My previous article, Heresy and Membership: Exploring the mind of the Church, received some welcome pushback on social media from the editor of the Ecclesia Militans blog, Tony La Rosa, a man with whom I generally agree on many points. His comments, which I presume many others found (or will find) compelling, make a valuable contribution to the discussion, one that is desperately needed in our day.
Before we consider Tony’s commentary, let me be clear: This exercise isn’t being carried out merely for the sake of drawing distinctions between members and non-members (much less is it about disparaging the latter like the Pharisee looking down on the tax collector), rather, it’s an attempt to focus on the current ecclesial crisis through the lens of membership, using it as a tool for dispelling confusion, distinguishing the one true Church of Christ from any and all counterfeits.
The sad reality is that the vast majority of persons in our day who genuinely wish to be and to live as Catholics mistakenly imagine that the conciliar enterprise presently headquartered in Rome, despite the poisonous errors it routinely dispenses to the detriment of souls, is in fact the Holy Catholic Church.
One of the primary causes for this confusion concerns the fact that the Mystical Body of Christ has long been functioning without he who “by Divine Commission takes the place on earth of Jesus Christ, and becomes thereby the Chief Shepherd, guiding and protecting the Lord’s Flock which has been confided to him to rule, with a special duty and obligation to strive by might and main to win over and to join to Christ all who are still without the Fold.” (cf Pope Pius XI, Rerum Ecclesiae).
In ordinary times, he who seeks the Shepherd can be certain that, if successful, he will also find the Sheepfold. The times in which we live, however, are far from ordinary. As it is, those who believe that the heretic Bergoglio is pope also naturally accept as truth the preposterous notion that the church over which he presides is the Catholic Church.
So, how can we help these poor sheep – who unbeknownst to themselves are grazing in the fallow fields of a false fold – to see the truth more clearly?
We might be moved, and reasonably so, to suggest to them that he who finds a wolf merely posing as the Chief Shepherd can be equally certain that he has discovered, in the society over which he rules, a counterfeit church. For whatever reason, however, the suggestion that one might do well to consider the mere possibility that Francis is an antipope is all-too-often received with the same enthusiasm as a cough in a crowded elevator at the height of COVID.
Even so, we must acknowledge that the one true Church of Christ can, and certainly has, functioned without a Chief Shepherd for an extended period, her indefectibility remaining intact. As a matter of undisputed historical fact, the Church was without a pope from November 1268 to September 1271. How much longer the Lord might allow an interregnum to persist is a matter of pure speculation.
Also undisputed is the fact that the Church will, by contrast, always have true and visible members, the alternative being tantamount to her defection. With this in mind, I would propose that he who seeks the true members of the Mystical Body of Christ, if successful, is thereby drawing near to the one true Church of Christ and, likewise, the true pope if, in fact, there is one.
With all of this in mind, let’s now consider Tony La Rosa’s comments.
First, Tony asked if I truly intended to state that “not believing a Church teaching, outside of those teachings that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith, makes you a non-member.” [Note: Obstinately denying or doubting these “must be believed” doctrines is the strict, narrow, legalistic definition of heresy as stated in Canon Law.]
The short answer is yes, it is my belief that according to the mind of the Church one can reveal oneself as a non-member of the Mystical Body of Christ even apart from the commission of heresy narrowly defined.
I do not hold, however, that merely “not believing” a given doctrine – even one that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith – is enough to render, much less reveal one, as a non-member of the Church.
For example, a Catholic who only secretly refuses to believe such a doctrine of the faith does not thereby sever himself from the Body of the Church. That person would be guilty of “occult heresy” (as opposed to obstinate public heresy).
Although occult heresy is a serious sin that renders one a dead member of the Church, the occult heretic remains a visible member of the Church nonetheless, provided he maintains the outward bonds of unity, namely, the external manifestation and profession of the true faith, participation in the sacraments, and submission to the legitimate pastors of the Church, most notably, the Roman Pontiff. This was the opinion of St. Robert Bellarmine, and it has been, and remains, the one most commonly held by theologians ever since.
Tony responded by saying that he thinks my position (that one can reveal oneself as a non-member apart from heresy strictly defined) is a stretch. He asked, and reasonably so, if I could cite a theologian who holds a similar position. I’ll return to this point momentarily.
I replied by asking the same of Tony while calling his attention back to the foundational Biblical citations that I provided in my article, passages in which St. Paul and Our Lord (as quoted by St. Matthew) clearly indicate that one is outside the Fold (“anathema… to be avoided… as a heathen and publican”) even beyond the commission of heresy as narrowly defined in our day. This much should be obvious if for no other reason than the narrow definition did not (and, in fact, could not) exist as these passages were written.
Tony responded by sharing a highly regarded (and much appreciated) resource written by eminent theologian, Fr. Sixtus Cartechini, S.J., On the Value of Theological Notes and the Criteria for Discerning Them (Rome, 1951) in which he provides a review of the various theological notes and the censures that are attached to their corresponding heresies, errors, and contradictions.
