It is currently Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:54 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 
 Van Laak and Billot on membership in the Church. 
Author Message

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Van Laak and Billot on membership in the Church.
Van Laak S.I., De Ecclesia et Traditione, SummaThesium quarundam ex tractatu dogmatico de Ecclesia, num 78.

Quote:
Thesis: Heretici notorii non sunt membra ecclesiae.

Obj 1: "Haeretici post haeresim notoriam excommunicantur. Ergo ipsa haeresi non fiebant extra ecclesiam.

R. Dist. maj. ad manifestandam haeresim et ad certos effectus coniungnedos cum tali excommunicatione, v.g. civiles, c., ad exclusionem ipsam faciendam, n.


Translation:

Thesis: notorious heretics are not members of the Church.

Obj. 1: Heretics are excommunicated after their notorious heresy. Ergo they are not outside the Church because of the heresy itself.

Resp: I distinguish the Major, (public heretics are excommunicated) to manifest the heresy and to add some effects to the excommunication, such as civil ones, I conc., to exclude them from the Church, I deny.

NB: Theologians usually take the words manifest and public as synonymous. This is not the only case.

Billot, De Ecclesia, Vol. 1, 5 ed. 1928, pag. 431.

Quote:
Et confirmatur primo eadem doctrina, quia quisquis legerit catalogum haeresum apud Augustinum vel Epiphanium, statim videbit quod plerisque earum ipso Epiphanii et Augustini tempore, nulla adhuc opponebatur solemnis definitio; sed ideo pro haeresibus habebantur, quia satis est certa et notoria contrarietas ad ea quae quotidiano magisterii exercitio per totam Ecclesiam docentur tamquam ad fidem pertinentia. Confirmatur secundo, quia nemo sane dixerit, errorem Arianum non transiisse in haeresim nisi post definitionem Nicaenam, Nestorium post definitionem Ephesinam, et sic de aliis. Imo vero statim ut Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius dogmatizare inceperunt, traducti sunt et denuntiati ut haeretici.

Translation:

"And this (that those who oppose the universal ordinary magisterium teaching something as belonging to faith are heretics) is confirmed, first by reading the catalog of heresies made by Augustin or Epiphanius, in which you may immediatelly see that most of them where not yet condemned by solemn judgment, but nevertheless they were regarded as heresies, because it is enough to have a certain and notorious opposition to those things tought in its daily magisterium by the whole Church as belonging to faith. In second place it is confirmed, because nobody says the error of Arius began to be an heresy just after the Council of Nicea, the error of Nestorius after Constantinople, etc. In fact immediately Arius, Macedonius, Nestorius began to teach, they were regarded and denounced as heretics"


These quotes are against those saying that a judgment or admonition of the Church must exist before someone may lose membership in the Church.

Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sun Oct 02, 2011 5:52 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Van Laak and Billot on membership in the Church.
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
These quotes are against those saying that a judgment or admonition of the Church must exist before someone may lose membership in the Church.


Excuse me, my dear friend (and thank you very much for putting this in here!) to ask in this section, but who is saying so?


Mon Oct 03, 2011 9:12 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Van Laak and Billot on membership in the Church.
Julian wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
These quotes are against those saying that a judgment or admonition of the Church must exist before someone may lose membership in the Church.


Excuse me, my dear friend (and thank you very much for putting this in here!) to ask in this section, but who is saying so?


Hello Julian!

You are welcome.

That`s me... :oops:

I should have said "I think these quotes, etc"

You think the quotes don`t support what I think they do?

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Mon Oct 03, 2011 11:14 am
Profile E-mail

Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2011 4:19 pm
Posts: 48
New post Re: Van Laak and Billot on membership in the Church.
Oh, I see! :D

No, you are completely right, Cristian.


Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:30 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Van Laak and Billot on membership in the Church.
Julian wrote:
Oh, I see! :D

No, you are completely right, Cristian.



:D

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Mon Oct 03, 2011 1:42 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:32 pm
Posts: 136
Location: Spokane
New post Re: Van Laak and Billot on membership in the Church.
:wink:

_________________
Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever and so is His Church.


Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:44 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:01 pm
Posts: 49
New post Re: Van Laak and Billot on membership in the Church.
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Resp: I distinguish the Major, (public heretics are excommunicated) to manifest the heresy and to add some effects to the excommunication, such as civil ones, I conc., to exclude them from the Church, I deny.


A question for you, Cristian. When we read:

Quote:
to manifest the heresy


What exactly does that mean? Isn't public heresy manifest by the very fact that it's public? When I read that, it sounds like a judgment from a Church authority is necessary to manifest the heresy.


Fri Oct 07, 2011 10:23 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Van Laak and Billot on membership in the Church.
quaerere wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Resp: I distinguish the Major, (public heretics are excommunicated) to manifest the heresy and to add some effects to the excommunication, such as civil ones, I conc., to exclude them from the Church, I deny.


