On July 15, Catholic Exchange published an essay by Bishop Athanasius Schneider under the headline, The Existence of Heresy Within the Catholic Church Today.
It’s not immediately clear whether the title was provided by Bishop Schneider or by some too-big-for-his-britches editor whose grasp of basic ecclesiology is so impoverished that the utter impossibility of heresy dwelling within the Church never crossed his addled mind.
In truth, heresy is incompatible with the unity of faith with which Our Lord endowed His Church as among her permanent notes. According to Cardinal Billot, this unity of faith “is not provisional but definitive, which must last until the consummation of the age.”
This is why “in the struggle against heresy the Fathers very strongly stress the unity of faith.” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 304) [For a more in-depth treatment of unity of faith see the following from WM Review.]
At this, there is one portion of Bishop Schneider’s essay in particular that merits a close look. He states:
The word heresy has been used in many ways throughout Church history; however, it has always been used to describe some form of choice or separation from a larger whole, coming from the Greek term hairesis (meaning “selection” or “choice”). As may be read in the writings of all the Church Fathers, heresy was regarded as one of the greatest of all evils. Eventually, the term heresy came to be understood more narrowly, as the rejection of truths of faith and morals only—things that must be believed in order to be considered a Catholic.
Bishop Schneider’s observation concerning the evolution of the word “heresy” as commonly understood is an important one. In our day, it seems that “heresy” is considered almost exclusively in strict legalistic terms. Bishop Schneider seems to be suggesting that it is this understanding of heresy in particular that weighs upon one’s membership in the Church, but is that truly so?
The Church has always held that heresy, being incompatible as it is with the unity of faith that she possesses, engenders self-separation from her on the part of those heretics who obstinately refuse correction.
In our attempt to think with the mind of the Church on this point, the question we will attempt to answer here is as follows:
Which of the definitions of heresy (and thus, heretic) is applicable vis-à-vis the loss of membership in the Church, the broader or the stricter?
We begin with a look at the strict legalistic understanding as indicated in the 1917 Code of Canon Law definition of a heretic:
After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one is] a heretic. (1325 § 2.)
The conciliar Code of Canon Law states likewise:
Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith. (Can. 751)
What is meant by things that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith?
The First Vatican Council tells us:
Wherefore, by Divine and Catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in Scripture and Tradition, and which are proposed by the Church as matters to be believed as divinely revealed, whether by her solemn judgment or in her ordinary and universal magisterium. (Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith ,Ch. 3, No. 8)
In other words, these doctrines are to be believed by divine faith because they are divinely revealed, as well as by Catholic faith because the Church has defined them as such. As all agree, the obstinate heretic (as defined above) who refuses to so believe separates himself from the Church.
Still, however, the question remains: Are those doctrines that one must believe with divine and Catholic faith the only truths that one cannot pertinaciously deny or doubt lest he place himself outside the society of the faithful?
Remember our goal: In light of the fact that contemporary Catholics have come to think of “heresy” almost exclusively in strict, narrow, legalistic terms – in particular as it concerns the matter of membership in the Mystical Body of Christ – we are attempting to align our thinking with the mind of the Church such as she has always thought.
This being so, it only stands to reason that we should look for insight, first and foremost, to the pages of Sacred Scripture. We begin with St. Paul’s Epistle to Titus:
A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: Knowing that he that is such an one is subverted and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment.(Titus 3:10-11)
As St. Paul wrote in the second half of the first century, public revelation was still on-going and the Church had yet to declare neither the extent, nor the content, of Divine Revelation. She had yet to propose certain matters that, strictly speaking as opposed to others, are to be believed as divinely revealed. There was at that time no list of specifically “de fide” doctrines as distinguishable from any other sort of teaching.
Even so, St. Paul warns that the obstinate heretic – that is, one who clings to heresy despite multiple admonitions – is to be avoided, i.e., we are to treat that man as if he is no longer in communion with the Body of Christ.
One may reasonably ask: What exactly is the subject matter of the “heresy” to which St. Paul refers?
In Galatians, the Apostle to the Gentiles gives us an indication:
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema. (Galatians 1:8-9)
This indicates that when St. Paul refers to a “heretic” in his Letter to Titus, he is speaking of one who dares to proclaim any doctrine that is contrary to what has been received. The consequences for this person as mentioned in Galatians is the same as the heretic of which he wrote to Titus, anathema, that is, severance from the society of the faithful.
Our Lord Himself provided further insight:
And if he will not hear them: tell the Church. And if he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. (Matthew 18:17)
How does this apply to the present situation in the Church, wherein authority figures, up to and including the man claiming to be pope, are routinely refusing correction as they go about professing false doctrines?
In his famous Biblical commentary, Rev. George Leo Haydock offers:
Tell the church. This not only shews the order of fraternal correction, but also every man’s duty in submitting to the judgment of the Church. (Witham) — There cannot be a plainer condemnation of those who make particular creeds, and will not submit the articles of their belief to the judgment of the authority appointed by Christ.
At this, it seems rather clear:
According to the mind of the Church, the “heresy” by which one places himself outside the society of the faithful – or in the words of Sacred Scripture, is to be avoided, is anathema, is to be treated as a heathen and publican – concerns not only the strict legalistic definition so commonly invoked in our day, but also heresy as understood in the broader sense.
With this in mind, consider what Pope Pius XII taught about membership in his Encyclical Mystici Corporis:
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed … The cooperation of all its members must also be externally manifest through their profession of the same faith… (Mystici Corporis 22, 69)
In light of all that has been said thus far, one cannot but conclude that the “true faith” that one must externally manifest and profess in order to be included as a member of the Church concerns far more than those doctrines the obstinate doubt or denial of which constitute heresy in the narrow, legalistic sense of the word.
For those who may still doubt that this is the case, consider the following well-known Catholic doctrines concerning Our Lord and Our Lady:
“Christ, through His Suffering and Death, rendered vicarious atonement to God for the sins of man.” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 187)
“In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life.” (ibid., pg. 203)
Allowing your sensus Catholicus to serve as your guide, tell me:
Is the man who publicly and obstinately denies the that Our Lord’s sacrifice on the Cross rendered atonement to God, and who insists that the Blessed Virgin Mary was guilty of committing personal sin a member of the Holy Roman Catholic Church?
Asked another way: Are you in communion with this person? Do you and this vile individual share unity of faith?
Presumably (and hopefully) you answered a resounding no, i.e., it goes without say that the person who adamantly denies the doctrines in question is not a member of the Catholic Church.
Note, however, that neither one of those doctrines are de fide teachings of the Catholic Church, i.e., neither one must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.
Rather, they are classified as sententia fidei proxima, that is, “a teaching proximate to Faith … a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.” (cf Ott’s Fundamentals, pg. 9)
To be perfectly clear, these doctrines are most assuredly true, but they have not been defined by the Church as divinely revealed. As such, their denial is not heresy according to the narrow legalistic definition of the word.
Now, in fairness to Bishop Schneider, he does not explicitly say that de fide doctrines that pertain to the strict legalistic definition of heresy are the only ones “that must be believed in order to be considered a Catholic.” His words, however, might lead one to believe as much, even if only inadvertently.
Now you know better.
Unfortunately, Bishop Schneider’s essay, despite its brevity, contained a number of other dubious statements. In the interest of time, however, I will withhold commentary on them for a later date.
In closing, I’ll leave you with a question. As Bishop Schneider pointed out: “In the writings of all the Church Fathers, heresy was regarded as one of the greatest of all evils.”
Do you?
