|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Last December, I wrote a two-part series for LifeSiteNews (here and here) in response to Mr. Matthew McCusker and Dr. John Lamont, both of whom argued in differing ways that Pope Francis, who has since departed this life, was a heretic and therefore not the Pope.
I focused primarily on McCusker’s arguments, one of which is that all public heretics, including material heretics, are outside the Church. In support of his argument, he quoted the following from Msgr. Gerard Van Noort (d. 1946), a renowned Dutch theologian:
It is the more common opinion that public, material heretics [i.e., those not culpable] are likewise excluded from [Church] membership [the same as public formal heretics]. Theological reasoning for this opinion is quite strong: if public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ’s Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would one ever locate the ‘Catholic Church’? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity? For these and other reasons we find it difficult to see any intrinsic probability to the opinion which would allow for public heretics, in good faith, remaining members of the Church.[1]
In response, I wrote: “With all due respect for Msgr. Van Noort, it seems to me that material heretics — those ‘who externally deny a truth … or several truths of divine and Catholic faith … ignorantly and innocently,’ in his words — must necessarily remain members of the Church, given that pertinacity (obstinate denial or doubt) is the hallmark of heresy in its full and proper sense. If full knowledge and full consent are lacking, it is simply not the case that one is a true heretic, canonically speaking.”
Material Heretic vs. Mistaken Catholic: Clarification
McCusker has since replied that I misunderstood the correct meaning of “material heretic” and offered clarification:
Confusion often arises about the meaning of the term material heretic. Some understand a material heretic to be anyone who holds an opinion contrary to the Catholic faith, without being morally culpable. This is perhaps how Gaspers understands it. But this is not how the term is used by the most eminent defenders of the doctrine which Gaspers rejects, nor is it how I use the term. In more than one of the articles to which Gaspers is responding I define a material public heretic as someone ‘who openly but innocently refuses submission to the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium.’
Thus, I define a heretic as someone who ‘refuses submission to the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium,’ or as St. Thomas puts it, someone who ‘is not prepared to follow the teaching of the Church in all things.’ A person who is simply mistaken about a particular doctrine is not a material heretic according to this definition[;] they are simply, as St. Thomas says, ‘no longer in heresy but only in error.’
He also provided two helpful quotes — one from Cardinal Louis Billot (d. 1931), another from Fr. E. Sylvester Berry (d. 1954) — which I reproduce here for the reader’s benefit:
- Billot: “According to the origin of the term and the constant sense of all tradition, someone is properly called a heretic who after receiving Christianity in the sacrament of Baptism, does not accept the rule of what must be believed from the magisterium of the Church, but chooses from somewhere else a rule of belief about matters of faith and the doctrine of Christ: whether he follow other doctors and teachers of religion, or adheres to the principle of free examination and professes a complete independence of thought, or whether finally he disbelieve even one article out of those which are proposed by the Church as dogmas of Faith. … [I]f by a material heretic we understand someone who professes that he accepts the magisterium of the Church in matters of faith, while at the same time he denies something defined by the Church because he does not know it was defined, or holds some opinion which is contrary to Catholic doctrine because he falsely believes it is taught by the Church, then it would be evidently absurd to say that material heretics are outside the body of the true Church, but the very meaning of that term would be completely changed.”[2]
- Berry: “A heretic is usually defined as a Christian, i.e., a baptized person, who holds a doctrine contrary to revealed truth; but this definition is inaccurate, since it would make heretics of a large portion of the faithful. A doctrine contrary to revealed truth is usually stigmatized as heretical, but a person who professes an heretical doctrine is not necessarily a heretic. Heresy, from the Greek hairesis, signifies a choosing; therefore a heretic is one who chooses for himself in matters of faith, thereby rejecting the authority of the Church established by Christ to teach all men the truths of revelation. He rejects the authority of the Church by following his own judgment or by submitting to an authority other than that established by Christ. A person who submits to the authority of the Church and wishes to accept all her teachings is not a heretic, even though he profess heretical doctrines through ignorance of what the Church really teaches; he implicitly accepts the true doctrine in his general intention to accept all that the Church teaches.”[3]