A question for you, Cristian. When we read:

Quote:
to manifest the heresy


What exactly does that mean? Isn't public heresy manifest by the very fact that it's public? When I read that, it sounds like a judgment from a Church authority is necessary to manifest the heresy.


Hi quaerere!

I think the author uses the words in this way:

Notorious = public.

To manifest = notorious in law.

I know this sounds a little bit odd but in N° 75 the author is more clear:

Quote:
Dicimus talem professionem requiri. Ergo esse extra ecclesiam haereticos, notorios qui dicuntur, sive culpabiliter tales sint, sive inculpabiliter, eo quod sine culpa putant ecclesiam catholicam non esse veram ecclesiam Christi. Ad rationem autem notorietatis non requiritur ut sint judicialiter convicti haereseos. Non vero est haereticus is baptizatus, qui sententiam vel ut haereticam damnatam ab ecclesiam, ideo publice negat, quia ob errorem putat eam doceri ab ecclesia Romana Catholica, cujus sub obedientia vivit. Nulla enim est in tali homine oppositio ad magisterium ecclesiae.
Dicimus talem professionem fidei sufficere. Unde esse intra ecclesiam haereticos internos, porro occultos."


Which translated reads: "We affirm that a profession is required (in order to be member). Therefore heretics, the so called notorious ones, are outside the Church, whether they be guilty or not since they may think, without sinning, that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ. In order to have notoriety it is not necessary that they are condemned as heretics in a trial.
It is not an heretic he who is baptised and publicly denies some doctrine condemned as heretical by the Church, thinking erroneously that it is taught by the Church, under whose obedience he lives. In that man there is no opposition to the ecclesiastical magisterium.
We say that profession is enough (for being member). Therefore internal heretics are members of the Church."

In other words, for the author "notorious heretic" is he who doesn´t profess the Catholic Church and not he who is condemned in a trial, therefore for him notorious is the same as public.

Now we have to recall the following distinctions (I follow and quote Ayrinhac in his comment to canon 2197):

a) Occult: when it is known to no one but the agent.

b) Public: when it is already known to the people of a community or, considering the circumstances of places and persons, will surely be divulged (this is related to canon 188.4)

c) Notorious: could be in law or in fact: notorious legally after a judicial sentence rendered by a competent judge in a matter which has become adjudged. Notoriety of fact when it is publicly known already and was committed in such circumstances that it cannot by any subterfuge be concealed or excused by any legal principle.


Having said this I respond to your question:

Quote:
to manifest the heresy


Quote:
What exactly does that mean? Isn't public heresy manifest by the very fact that it's public? When I read that, it sounds like a judgment from a Church authority is necessary to manifest the heresy.


If you take the words the way I think they should be taken, then the answer is clear:

The term "to manifest" means to make the crime (which up until then it was just "public"; see canon 1933) of heresy notorious of law, and therefore authority is necessary in order to have some specific effects, such as that found in canon 2267 (not having civil relations with a vitandus).

This is the way I see it, I don´t know if it make sense or not?

Cristian

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Fri Oct 07, 2011 11:55 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:01 pm
Posts: 49
New post Re: Van Laak and Billot on membership in the Church.
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Therefore heretics, the so called notorious ones, are outside the Church, whether they be guilty or not since they may think, without sinning, that the Catholic Church is not the Church of Christ.

(. . .)

In other words, for the author "notorious heretic" is he who doesn´t profess the Catholic Church and not he who is condemned in a trial, therefore for him notorious is the same as public.


What in the case of a Catholic who professes the Catholic Church to be the Church of Christ, happens to not be condemned in a trial (yet), and is being disobedient to the ecclesiastical magisterium by not professing a certain de fide teaching, but in fact are against it, doing this while knowing certainly that the Church does in fact teach it? I'm trying to establish when a Catholic is to be considered no longer Catholic (and no longer a member of the Church), and to the extent a layman can come to recognize that fact before a juridical judgment from a competent Church authority. I'm not talking about people who join condemned heretical sects, as I know the answer to such a scenario. I'm talking about persons who profess heresy while they attempt to cling to the Church and call themselves Catholic.

Perhaps we have a Catholic who knows the Church teaches Papal Infallibility as a dogma, but rejects it. What can the layman determine about the status of this person, as a Catholic, before a juridical judgment from a competent Church authority?

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Now we have to recall the following distinctions (I follow and quote Ayrinhac in his comment to canon 2197):

(. . .)

c) Notorious: could be in law or in fact: notorious legally after a judicial sentence rendered by a competent judge in a matter which has become adjudged. Notoriety of fact when it is publicly known already and was committed in such circumstances that it cannot by any subterfuge be concealed or excused by any legal principle.

