CARDINAL BILLOT DECLARES
FR. KRAMER’S USE OF THE TERM MATERIAL HERETIC TO BE “PERVERTED”.
Fr. Paul Kramer continues his social media campaign against the authors of TOFP. In a recent post, he wrote:
Kramer: “I have only begun to refute the mean
spirited and sacrilegious vilification that Salza & Siscoe have spewed
against me … and I will continue to do so for so long as it remains necessary. …
I have only scratched the surface of their profound confusion on points of
doctrine, resulting from their
incapacity to correctly understand basic theological concepts.”
After claiming we misunderstand the term material heretic, he proceeds
to provide his definition:
Kramer: “The
material heretic accepts the authority of the revealing God, professes the
Creed, and thus does not reject the formal object of faith, but, errs
ignorantly on the matter, being unaware that his opinion materially opposes
some truth of revelation. Such a one still adheres to the formal object of
faith … Hence, material heretics remain faithful sons of the Church. … Those
who because of simplicity and invincible ignorance err materially do not
consciously, i.e. scienter, prefer their own judgment to the teaching of the
Church, in which consists the sin of infidelity and the form of heresy.”
What we see is
that Fr. Kramer understands the term “material heretic” to refer to Catholics –
“faithful sons of the Church” – who err materially in good faith. He says that such persons are only material heretic since they do not “prefer their
own judgment to the teaching of the Church.” But is this the correct use
of the term “material heretic,” or has Fr. Kramer “entirely perverted” the
“legitimate use of the expression”? We
will allow Cardinal Billot to answer this question for us.
In the following citation, we will see that, according to one of the
greatest Thomists of the 20th Century, a material heretic is not a Catholic who errs in good faith,
but rather a non-Catholic – that is, one who has chosen something other than
the Church’s Magisterium as his rule of faith (e.g., the “bible alone”, a local
Protestant minister, etc.).
Here is Cardinal Billot’s definition of a material heretic and a formal
heretic:
Cardinal Louis Billot S.J., De Ecclesia
Christi: "Heretics are divided into formal and material. Formal heretics
are those to whom the authority of the Church is sufficiently known; while material heretics are those who,
being in invincible ignorance of the
Church herself, in good faith choose
some other guiding rule. So the heresy of material heretics is not
imputable as sin and indeed it is not necessarily incompatible with that
supernatural faith which is the beginning and root of all justification. For
they may explicitly believe the principal articles, and believe the others,
though not explicitly, yet implicitly, through their disposition of mind and
good will to adhere to whatever is sufficiently proposed to them as having been
revealed by God. In fact they can still belong to the body of the Church by
desire and fulfill the other conditions necessary for salvation. Nonetheless, as
to their [i.e., the material heretics] actual incorporation in the visible
Church of Christ, which is our present subject, our thesis makes no distinction
between formal and material heretics [in other words, neither material or
formal heretics are members of the visible Church], understanding
everything in accordance with the notion of material heresy just given, which
indeed is the only true and genuine one. For,
if you understand by the expression material heretic one who, while
professing subjection to the Church's Magisterium in matters of faith [i.e. a
professing Catholic], nevertheless still denies something defined by the
Church because he did not know it was defined, or, by the same token, holds an
opinion opposed to Catholic doctrine because he falsely thinks that the Church
teaches it [this is Fr. Kramer's definition], it would be quite absurd to place
material heretics outside the body of the true Church; but on this
understanding the legitimate use of the expression would be entirely perverted.
For a material sin is said to exist only when what belongs to the nature of the
sin takes place materially, but without advertence or deliberate will. But the
nature of heresy consists in withdrawal from the rule of the ecclesiastical
Magisterium and this does not take place in the case, since this is a
simple error of fact concerning what the rule dictates. And therefore there is
no scope for heresy, even materially" (Cardinal Louis Billot S.J., De
Ecclesia Christi).
The above teaching of Cardinal Billot, who is recognized, even by
Sedevacantists, as one of the greatest Thomists of the 20th Century,
expresses precisely how we use the term in “True or False Pope?”
In light of what the brilliant Cardinal wrote above, we have the
following questions for Fr. Paul Kramer:
1)
Do
you accept the terminology used by Billot, which defines a material heretic,
not as a Catholic who professes a
material heresy, but someone who has chosen a rule of faith other
than the ecclesiastical Magisterium?
2)
And
do you agree that a material heretic is not a member of the visible
Church, as Cardinal Billot taught? If
so, why did you say this: “material heretics remain faithful sons of the
Church.” How would you respond to
the Cardinal who accuses you of perverting the legitimate use of the term?
3)
If
you disagree with Billot’s terminology, explain where he erred. And if you agree with him, please explain
where we erred in the book, since we used the expression exactly as the
Cardinal explained it above, and even cited him as our authority (see pp. 102-103).