I thank Mr. McCusker for providing these quotes, which helped me realize I had indeed misunderstood the correct meaning of “material heretic.” I now see that the term properly applies only to baptized non-Catholics (e.g., Eastern Orthodox, Protestants) and not to mistaken Catholics, as McCusker’s colleague S.D. Wright explains on their website (emphasis added):
As such, according to Billot, this term [‘material heretic’] should not be used for Catholics who are mistaken in good faith. The distinguishing feature between good-faith Protestants and Catholics who are in error is their relationship to the Church’s magisterium as their rule of faith. Imposing the term ‘material heretic’ on both groups obscures more than it clarifies. Billot states that, if we call such Catholics ‘material heretics’, then ‘the very meaning of that term [viz. ‘material heresy’, but also ‘heresy’ itself] would be completely changed. Although theologians have used different terms in different ways — and some have indeed applied the term ‘material heretic’ to mistaken Catholics — the distinction between mistaken Catholics and good-faith non-Catholics is important, and it is blurred or lost by the use of one term for both. … As already stated, the thesis — that open heretics are not members of the Church — can only apply to a putative Catholic if he is clearly not just mistaken or misspeaking, but clearly departing from the Church’s profession of faith. This is not to say that we must attain some sort of metaphysical certitude before concluding such a thing: moral certitude is sufficient.[4]
Criteria for Proving the Crime of Heresy
In order for a baptized Catholic to qualify as a heretic, he must obstinately — that is, knowingly and willingly — deny or doubt “some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith” (can. 751), which is what I argued in the first place. “For a person is not to be called a heretic as soon as he shall have offended in matters of faith,” says the Roman Catechism (1566), “but he is a heretic who, having disregarded the authority of the Church, maintains impious opinions with pertinacity.”[5] And how do we obtain “moral certitude” that such a person “is clearly not just mistaken or misspeaking, but clearly departing from the Church’s profession of faith”? By the fact that he remains obstinate (pertinacious) “even after a process of reflection, reconsideration, dialogue, and attempted reconciliation,”[6] including the use of warnings (as mentioned in the 1917 Code of Canon Law, e.g., can. 2314 §1, 2315).
All of this is based fundamentally on divine law: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he that is such a one is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment” (Tit. 3:10-11). The implication is clear: a heretic should be avoided only “after the first and second admonition,” and not before. Moreover, the admonitions must come from members of the Church’s hierarchy (bishops and cardinals), not private individuals. On this point, John of St. Thomas (d. 1644) rightly notes that “a heretic should be avoided after two admonitions legally made and with the Church’s authority, and not according to private judgment; indeed, great confusion would follow in the Church if it would suffice that this correction be done by a private man.”[7]
According to St. Robert Bellarmine (d. 1621), such admonitions of a reigning Pontiff (based on Titus 3:10-11, which he cites)[8] should be issued in the context of a general Council. As mentioned in a previous article, Bellarmine lists six reasons “on account of which Councils are celebrated,” and
[t]he fourth reason is suspicion of heresy in the Roman Pontiff, if perhaps it might happen, or if he were an incorrigible tyrant; for then a general Council ought to be gathered either to depose the Pope if he should be found to be a heretic, or certainly to admonish him, if he seemed incorrigible in morals.[9]
He also observes that “the Roman Pontiff cannot be deprived of his right to summon Councils and preside over them … unless he were first convicted by the legitimate judgment of a Council and is not the Supreme Pontiff,” and further, that “the Pope in a Council is not the only judge, but has many colleagues, that is, all the Bishops who, if they could convict him of heresy, they could also judge and depose him even against his will.”[10] All of this is contrary to McCusker’s claim that a pope who falls into public heresy would “automatically lose office” without any involvement on the part of the Church’s hierarchy.