(. . .)

The term "to manifest" means to make the crime (which up until then it was just "public"; see canon 1933) of heresy notorious of law, and therefore authority is necessary in order to have some specific effects, such as that found in canon 2267 (not having civil relations with a vitandus).


So it could be that there is notoriety of fact before a judicial sentence by a competent Church authority. The judicial judgment is not absolutely necessary to establish the notoriety of fact, but notoriety of law (and authority is also necessary to establish other specific effects.)


Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:21 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Van Laak and Billot on membership in the Church.
quaerere wrote:
What in the case of a Catholic who professes the Catholic Church to be the Church of Christ, happens to not be condemned in a trial (yet), and is being disobedient to the ecclesiastical magisterial by not professing a certain de fide teaching, but in fact are against it, doing this while knowing certainly that the Church does in fact teach it?


Not sure but I think these two statements are contradictory:
1) A person who professes the Catholic Church to be the Church of Christ.
2) A person not professing some defined dogma knowing it is defined.

The reason I think this way is that if you have option 2 then you have a formal public heretic, and all the theologians agree that such a person is not Catholic (the discussion being about material ones). In the case of the material heretic the distinction is made in order to see if that error is an error of Fact (I teach something thinking it is taught by the Church) or an error of Law (I don´t accept the magisterium of the Church as a rule of faith). In the case of 2 the person is obviously wrong, but it is clear it is not an error of fact since he knows the Church teaches otherwise, therefore it must be an error of Law.

You see my point?


Quote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
Now we have to recall the following distinctions (I follow and quote Ayrinhac in his comment to canon 2197):

(. . .)

c) Notorious: could be in law or in fact: notorious legally after a judicial sentence rendered by a competent judge in a matter which has become adjudged. Notoriety of fact when it is publicly known already and was committed in such circumstances that it cannot by any subterfuge be concealed or excused by any legal principle.

(. . .)

The term "to manifest" means to make the crime (which up until then it was just "public"; see canon 1933) of heresy notorious of law, and therefore authority is necessary in order to have some specific effects, such as that found in canon 2267 (not having civil relations with a vitandus).


So it could be that there is notoriety of fact before a judicial sentence by a competent Church authority. The judicial judgment is not absolutely necessary to establish the notoriety of fact, but notoriety of law (and authority is also necessary to establish other specific effects.)


True.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sat Oct 08, 2011 1:52 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:01 pm
Posts: 49
New post Re: Van Laak and Billot on membership in the Church.
About the two statements, the point is, couldn't there exist persons who profess heresy, knowingly, while still calling themselves Catholic? (I agree that what is going on in that person's head has to be a bizarre twist of logic.) An example of a person that fits this description would be the modernist.

I've read from another that Archbishop Cushing once stated, "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense." I would have no qualms about calling him a heretic. (I'm no Feeneyite, by the way).

Cristian Jacobo wrote:
In the case of the material heretic the distinction is made in order to see if that error is an error of Fact (I teach something thinking it is taught by the Church) or an error of Law (I don´t accept the magisterium of the Church as a rule of faith). In the case of 2 the person is obviously wrong, but it is clear it is not an error of fact since he knows the Church teaches otherwise, therefore it must be an error of Law.

You see my point?


Accepting the magisterium of the Church as a rule of faith is essential for being a member of the Church, that I understand.


Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:26 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Van Laak and Billot on membership in the Church.
quaerere wrote:
About the two statements, the point is, couldn't there exist persons who profess heresy, knowingly, while still calling themselves Catholic? (I agree that what is going on in that person's head has to be a bizarre twist of logic.) An example of a person that fits this description would be the modernist.


Well calling oneself "Catholic" is not a sort of shield to believe whatever you want. One thing is to say "I´m Catholic" and other is being so.

Quote:
I've read from another that Archbishop Cushing once stated, "No salvation outside the Church? Nonsense." I would have no qualms about calling him a heretic. (I'm no Feeneyite, by the way).


The thing is what he understood by "outside"? Perhaps the quote is out of context and he is opposing the way Feeney understood it (that is, you need to be member of the Catholic Church in order to be saved), or perhaps he admitted exceptions as Newman, etc. I don´t know... obviously I´m not defending Cushing :)

Quote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
In the case of the material heretic the distinction is made in order to see if that error is an error of Fact (I teach something thinking it is taught by the Church) or an error of Law (I don´t accept the magisterium of the Church as a rule of faith). In the case of 2 the person is obviously wrong, but it is clear it is not an error of fact since he knows the Church teaches otherwise, therefore it must be an error of Law.

You see my point?


Accepting the magisterium of the Church as a rule of faith is essential for being a member of the Church, that I understand.


Indeed. That´s the specific teaching of Billot.

