.jpg)
Quaeritur: What is the difference between heresy, apostasy, and schism.
Respondeo: "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; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." (1985 Code of Canon Law, Canon 751).
Respondeo: "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; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him." (1985 Code of Canon Law, Canon 751).
"After the reception of Baptism, if someone, retaining the name of 'Christian', pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith, is a heretic; if he totally departs from the Christian faith, he is an apostate; and finally, if he refuses to be subject to the Supreme Pontiff, or refuses to be in communion with the members of the Church that are subject to him, he is a schismatic." (1917 Codex iuris canonici, Can. 1325, § 2).
Note that the sins of heresy, apostasy, and schism can only be committed after the reception of baptism. This means that Muslims, Jews, pagans, etc. are not properly heretics, apostates, or schismatics.
Note also that heresy is a pertinacious denial or doubt only of those things that are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith--i.e., that are contained in Divine Revelation and are taught by the Magisterium. If someone denies a doctrine that is not part of Divine Revelation or are not taught by the Magisterium, that person is not a heretic, although he may be guilty of disobedience, may be sinning gravely, and may be in theological error. Heresy, thus, is the highest form of theological error, but not by any means the only one.
Note also that it must be pertinacious, which implies that someone who falls into error but accepts the Church's correction is not a heretic. It is only after being corrected and pertinaciously holding fast to the error that a person obtains all the marks of the heretic.
Cf. St. Thomas' questions on unbelief, heresy, apostasy, blasphemy, etc. in his Summa.
Note that the sins of heresy, apostasy, and schism can only be committed after the reception of baptism. This means that Muslims, Jews, pagans, etc. are not properly heretics, apostates, or schismatics.
Note also that heresy is a pertinacious denial or doubt only of those things that are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith--i.e., that are contained in Divine Revelation and are taught by the Magisterium. If someone denies a doctrine that is not part of Divine Revelation or are not taught by the Magisterium, that person is not a heretic, although he may be guilty of disobedience, may be sinning gravely, and may be in theological error. Heresy, thus, is the highest form of theological error, but not by any means the only one.
Note also that it must be pertinacious, which implies that someone who falls into error but accepts the Church's correction is not a heretic. It is only after being corrected and pertinaciously holding fast to the error that a person obtains all the marks of the heretic.
Cf. St. Thomas' questions on unbelief, heresy, apostasy, blasphemy, etc. in his Summa.
2 comments:
Dear Professor, Ave Maria Purísima!
I'm afraid that it is not exact to say that, "It is only after being corrected and pertinaciously holding fast to the error that a person obtains all the marks of the heretic."
Here is teaching of the foremost expert on this issue, Cardinal De Lugo (Disputationes Scholasticae et Morales, Disp. XX, De Virtute Fidei Divinae, Sectio v):
“157. Communis ergo, et verissima theologorum sententia docet, eam monitionem, vel temporis diuturnitatem, aut moram non exigi, ut aliquis hæreticus fiat, et pœnas hæreticorum incurrat; sed sufficere, quod cum deliberatione plena errorem amplectatur et exprimat, quam videt ab Ecclesiæ sensu, et definitione alienum esse. Ita Suarez d. disp. XIX, sect. iii, n. 23, Cajet., Vasquez, Valentia, et alii innumeri quos afferunt, et sequuntur Sanchez d. cap. vii, n. 7, et Diana dict. resolutione 36, qui bene ex aliis a se relatis observat contra Alciatum, et alios, nec etiam in foro externo requiri semper monitionem et correctionem præcedentem , ut aliquis tanquam hæreticus et pertinax puniatur, nec id quidem in praxi sancti Officii observari. Si enim aliunde constare posset ex ipsa doctrinæ notorietate, et qualitate personæ, aliisque circumstantiis, non potuisse reum ignorare oppositionem illius doctrinæ cum Ecclesia, eo ipso judicabitur hæreticus, et ad hunc finem interrogatur in judicio an sciret, quod id esset contra Ecclesiæ doctrinam, quod si fatetur, jam censebitur sufficienter hæresim et pertinaciam confessus.
158. Ratio autem est clara, quia monitio externa solum deservire potest, ut errans advertat ad oppositionem sui erroris cum doctrina Ecclesiæ. Si ergo id totum ipse multo melius scit ex liberis et definitionibus conciliorum, quam ex monitoris verbis scire posset, non est cur necessaria sit alia monitio, ut pertinax sit contra Ecclesiam. Neque etiam ad hoc alia temporis mora requiritur, cum brevissime possit auctoritas et sensus Ecclesiæ cognosci, et deliberate contemni, sicut in aliis peccatis contingit; et a contrario optime arguitur ex actu fidei, quem brevissime potest homo elicere, et Ecclesiæ se reverenter submittere, ejusque doctrinam amplecti; contrariorum autem eadem est ratio, nec plus temporis requiritur, ut ab Ecclesia pertinaciter recedas, quam ut ad eam constanter et firmissime accedas. Nec obstant verba Pauli in contrarium adducta, imo ut notavit Suarez, supponunt etiam ante monitionem esse jam hæreticum, dum dicit hæreticum post primam et secundam monitionem devita. Monitio ergo requiritur ad justificandam separationem, probata jam ejus incorrigibilitate, ne operam perdamus cum nostro periculo, et sine ipse illum lucrandi. Addere possumus illud documentum dari Tito, qui cum esset episcopus debebat ut pastore quærere oves errantes, ut ad Ecclesiæ ovile reduceret. Aliis vero privatis salubrius aliquando erit statim hæreticum vitare, quem sciunt non ex ignorantia, sed malitia peccare; debens enim sibi consulere, et cavere, ne dum sanare eum volunt, periculose inficiantur. Denique in eodem sensu Augustinus supra adductus docet constare satis de hæresi illius, qui correctionem respuit, quia antea potuisset ignorantiæ prætextu sese aliquando subdole, aliquando veraciter excusare.”
Best regards,
In JMJ,
Felipe Coelho
Thank you for bringing this to my attention, Felipe. Yet I wonder whether the diverse opinions on the matter (as the first line of your quotation indicates) are also probable, and to what degree.
Also, Card. de Lugo is a Jesuit, so I'd like to hear a Dominican/Thomist on the matter. ;o)
Post a Comment