As I have said before, it is undeniable that Francis publicly promoted heresies by his words and deeds, but the fact remains that he was neither admonished nor convicted of the crime by his brother bishops (and it is the crime of heresy, not the sin alone, which severs a man from the Church),[11] nor did he publicly renounce “the rule of faith proposed by the magisterium,” to quote McCusker. On the contrary, Francis insisted on the need for fidelity to the Magisterium (granted, he seemed to equate such fidelity with adhering to every jot and tittle of Vatican II, which is a separate issue).[12] At most, then, we can affirm that he was suspect of heresy,[13] which is obviously not the same as being convicted of the crime. Now that he has departed this life, it will be up to a future pope to judge whether or not Francis should be anathematized — much like the case of Pope Honorius I (r. 625-638), who was condemned over forty years after his death.[14]
McCusker’s False Presuppositions Remain
McCusker, for his part, persists in maintaining two false presuppositions identified in a previous article, namely: (1) it is impossible for the proximate rule of faith (Pope and bishops) to ever deviate from the remote rule of faith (Scripture and Tradition); and (2) it is illicit for the faithful to have recourse to the remote rule if and when the proximate rule fails to teach clearly or correctly.
Regarding the relationship between the two rules, he says:
The content of the remote rule and the content of the proximate rule of faith never differ from each other. This is because the magisterium is infallible.
To repeat: There can never be a disparity between the doctrine infallibly proposed by the living teaching office of the Church, and that contained in the Tradition from whence that doctrine is derived. This is the true meaning of those oft-maligned words attributed to Pope Pius IX: ‘I am Tradition.’ The Tradition and the living Magisterium are inseparable, and the pope is the supreme living teacher of Tradition.
Ironically, however, he seems to hold that “the living Magisterium” has ceased to exist, referring as he does to “the putative hierarchy” and “the putative college of cardinals” in this article (“putative” being synonymous with supposed or alleged). Such statements strongly imply a sedevacantist position on McCusker’s part, as does this reply posted by the online journal he co-edits. (Respectfully, he should stop tiptoeing around the issue and plainly state who he believes was the last valid pope.)
It is true, of course, that “the magisterium is infallible,” but that does not exclude the possibility of individual members of the Magisterium falling into error and even heresy. In his classic treatise On Divine Tradition, Cardinal John Baptist Franzelin (d. 1886) discusses the nature of Tradition and the Magisterium in detail and observes (emphasis added):
It could certainly happen that not only many Bishops, but even whole provinces might defect from the faith and still, a greater part of the faithful remaining in the orthodox profession would prefer communion and consensus with the Apostolic succession which remains in consensus and communion with the center of unity, i.e., with the See of Peter. Nevertheless, it cannot happen that the whole episcopate would defect and it would not remain under the assistance of the Holy Spirit as the organ to preserve Tradition, through which just as through the external ordinary Magisterium the same Spirit contains and preserves the communion and faith of the Catholic people. For this to be true, it does not necessarily always require that the universal episcopacy should defend and safeguard the orthodox profession with intensity and zeal against their adversaries; rather constancy suffices in that, once doctrine has been handed down, it remains by that very constancy a living norm directing even the bond of union on behalf of the Catholic people.[15]
Thus, according to Cardinal Franzelin (an eminent theologian and peritus at Vatican I), it is indeed possible for members of the Magisterium and “even whole provinces” of bishops to “defect from the faith” (i.e., deviate from the remote rule) and fail to “defend and safeguard the orthodox profession with intensity and zeal against their adversaries,” something which did in fact occur during the Arian crisis (4th century).
St. Vincent of Lérins (5th century) wrote in his Commonitorium of “when the Arian poison had infected not an insignificant portion of the Church but almost the whole world, so that a sort of blindness had fallen upon almost all the bishops of the Latin tongue, circumvented partly by force partly by fraud, and was preventing them from seeing what was most expedient to be done in the midst of so much confusion,”[16] yet St. Vincent did not dismiss them as “the putative hierarchy.” He simply observed that in such circumstances Catholics must “cleave to antiquity,”[17] that is, cling to Tradition (the remote rule of faith) by having recourse to what Franzelin calls “the ecclesiastical monuments” and other theologians call the “monuments of Tradition”[18] (e.g., formal Creeds of the Church, definitions of Councils, writings of the Church Fathers, Sacramentaries, etc.)
