De
Ecclesia Christi
(1927) of Cardinal L. Billot, S.J.
Q.
7: On the Members of the Church.
All
theologians easily agree upon the following assertion, declared in these
general terms: “To be a member of the
Church, the necessary and sufficient conditions are baptism and the bond of the
unity of the faith and of the Catholic communion.” By the very fact that someone has been
initiated by baptism, he will always pertain to the Catholic Church, at least
by the right and exigency of the baptismal character; he will also be joined to
her in fact, unless he be a heretic or schismatic or excommunicated. …
I
said quite purposefully that this is the unanimous opinion as expressed
in general terms; for, when we try to determine each of these conditions in
greater detail, there begin to be differences of opinion. All indeed require baptism, but some would
argue that a merely putative baptism suffices, such as that which someone
receives when he receives the sacrament invalidly, and the cause of the
invalidity is occult, and by a false supposition of fact he is thought to have
received it. Again, the opinion is unanimous that there must be
unity of faith and of Catholic communion, and that this unity is not lost
except by heresy, schism, or excommunication.
But now we ask what sort of heresy it is that separates a man from the
visible body of the Church: does occult, and even purely internal heresy
suffice? or only that which passes into an external and notorious profession? Again, what sort of excommunication? Here there can be all the more reason for
doubt, since the excommunicated are distinguished, not only into notorious and
occult, but also into the vitandi and the tolerandi. The controversy, then, revolves around these
terms.
Now,
we must make it clear that this controversy is not at all prejudicial to the
certitude of the dogma of the Church’s visibility; for this certitude, which
has already been established on its own proper foundations, remains entirely
independent of the multitude of opinions that are here brought forth.
In
the first place, the visibility of the Catholic Church, insofar as she is the
true Church of God, remains unshaken.
For this is the visibility of credibility, and results from the notes
that we have already set forth; notes by which it becomes apparent that we must
give the assent of faith to the truth that, of all the religious societies that
exist in the world, this one alone is legitimate and genuine. Besides,
this visibility is in reference to the social body as a whole, and not in
respect to each of its members taken singly; for, surely no one would
say that it can or ought to be believed with divine faith that this or that
particular man truly belongs to the Church, and not in appearance only. The
doubts, therefore, that still exist about the minimum conditions necessary for
the individual person to really participate in the social bond cannot do
any harm to this sort of visibility.
The only difficulty (even apparent) that might occur here is in regard
to the supreme head on whom the whole society depends. But the response is easy: we can be certain that
he is a true member, and indeed the principal member of the Church,
independently of the opinions currently debated upon by theologians; and this
certainty rests on the strength of conclusions that we have already
demonstrated. For, if these conclusions
are true, it follows quite plainly that the
infallible providence of God will prevent it from ever happening that the whole
Church adhere to a false head; consequently, no one will ever be accepted as
supreme pontiff who does not meet all the conditions necessary to be a member,
whatever those conditions may be. That
visibility, therefore, by which the true Church is recognizable as such, is in
no way imperiled.
Even
the visibility of the Church considered as a society whose members ought to
recognize one another on the individual level, especially as this regards the
subordination of the sheep to their pastors, remains secure; for, this
visibility certainly does not preclude any and all doubt about anyone’s
belonging to the Church; it is enough that certitude be had in regard to the
majority. All that is required is a
moral certitude, and in practice this suffices in human affairs. Now, the disagreement of theologians contains
itself within these bounds, and no one’s opinion takes away from the members of
the Church this sort of recognizability.
In any case, even if there occurred an opinion incompatible with this
principle of the visibility of the Church—a principle that all agree upon and
unanimously acknowledge as an unshakeable dogma—the dogma would not be cast into
doubt because of the opinion; rather, the opinion would be cast into doubt
because of the dogma. If you
objected to this on the authority of any author, you would do the author an
injustice, claiming that he is departing from principles to which he clearly
professes to adhere with an unshakeable certitude, and this on the grounds of
an opinion that he holds as a matter of lesser consequence. All we can conclude in that case, is that
perhaps the author did not follow the rules of logic.
On
all accounts, then, the multiplicity of theological opinions on who are the
members of the Church leaves entirely intact and unshaken the certitude of all
that has hitherto been demonstrated. Nay
rather, all these principles, and especially those expounded in our second
thesis,[1] can rightfully be
taken in the present discussion as the very criteria by which we are to decide
which of the various opinions seems to approach closer to the truth. What I have said here once, I want to be kept
in mind always. But now we shall move on
to an explanation of our teaching…
THESIS
11
— Although the
baptismal character is sufficient, of itself, to incorporate a man into the
true Catholic Church; nevertheless, to have this effect in adults a double
condition must be met. The first
condition is that the social bond of unity of faith be not impeded by formal,
or even material, heresy. Nevertheless,
because this sort of impediment is caused only by heresy that manifests itself
in an open profession, we must conclude
that only notorious heretics are excluded from the body of the Church.