This resource may be familiar to readers who follow the SSPX insofar as they have cited theological notes and censures as part of their defense of Jorge Bergoglio while attempting (in vain) to shield him from the charge of heresy.
Tony (via Fr. Cartechini) provided the following valuable distinctions (slightly edited for space):
(a) Theological note: Dogma.
Equivalent terms: Dogma of faith; de fide, de fide Catholica; de fide divina et Catholica.
Explanation: A truth proposed by the Church as revealed by God.
Examples: The Immaculate Conception; all the contents of the Athanasian Creed.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy
Effects of denial: Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited.
(b) Theological Note: Doctrine of ecclesiastical faith
Equivalent term: De fide ecclesiastica definita
Explanation: A truth not directly revealed by God but closely connected with Divine revelation and infallibly proposed by the Magisterium.
Example: The lawfulness of communion under one kind.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Heresy against ecclesiastical faith.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, and, if publicly professed, automatic excommunication and forfeiture of membership of Church.
(c) Theological Note: Truth of Divine faith.
Equivalent term: De fide divina.
Explanation: A truth revealed by God but not certainly proposed as such by the Church.
Example: Christ claimed from the beginning of His public life to be the Messias.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Error (in faith).
Effects of denial: Mortal sin directly against faith, but no loss of Church membership. May incur a canonical penalty.
(d) Theological Note: Proximate to faith.
Explanation: A doctrine all but unanimously held as revealed by God.
Example: Christ possessed the Beatific Vision throughout his life on earth.
Censure attached to contradictory proposition: Proximate to error.
Effects of denial: Mortal sin indirectly against faith
Cartechini’s list goes on to include theological notes of lesser weight that Tony did not share, but his point (“Only A and B cause loss of Church membership”) is well understood.
In response, I called Tony’s attention to the fact that, according to Cartechini, contradictions of theological note (b) – which includes doctrines that are, in fact, “outside of those teachings that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith” (the strict definition of heresy as stated in Canon Law) – also result in forfeiture of membership in the Church.
NB: Cartechini’s treatment of theological notes actually supports my position that the strict definition of heresy is too narrow with respect to the matter of non-membership, i.e., one can reveal oneself as a non-member even apart from doctrinal contradictions that fit the narrow, legalistic, modern day understanding of heresy.
I would further suggest, and will demonstrate here, that it is entirely reasonable to consider that the obstinate denial of even lesser theological notes – those beyond notes (a) and (b) – are enough to reveal one as a non-member of the Church. This understanding, in my view, is the only one that resonates in harmony with both Sacred Scripture and the teaching found in the Encyclical of Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis.
As we continue this exercise, it is important for us to acknowledge the purpose of theological censures, the severest of which is excommunication. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia:
Excommunication (Latin ex, out of, and communio or communicatio, communion — exclusion from the communion), the principal and severest censure, is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society … It is a medicinal rather than a vindictive penalty, being intended, not so much to punish the culprit, as to correct him and bring him back to the path of righteousness.
A sentence of excommunication, whether self-imposed or juridically rendered, is not meant to perdure indefinitely. The fervent hope is that the excommunicated party will come to reject his error and to once again “externally manifest and profess the true faith” as required in order to be counted among the members of the Church (cf., Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 22, 69).
A similar motive gives rise to the lesser censures as well; they too are corrective measures that are meant to be temporary, with the particular purpose of moving those who propagate censured theological positions to abandon their errors. They are also ordered toward protecting the naïve from false teachers while safeguarding and preserving the unity of faith.
It is antithetical to very purpose of a theological censure and, in fact, patently absurd, to maintain that one is free to obstinately persist in promoting, for example, that which contradicts Theological Note (c) – defined by Cartechini as a “truth of Divine faith revealed by God” – and yet to insist that the purveyor of this error against Divine Revelation is somehow “externally manifesting and professing the true faith” (ibid.) as required for membership in the Church. The principle of non-contradiction tells us that both conditions cannot coexist at once.
At this, one might point out that censures are not issued by bloggers and tweeters, but rather by those who exercise legitimate ecclesial authority. Indeed, this is true! In ordinary times (during which we do not live), the person who obstinately persists in propagating a censured error would be running afoul of two of the requirements for membership as articulated by Pius XII, namely, the profession of the true faith, and submission to the legitimate ecclesial authority.
In our day, given that the hapless Dicastery for the Destruction of the Faith is casting a dark shadow over the Holy Office of the Catholic Church, the faithful are left to use their God-given intellect to discover, embrace, and apply to the situation at hand the truths of the faith as made known in the pre-conciliar age.
DON’T BE FOOLED: The modus operandi of the “Resist the Pope” movement, proposing to scour the Roman Pontiff’s authoritative magisterium, picking and choosing what to embrace and what to reject, finds no support whatsoever in Catholic tradition.