Regarding the Pope, in particular, McCusker asserts that he “never will be, and never can be, a public heretic.” In other words, he holds the opinion of Albert Pighius (d. 1542), the first of the five opinions discussed by Bellarmine in De Romano Pontifice. While Bellarmine himself was favorable to that opinion, he also conceded that “it is not certain, and the common opinion is to the contrary,” which is why he considered it “worthwhile to see what the response should be if the Pope could be a heretic.”[19] Moreover, the First Vatican Council (1870) specifically eschewed the opinion of Pighius,[20] making it clear that the dogma of papal infallibility does not exclude the possibility of a pope falling into heresy. Consequently, Van Noort notes that “some competent theologians do concede that the pope when not speaking ex cathedra could fall into formal heresy.”[21]
The Danger of Schism
For all his concern about heresy, McCusker seems quite nonchalant when it comes to the danger of schism. Regarding the upcoming conclave, he has publicly questioned the eligibility of at least three cardinals (here, here, and here) based on his suspicion that they are heretics and has ultimately asserted: “If a candidate refuses to make a full profession of the Catholic faith, if they remain silent over heresies and errors, if they leave evil disciplines in place, if they continue to suppress the rites of the Church, these will be clear and indisputable signs that we are dealing with the Successor of Francis, and not with the Successor of St. Peter.” (Paul VI attempted to supplant the traditional rites of the Roman Church with new rites. Was he therefore an antipope, according to McCusker?)
In an attempt to justify his position — as it relates both to Francis (here) and the upcoming conclave (here) — he provides a partial quote from the esteemed Jesuit canonists Fr. Francis X. Wernz and Fr. Peter Vidal: “They cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumors in circulation.”[22] The full sentence, however, goes on to say (after the phrase “in circulation”), “as happened after the election of Urban VI, or because they resist him as a civil prince, not as the pastor of the Church.” As explained in previous articles (here and here), the case of Urban VI in 1378 is simply not applicable to the election of Francis in 2013, nor can it be preemptively applied to the upcoming conclave.
Both McCusker and those who give credence to his dubious position would do well to consider the following words of John of St. Thomas:
Whoever would deny that a particular man is Pope after he has been peacefully and canonically accepted, would not only be a schismatic, but also a heretic; for, not only would he rend the unity of the Church … but he would also add to this a perverse doctrine, by denying that the man accepted by the Church is to be regarded as the Pope and the rule of faith [i.e., the proximate rule, who is himself subject to the remote rule of Scripture and Tradition]. Pertinent here is the teaching of St. Jerome (Commentary on Titus, chapter 3) and of St. Thomas (IIa IIae, q. 39, a. 1, ad 3), that every schism concocts some heresy for itself, in order to justify its withdrawal from the Church. Thus, although schism is distinct from heresy, nevertheless, it is most often joined with heresy, and prepares the way for it, and in the case at hand whoever would deny the proposition just stated would not be a pure schismatic, but also a heretic, as Suárez also reckons.[23]
They would also do well to recall Billot’s teaching that “from the moment in which the Pope is accepted by the Church and united to her as the head of the body, it is no longer permitted to raise doubts about a possible vice of election or a possible lack of any condition whatsoever necessary for legitimacy. For the aforementioned adhesion of the Church heals in the root all fault in the election and proves infallibly the existence of the required conditions.”[24]
Pray for a Holy Pope
As we approach the conclave, let us continue to pray fervently that Our Lord, in His mercy, will grant us a shepherd after His own Heart (cf. Jer. 3:15), one who will nourish His flock with sound doctrine and a holy example. And if you have not already done so, dear reader, I encourage you to begin praying Bishop Schneider’s Prayer for Imploring Holy Popes and thus participate in his Worldwide Crusade of Prayers for the Upcoming Conclave:
Kyrie Eleison! Christe Eleison! Kyrie Eleison! Lord Jesus Christ, You are the Good Shepherd!
