volume set of dogmatic manuals was one of the primary theological sources we consulted when writing our chapters on ecclesiology in True or False Pope?

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/formal-reply-to-fr-framer-part-ii.html?m=1

Nonsense.  This entire section is an absurd and dishonest strawman.  No sedevacantist believes that the "sin of heresy" causes the loss of papal office (10:28 - 20:40 in the link below):