Let us also be clear that despite the present crisis, we are not orphans. The voice of Holy Mother Church continues to echo across the ages. It is not absolutely necessary for the Sovereign Pontiff or the Roman Congregations to constantly remind us of all that has been taught in the past. Nor is it necessary for those in authority to condemn every contradictory proposition by name in order for us to recognize that which is incompatible with said teachings and thus membership in the Church.
Here, I repeat an example given in my previous article:
“In consequence of a Special Privilege of Grace from God, Mary was free from every personal sin during her whole life.” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, pg. 203)
This particular doctrine is classified by Ott as sententia fidei proxima, that is, “proximate to the faith,” which corresponds to theological note (d) in the list provided by Fr. Cartechini. That the Immaculate Virgin is she “whom sin has never touched,” and with respect to whom “the question of sin does not even arise,” is a teaching that has been repeated often by the Magisterium. (cf., Pope Pius XII, Le Pelerinage de Lourdes, Fulgens Corona).
Bearing in mind that membership in the Church is visible and knowable, one might reasonably ask whether or not the man who obstinately contradicts said teaching is a member of the Mystical Body of Christ when such is considered according to the mind of the Church.
I say no, he is not, i.e., such a man has revealed himself as a non-member. Tony asked, and fairly so, that I provide support for my conclusions from a reliable theologian.
The unity of the profession of faith, which is dependent on the visible authority of the living magisterium, is the essential property by which Christ wanted His Church to be adorned forever, it follows clearly that those cannot be part of the Church who profess differently from what its magisterium teaches. (Cardinal Louis Billot, De Ecclesia, 1909)
It should go without say that what the magisterium teaches is not limited to theological notes (a) and (b), nor (as we shall see) does an arbitrary cut-off exist at the level of note (d).
Neither Cardinal Billot, nor Pope Pius XII using very similar words writing some three decades later, even hint that the profession of the true faith, which is necessary for those who wish to be part of the Church, is so limited.
Commentary provided by the pre-conciliar theologians further indicate that one is not even free to contradict doctrines that fall under the next theological note on Cartechini’s list, note (e), known as “theological conclusions” (not shown above). These teachings belong in the category of “secondary objects of Infallibility” (Ott, pg. 299).
Writing in 1955, Fr. John Cahill, Ο.Ρ., citing the eminent 17th century scholastic theologian Cardinal John de Lugo, S.J., states regarding theological conclusions:
The theological conclusion which is associated with the erroneous proposition is that which is evidently deduced from a principle of faith with the aid of another evident natural principle. Hence, when such a [theological] conclusion is denied, it is only because one of the premises or the consequence is denied. (Cahill, The Development of the Theological Censures after the Council of Trent, pg. 94)
Fr. Cahill, borrowing from Lugo, continues by providing as an example the following syllogism:
- Omnis homo est risibilis. (All men have the ability to laugh / Natural and evident premise)
- Atqui Christus est homo. (But Christ is a man / Principle of faith)
- Ergo, Christus est risibilis. (Therefore, Christ is able to laugh / Theological conclusion)
Citing Lugo once more, Fr. Cahill concludes:
If one were to deny obstinately the theological conclusion, Christus est risibilis, in the external forum, one could be presumed as denying Christus est homo, which is of faith. (ibid., pg. 95)
In other words, the natural premise being entirely obvious and undeniable, in obstinately denying the theological conclusion, one can be understood as denying the adjoining article of the “true faith,” the same that one must outwardly profess (i.e., cannot publicly contradict) in order to be numbered among the members of the Church.
NB: Here we are discussing theological note (e), far removed from note (a), “that which must be believed with Divine and Catholic faith,” i.e., the subject matter of heresy narrowly defined.
Though the commentary from Cardinal Billot clearly satisfies Tony’s request, I would caution that one should not expect to find pre-conciliar theologians explicitly addressing the matter of persons – including highly visible theologians, priests, bishops, cardinals and even alleged popes – freely going about propagating in public, despite numerous fraternal corrections, all manner of errors that clearly merit theological censure, whilst simultaneously presenting themselves to the naïve as members of the Catholic Church, all while the supposed organs of ecclesial authority either remain silent or, at times, even encourage their behavior.
The reason for this is simple: Such was never a prevalent part of life in the Catholic Church in which these men dwelled. It is a hallmark, however, of the conciliar counterfeit church, e.g., as carried on by men like James Martin, Reinhard Marx, Jorge Bergoglio and countless others.
As stated, these are not ordinary times. We must use our intellect and the gift of Catholic common sense to learn and to apply to the present situation what the Church and her venerable theologians have taught with clarity throughout the ages.
Finally, recall the purpose of this exercise: It is my belief that by viewing the present ecclesial crisis through the lens of membership, properly understood according to the mind of the Church, one is able to dispel a considerable amount of confusion by bringing two very important and related truths into sharp focus, namely:
Jorge Bergoglio has made it plainly known, in ways far too numerous to number here, that he is not a member of the Holy Roman Catholic Church of any rank, and secondly, the conciliar enterprise over which he reigns is most certainly a counterfeit church.