By the way when I said "In the case of 2 the person is obviously wrong, but it is clear it is not an error of fact since he knows the Church teaches otherwise, therefore it must be an error of Law", "2" refers to "2) A person not professing some defined dogma knowing it is defined" and not to "error of law", you see what I mean?

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:41 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:01 pm
Posts: 49
New post Re: Van Laak and Billot on membership in the Church.
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
By the way when I said "In the case of 2 the person is obviously wrong, but it is clear it is not an error of fact since he knows the Church teaches otherwise, therefore it must be an error of Law", "2" refers to "2) A person not professing some defined dogma knowing it is defined" and not to "error of law", you see what I mean?


From what I understand from an article written by Mr. Daly, a Catholic cannot be considered a material heretic when they are unaware of a certain dogma (and may even perhaps teach against it) when the said doctrine is in fact taught by the Church. The Catholic is merely mistaken, because such a person follows the Catholic rule of faith. It is an error of fact on their part.


Sat Oct 08, 2011 2:53 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Van Laak and Billot on membership in the Church.
quaerere wrote:
Cristian Jacobo wrote:
By the way when I said "In the case of 2 the person is obviously wrong, but it is clear it is not an error of fact since he knows the Church teaches otherwise, therefore it must be an error of Law", "2" refers to "2) A person not professing some defined dogma knowing it is defined" and not to "error of law", you see what I mean?


From what I understand from an article written by Mr. Daly, a Catholic cannot be considered a material heretic when they are unaware of a certain dogma (and may even perhaps teach against it) when the said doctrine is in fact taught by the Church. The Catholic is merely mistaken, because such a person follows the Catholic rule of faith. It is an error of fact on their part.


True and I agree.

My point was the following:

Material heretics are wrong on what they teach, but this mistake may be about two different things:

a) An error of Fact: that is, the person thinks the Church teaches something when it fact teaches the opposite.
b) An error of Law: he doesn´t believe the ecclesiastical magisterium is the rule a person must follow.

In both cases the person is mistaken but in the first one his error is about some fact (in this case he believes that the Church in fact teaches X when it does not. So he adheres to the ecclesiastical magisterium (law) but is wrong about some fact) but in the latter case he is denying a law (the law that the ecclesiastical magisterium was instituted by Christ as a rule of faith). In the first case he is Catholic, in the second he is not.

Now a person who knows the Church teaches something and yet rejects it is not a material heretic but a formal one. And again, he is wrong on what he teaches, and this means his error may be an error of fact or an error of law, but since the person knows his error is taught by the Church then it cannot be an error of fact, therefore it must be an error of law; therefore he is not Catholic.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:28 pm
Profile E-mail

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 10:01 pm
Posts: 49
New post Re: Van Laak and Billot on membership in the Church.
Cristian, this is trad123 from the CathInfo forum. I have a specific question.

Caminus posted:

Quote:
Canonists insist that laity have neither the canonical or moral right or competency to determine heresy


What do you make of this?

I distinguished between a juridical judgment and recognizing the fact that someone is a public heretic.

Same thing what Mr. Daly had wrote in an article:

Quote:
The private individual may "judge" that someone is a heretic in the sense of recognising a fact - the epistemological meaning of the word "judge" - and not in the juridical sense of pronouncing a definitive sentence. Hence such judgments can oblige only the conscience of the person forming them, in full awareness of the facts, and no one else.


If we don't have the moral right to determine heresy, then doesn't that mean we can never even recognize it?


Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:41 pm
Profile

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 7:49 pm
Posts: 552
Location: Argentina
New post Re: Van Laak and Billot on membership in the Church.
quaerere wrote:
Cristian, this is trad123 from the CathInfo forum.


Hey, glad to see you! :)

Quote:
I have a specific question.

Caminus posted:

Quote:
Canonists insist that laity have neither the canonical or moral right or competency to determine heresy



Quote:
What do you make of this?


The first thing I think is that he should prove what he says by quoting some canonists :D

Quote:
I distinguished between a juridical judgment and recognizing the fact that someone is a public heretic.

Same thing what Mr. Daly had wrote in an article:

Quote:
The private individual may "judge" that someone is a heretic in the sense of recognising a fact - the epistemological meaning of the word "judge" - and not in the juridical sense of pronouncing a definitive sentence. Hence such judgments can oblige only the conscience of the person forming them, in full awareness of the facts, and no one else.


If we don't have the moral right to determine heresy, then doesn't that mean we can never even recognize it?


I agree!
The text of Van Laak is quite clear: you don´t need a judicial sentence in order that someone lose membership in the Church.

_________________
"Il n`y a qu`une tristesse, c`est de n`etre pas des Saints"

Leon Bloy


Sat Oct 08, 2011 3:51 pm
Profile E-mail
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ] 


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forums/DivisionCore.