With Your almighty hand You guide Your pilgrim Church through the storms of each age.
Adorn the Holy See with holy popes who neither fear the powerful of this world nor compromise with the spirit of the age, but preserve, strengthen, and defend the Catholic Faith unto the shedding of their blood, and observe, protect, and hand on the venerable liturgy of the Roman Church.
O Lord, return to us through holy popes who, inflamed with the zeal of the Apostles, proclaim to the whole world: “Salvation is found in no other than in Jesus Christ. For there is no other name under heaven given to men by which they should be saved” (see Acts 4:10-12).
Through an era of holy popes, may the Holy See — which is home to all who promote the Catholic and Apostolic Faith — always shine as the cathedra of truth for the whole world. Hear us, O Lord, and through the intercession of the Immaculate Heart of Mary, Mother of the Church, grant us holy popes, grant us many holy popes! Have mercy on us and hear us! Amen.
[1] Msgr. G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Vol. II: Christ’s Church (Westminster: The Newman Press, 1957), pp. 241-242.
[2] Cardinal Louis Billot, Tractatus de Ecclesia Christi (Third Edition, 1909), Tomus I, Question VII, Thesis XI (pp. 291-293).
[3] Fr. E. Sylvester Berry, The Church of Christ: An Apologetic and Dogmatic Treatise (Eugene: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2009), p. 128.
[4] Fr. Berry seems to imply the same: “So far as exclusion from the Church is concerned, it matters not whether the heresy or schism be formal or material. Those born and reared in heresy or schism [i.e., baptized non-Catholics] may be sincere in their belief and practice, yet they publicly and willingly reject the Church and attach themselves to sects opposed to her; they are not guilty of sin in the matter, but they are not members of the Church. For this reason, the Church makes no distinction between formal and material heresy when receiving converts into her fold.” The Church of Christ, pp. 128-129. Moreover, McCusker himself cites “an invincibly ignorant Protestant” as an example of a material heretic.
[5] Catechism of the Council of Trent (Charlotte: TAN Books, 2017), p. 99.
[6] John P. Beal, et al (eds.), New Commentary on the Code of Canon Law (New York: Paulist Press, 2000), p. 916.
[7] John of St. Thomas, Cursus Theologicus II-II, Tomus VII-I (New York: Lyceum Institute, 2023), De Auctoritate Summi Pontificis, Disp. II, Art. III, n. XXVI (p. 263). Quoted by John Salza and Robert Siscoe in True or False Pope? Refuting Sedevacantism and Other Modern Errors (Winona: STAS Editions, 2015), p. 250.
[8] While discussing the five opinions on whether a heretical pope can be deposed, Bellarmine appeals to “St. Paul, who commands Titus, that after two censures, that is, after he appears manifestly pertinacious, a heretic is to be shunned,” thus affirming the need for warnings to establish pertinacity in a public and undeniable manner (De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Ch. 30; trans. Ryan Grant, p. 313).
[9] St. Robert Bellarmine (trans. Ryan Grant), De Ecclesia, Book I, Ch. 9, pp. 39-40 (see here for the original Latin).
[10] Ibid., Book I, Ch. 21, pp. 115-116 (see here and here for the original Latin). All of this agrees with Bellarmine’s teaching in De Romano Pontifice that (1)“a heretical Pope can be judged” according to “the canon Si Papa, dist. 40, and with Innocent [III],” (2) that heresy is “the only reason where it is lawful for inferiors to judge superiors,” and (3) that “in the case of heresy, a Roman Pontiff can be judged” (Book II, Ch. 30; trans. Grant, pp. 312-313).