We
must establish, in the first place, the proper sense of the term “heresy.” According to the etymology of the term and
its actual usage, which has been the same throughout all of tradition, that man
is properly called a heretic who, after embracing Christianity in the sacrament
of baptism, does not accept from the magisterium of the Church the rule of what
is to be believed, but takes from somewhere else the norm for his beliefs in
matters of faith and concerning the teaching of Christ. He might follow other religious teaching
authorities, or he might adhere to the principle of free examination,
professing the complete independence of reason; or, finally, he might
disbelieve only one of the articles that are proposed by the Church as dogmas
of faith.
Note,
then, the difference between infidelity and heresy. [1] First of all, the
general sin of infidelity can exist in any man having the use of reason, while
heresy is proper to one who has received the sacrament of faith, that is, the
baptismal character. [2] Moreover, for general infidelity it is enough for
someone to disbelieve truths revealed by God and sufficiently proposed to him
as such. The notion of heresy, however, includes another element: departure from
the social Magisterium (sociali
magisterio), which was divinely constituted to be the authoritative organ
for the proposal of revealed truth in Christian society. [3] Hence, general
infidelity prescinds from any special condition in its opposition to divine
faith, while heresy is opposed to this same faith in precisely the way that
it ought to be in a Christian: under the rule, and in dependence upon that
authority to which it belongs to govern, in the place of God, the society of
believers.
Formal and Material Heretics
Now,
heretics are divided into formal and material.
Formal heretics are those to whom the authority of the Church is
sufficiently known. Material heretics
are those who, affected by invincible ignorance concerning the Church herself,
choose in good faith another rule to determine what they are to believe. The heresy of material heretics is not
imputed as a sin; on the contrary, it is possible for them to have even that
supernatural faith which is the commencement and root of all justification;
for, they might believe all the principal articles explicitly, and believe the
others, not explicitly, but implicity, by the disposition of their minds, and
the good intention they have of believing all truths whatsoever are
sufficiently proposed to them as revealed by God. Consequently, they can still belong in desire
to the body of the Church and meet the other conditions necessary for
salvation.
Nevertheless,
because we are concerned with real incorporation into the visible Church of
Christ, our thesis does not distinguish between formal and material heretics—understanding
the latter according to the notion of material heresy that we have just
explained, which alone is the proper and genuine sense of the term. For, if by “material heretic” you understand
one who professes dependence upon the magisterium of the Church in
matters of faith, but denies something defined by the Church because he is
ignorant of the fact that it was defined, or holds an opinion contrary to
Catholic teaching because he mistakenly thinks that it is taught by the Church,
then it would be utterly absurd to put material heretics outside the body of
the true Church; but this would also be to distort completely the true meaning
of the word. For, a sin is called “material” only when all the elements of
that sin are present materially, but without advertence or deliberate
choice. Now, heresy by its nature requires departure from the rule of
the ecclesiastical magisterium. In
the case cited, there is no departure; there is only an error of fact about
what the rule dictates. Such an error
cannot be heresy, even materially so.
Since,
in the present discussion, it makes no difference whether one be a formal or a
material heretic, we will direct our attention to another division.
Notorious
and Occult Heretics
Heretics are divided into occult and notorious. Occult heretics are, in the first place,
those who by a purely internal act disbelieve dogmas of faith proposed by the
Church. Those also are occult, who do indeed manifest their heresy by external
signs, but not by a public [i.e., notorious] profession. You will easily understand that many men of
our times fall into the latter category—those, namely, who either doubt or
positively disbelieve matters of faith, and do not disguise the state of their
mind in the private affairs of life, but who have never expressly renounced the
faith of the Church, and, when they are asked categorically about their
religion, declare of their own accord that they are Catholics.
Many
theologians—and among the most recent, Cardinal Franzelin (de Eccles. Thes.
22)—hold that occult heretics in no way pertain to the true Church. “But we,” Bellarmine writes, “follow the more
common manner of speaking, and teach that those who are united to the other
faithful by a merely external profession, are true exterior parts, and
therefore also members, although withered, of the body of the Church. See Thomas of Walden, tom. 1, l. 2, c. 9
& 11; John Driedo, l. 4 de ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus,
c. 2; Peter Soto in the Catholic confession that he wrote in opposition to the
confession of Württemberg, cap. de Ecclesia & cap. de Conciliis;
Cardinal Hosius, l. 3 against the prolegomena of Brenz, and Melchior
Cano, l. 4 de locis theologicis, c. ult. ad argumentum 12” (Bellarm. de
Eccles. 1. 3, c. 10). We think that this
opinion, by far the more common one, should by all means be followed. But first, for clarity’s sake, we will
explain what all agree upon: that notorious heretics are
excluded from the body of the Church.
