Post 3



“Heretics are baptised men who doubt or deny at least one dogma, whilst retaining the claim of being Christians.”

Canon 1325 defines an heretic as “one who after Baptism, whilst remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any one of the truths which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.”

Truths which must be believed with divine and Catholic faith are known as “dogmas.” The Vatican Council teaches that "all those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and which the Church, either by a solemn judgement or by her ordinary and universal magisterium, proposes for belief as having been divinely revealed."

Fr. de Zulueta, Letters on Christian Doctrine (Burns, Oats & Washbourne, 1922, 9th edition) explains: "…be it carefully observed, it is not necessary for the guilt of heresy that the doctrine should have been solemnly defined by supreme authority; it is quite sufficient that it should form part of the ordinary daily teaching of the Church throughout the world, which is infallible. To say, 'It is not heresy to deny this doctrine: for the Church has never DEFINED it,' is utterly UNSOUND. Hence it would be heresy to deny any truth contained in the Scriptures, because the Church teaches all that the Scriptures do." (Emphasis in the original).

Before we can discuss intelligently the various degrees of openness of heresy, or its effects, we must ensure we understand what it is. To this end we must be clear about a few distinctions. For example, the difference between “heresy” and “heretic.”

An heretic is one who is guilty of the crime of heresy, and has not repented. That is, an heretic is one who is in the “state” of heresy. An heresy is a doctrine which is directly opposed to a dogma. Immediately we should be able to see that an heretic is not merely one who holds to an heresy – an heretic may not hold to any heresy whatsoever, for he may be guilty only of doubting a dogma. Being in such a state of doubt, he lacks the certainty of faith. He is faithless.

Finally, there are two elements to heresy – the doctrine involved, and the pertinacious will. If a man doubts or denies something which is not actually a dogma, he is not an heretic. Or if a man doubts or denies a dogma, but without pertinacity, he is not an heretic. “Doubt” must be pertinacious doubt. That is, not a fleeting question about whether something is true, but a wilful failure to adhere to what is proposed by the Church for belief. Pertinacity is said to be present when a man knows that he opposes the Church. McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology – A Complete Course (Wagner, New York, London, 1958), explain: “Heresy is not formal unless one pertinaciously rejects the truth, knowing his error and consenting to it.”

The two elements which constitute heresy (false doctrine and pertinacity) correspond to the nature of man – intellect and will. Both the intellect and the will are involved in faith, and both are disordered in heresy. Likewise, both are by their nature internal – that is, neither is by its nature visible externally. But both may be externalised, or brought into the open by the delinquent, and when they are we can identify heresy, or an heretic.

The question of HOW we identify an heretic will be treated in the fourth point, in which I will prove that we can know a manifest heretic with certainty.

If anything in this post is confusing or unclear, please object or ask questions, and I will do my best either to add to my proofs or clarify my explanations.

Yours in JMJ,
John Lane
www.sedevacantist.com

Home