[11] According to McCusker, “It is the sin in and of itself, not the crime [of heresy], which severs a man from the Church.” To support his argument, he quotes the following from Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis Christi (n. 23): “For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” What he fails to mention is that the word for “sin” in the original Latin of that sentence (AAS 35 [1943], p. 203) is admissum, which means “crime” (see here). The Jesuit canonists Wernz and Vidal likewise say it is the “crime” (criminis) of heresy that would cause a heretical pope to separate himself from the Church and thus lose his office (Ius Canonicum, Tom. II, p. 518). If the sin (peccatum) of heresy alone were sufficient to sever a man from the Church, as McCusker claims, then even secret heretics would be outside the Church (which Bellarmine refutes in De Ecclesia, Book III, Ch. 10) and it would be impossible to know with certainty who is actually a member, thus destroying the Church’s visibility.
[12] In January of 2021, Francis addressed a meeting hosted by the National Catechetical Office of the Italian Episcopal Conference and said: “This is magisterium: the Council is the magisterium of the Church. Either you are with the Church and therefore you follow the Council, and if you do not follow the Council or you interpret it in your own way, as you wish, you are not with the Church. We must be demanding and strict on this point. … Please, no concessions to those who try to present a catechesis that does not agree with the Magisterium of the Church.” For commentary and sources on the status of Vatican II, see this article. Bishop Athanasius Schneider sums up the central issue as follows: “Ultimately, the papal magisterium has to clarify in a convincing manner the controversial points of some of the expressions in the Council texts. Until now, this has not always been done in an intellectually honest and convincing way. Were it necessary, a pope or future ecumenical Council would have to add explanations (a kind of ‘notae explicativae posteriors’) or even amendments and corrections of those controversial expressions, since they were not presented by the Council as an infallible and definitive teaching.”
[13] For a detailed discussion of what it means to be “suspect of heresy,” see Salza and Siscoe, op. cit., pp. 161-173.
[14] Honorius I was posthumously condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople (681): “… we have also seen fit to banish from the holy Church of God and to anathematize also Honorius, the former pope of the elder Rome, because we have discovered in the letters written by him to Sergius that he followed in everything the opinion of that one and confirmed his impious dogma” (D.H. 552). The following year, Pope St. Leo II (r. 682-683) confirmed this condemnation: “And, we in like manner, anathematize the inventors of the new error: namely, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Phyrrus … and also Honorius, who did not purify this apostolic Church by the doctrine of the apostolic tradition, but rather attempted to subvert the immaculate faith by profane treason [Greek version: he allowed the immaculate ⟨Church⟩ to be stained by profane treason]” (D.H. 563).
[15] Cardinal John Baptist Franzelin (trans. Ryan Grant), On Divine Tradition (Post Falls: Mediatrix Press, 2016), p. 160.
[16] St. Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium 4.
[17] Ibid., 3.
[18] See, e.g., Salaverri and Nicolau, S.J., Sacrae Theologiae Summa IB (Keep the Faith, 2015), pp. 295-296.
[19] Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Ch. 30 (trans. Ryan Grant, p. 312).
[20] One week prior to the promulgation of Pastor Aeternus, Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser (a member of Vatican I’s doctrinal commission) presented a lengthy relatio (speech) to the Council Fathers, during which he stated: “As far as the doctrine set forth in the Draft [of Pastor Aeternus] goes, the deputation [i.e., doctrinal commission] is unjustly accused of wanting to raise an extreme opinion, viz., that of Albert Pighius, to the dignity of a dogma.” In response to the accusation, Bishop Gasser clarified that “the doctrine in the proposed chapter [i.e., what became the fourth chapter of Pastor Aeternus] is not that of Albert Pighius or the extreme opinion of any school….” Rev. James T. O’Connor, The Gift of Infallibility (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008), pp. 58-59.
[21] Van Noort, op. cit., p. 294.
[22] Wernz-Vidal, Ius Canonicum (Third Edition, 1943), Tomus VII, Part III, Ch. XXIX, n. 398 (p. 439).
[23] John of St. Thomas, op. cit., Disp. II, Art. II, n. XLIV (pp. 249-250).
[24] Billot, op. cit., Tomus I, Question XIV, Thesis XXIX § 3 (p. 621). Quoted by Arnaldo Xavier da Silveira in Can a Pope Be… a Heretic? The Theological Hypothesis of a Heretical Pope (Caminhos Romanos, 2018), p. 144.