Afterward, we will explain what some deny: that only notorious heretics are excluded, and not the occult—among whom we must also number
(as it seems to us) those who sin against the faith even externally, but have
never departed from the rule of the Church’s magisterium by a public profession.
(…)
Are
Notorious Heretics Outside the Church?
[Objection]
Next you will object: At the time of the Jansenist heresy, there were many
bishops who openly appealed against the Bull Unigenitus and other papal
Constitutions, whether preceding or following, that had been received in the
whole Church. These, therefore, were
notorious heretics. Notwithstanding
this, they were still considered as true bishops having communion with the
Apostolic See, and therefore as true members of the Church. Therefore it is false to say, even of
notorious heresy, that it puts a man outside the body of the Church.
I
reply that the Jansenists were more innovative than other heretics in coming up
with every kind of subterfuge in order to evade the anathemas of the Church, so
that, by dissembling themselves in every way, they might diffuse more
efficaciously the virus of their doctrine.
There is nothing to wonder at, then, if the heresy of some, because of
the great cunning of their artifices, was not so notorious among their
contemporaries. …
Now,
after those few bishops, the “Appellants,” went further, and began to reject [1
March 1717] openly, pertinaciously and unambiguously the Constitution Unigenitus
[8 Sept. 1713], which had been unanimously received in the Church as a rule
of faith, then their heresy began to be notorious; but at the same time they
also ceased to be considered as true and legitimate bishops. Nay, as soon as
time allowed they were expressly denounced as being outside the communion of
the Catholic Church; we have proof of this in the acts of the Council of
Embrodun (Concilium Embrodunensis), and especially in the Bull Pastoralis
officii of Clement XI [28 Aug. 1718]. …
Are
Occult Heretics Outside the Church?
It is most certain, then, that notorious heretics are
outside of the Church. But now we must
enquire into the special case of occult heretics; that they should not be
counted among the rest, will become apparent from the arguments that follow.
§2. That
occult heretics are still in the Church can be shown, in the first place, by an
argument drawn from the general principle that was declared above. For baptism, of its very nature, gathers men
into the visible body of the Catholic Church; this effect is always joined to
it, unless there be something in the recipient of baptism that prevents it—something
incompatible with the social bond of ecclesiastical unity. Moreover, the social bond, because it is
social, is of it very nature external and manifest. As long, therefore, as heresy is not openly
professed, but stays within the mind, or is confined to manifestations that
do not suffice for notoriety, it by no means prevents one from being joined
to the visible structure of the Church; and by this fact the baptismal
character (by which we are made to be of the body of the Church)
necessarily continues to have its effect, or rather retains its natural
corollary, since there is not yet anything contrary to impede or expel it. End of
Selection.
Meaning of Notoriety:
“Notoriety is the quality
or the state of things that are notorious; whatever is so fully or
officially proved, that it may and ought to be held as certain without further
investigation, is notorious. It is difficult to express exactly what
is meant by notoriety, and, as the Gloss says (in can. Manifesta, 15, C. ii, q.
1), ‘we are constantly using the word notorious and are ignorant of its meaning’.
Ordinarily it is equivalent to public, manifest, evident, known; all these
terms have something in common, they signify that a thing, far from being
secret, may be easily known by many. Notoriety, in addition to this
common idea, involves the idea of indisputable proof, so that what is
notorious is held as proved and serves as a basis for the conclusions and acts
of those in authority, especially judges. To be as precise as is possible, ‘public’
means what any one may easily prove or ascertain, what is done openly; what
many persons know and hold as certain, is ‘manifest’; what a greater or less
number of persons have learnt, no matter how, is ‘known’; what is to be held
as certain and may no longer be called in question is ‘notorious’.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1913, Notoriety, bu Fr. Auguste Boudinhon, former Professor of Canon Law
at the Catholic University of Paris:
“In a strictly juridical sense, we speak only about
occult or notorious heresy, and the notion of public heresy is reduced to that of occult heresy. In this juridical sense (which is
sense used in canon law), any external act that has not been noted by the
authority is occult.” (Fr. Gleize, professor of ecclesiology, Econe)
“Heresy can be occult per se, if it is without an
external act; or occult per accidens, if it was externally manifested,
but did not attain to notoriety. … for,
although in the second case the heresy has been externally manifested, it is
nevertheless occult if it cannot here and now be juridically be proven” (Sebastianus
Fraghi, De Membres Ecclesia, 1937).
