Heretic Pope? Heretic Catholic? Let's Depose a Pope? Fr. Kramer Further Responds to Salza/Siscoe

Here is another section of Fr. Kramer's answer to Salza and Siscoe

SECTION THREE 

SALZA & SISCOE ON THE DEPOSITION OF A POPE

Having applied their artifices of sophistry to fraudulently interpret the doctrine of both St. Robert Bellarmine and Pietro Ballerini on the question of the deposition of a heretical pope (Opinion No. 5), by twisting it into a variation of Opinion No. 4, John Salza & Robert Siscoe then proceed to do the same with the doctrine of Cardinal Billot. On page 151 of True or False Pope? , they quote the eminent theologian “Given, therefore, the hypothesis of a pope who would become notoriously heret ical, one must concede without hesitation that he would by that very fact lose the pontifical power, insofar as, having become an unbeliever, he would by his own will be cast outside the body of the Church .” The first thing to be observed is that this is t he same teaching as that of Bellarmine and Ballerini: The heretic pope would be “cast out by his own will” , which is according to the nature of t he sin of heresy committed as a manifest external act , so that the heretic ceases by himself to be pope, a Chri stian, and a member of the Church (as Bellarmine says). On the other hand, i t is in the nature of a crime that it effects the exclusion of the offender by the legitimate authority of the Church , and thus is not “cas t out by his own will”. Thus, the fallacy of the Salza/Siscoe argument is patent in their proposition: “ What the half sentence giveth, the complete sentence taketh away. Because “notorious heresy” is a “crime” under canon law (see canons 2197, 2º and 2197, 3º of the 1917 Code) means that Cardinal Billot, like his predecessor theologians, held that the crime of heresy (not the sin of heresy) causes the loss of ecclesiastical office. And, as we will see later, the person must be a public and notorious heretic by the Church’s judgment, not simply by the private judgment of individual priests or Catholics in the pew.” If the person must be judged and pronounced a heretic by Church authority, then he is not “cast out by his own will”, but is cut off by the legitimate authority of the Church .

The threefold fallacy in this text is that it 1) fails to distinguish between the public sin of heresy (which alone suffices to effect the loss of office) and the canonical crime of “notorious heresy” (which is punishable by penal deprivation of office) ; 2 ) falsely understands the sin of heresy to be an  internal sin , and only the crime of heresy as an external and public act. The sin can be internal , or it can be committed as an external act that is occult or public ; and the crime is an external act that ca n be either occult or public — but the sin is not strictly private or internal , but can be so , as opposed to the crime which is always external . If the wilful rejection of dogma is public or liable to soon become public, the heretic in question and loses o ffice automatically by operation of the law itself (as demonstrated above). If the heresy is notoriously public and manifest, then the heretic in question is de facto notoriously heretical, and likewise loses office automatically by operation of the law it self ; and 3) it fails to distinguish between the de jure determination of notorious heresy as a penal offenseby the sentence of an ecclesiastical judge, which can be punished with the penalty of penal deprivation of office ( Cann. 196 § 1, 1364, 1336 § 2) , and the recognition of the fact of the public sin of notorious heresy in virtue of the NOTORIOUS FACT of formal heresy as a matter that is de facto notorious, and results in loss of office by Removal (as demonstrated above), which is not a penalty but a t acit renunciation of office. Such loss of office takes place “by the operation of the law” (Can. 194 

§ 1)

, and NOT “by the private judgment of individual priests or Catholics in the pew”.

Salza & Siscoe then desperately quote John of St. Thomas: “Jerome, when he says that a heretic cuts himself off from the body of Christ, does not exclude the judgment of the Church in such a grave matter as that of the deposition of the Pope, but he instead refers to the nature of the crime, which, of itself, cut s one off from the Church without any 

other further added censure of the Church, provided, that is, that he be declared guilty by the Church .”31 As we see, saying that heresy of its nature severs a man from the Body of Christ does not preclude a judgment b y the Church (who determines that the crime of heresy has been committed), especially if the person in question still professes to be a Catholic, and more so if the person is a prelate who holds office in the Church. ” This is simply the same fallacy as bef ore, which is simply repeated: The proposition directly opposes and contradicts the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporisexplained above, which says that other crimes separate the offender “by the legitimate authority of the Church” (i.e. by a censure) , but not heresy, schism and apostasy, which, not by the authority of the Church, but by their very own nature separate the offender from the Church, who defects and separates himself from the Church by his own will , and NOT by any censure whatsoever, incu rred or inflicted by Church authority. If it were true that, “ Jerome, when he says that a heretic cuts himself off from the body of Christ, does not exclude the judgment of the Church ”, then St. Jerome would have crudely contradicted himself, having said [ as Salza & Siscoe themselvesd quote (!)] , “ other sinners are driven from the Church by the priests (i.e., by excommunication); but heretics pass sentence upon themselves, leaving the Church of their own free will” (Serm. 181; P.L. 38980).32 ”

On page 157, Salza & Siscoe argue even more desperately: « Now, Fr. Sylvester Berry provided a slightly different translation of the citation from St. Jerome (along with a source reference for the quote), which more clearly shows that St. Jerome was juxtapo sing the crime of heresy (which, by its nature, severs one from the Church) with other crimes (which sever one from the Church by an additional censure). Here is the translation provided by Fr. Berry: “An adulterer, a homicide , and other sinners are drive n from the Church by the priests (i.e., by excommunication); but heretics pass sentence upon themselves, leaving the Church of their own free will” (Serm. 181; P.L. 38980).32  Notice this translation indicates that the heretic in question is one who lea ves the Church of his own free will; it is not simply a Catholic who makes a heretical statement (which is how the Sedevacantists have interpreted the quote). A person who leaves the Church of his own free will (either by the crime of heresy and/or public defection, discussed later), thereby, without additional censure, severs the external bonds of unity, by 
rejecting the Church as the rule of faith, and separating from th e Church’s governing authority. »

I reply, saying, St. Jerome clearly states tha t heretics leave the Church by themselves , on their own ; therefore, without any censure whatsoever . Heretics who commit the public sin of heresy by that very fact leave the Church, as St. Jerome says, “leaving the Church of their own free will” , even wi thout joining some other sect o r religion, or openly declaring oneself to have left the Church (as I have aleady demonstrated earlier ). The proposition that those who commit the act of public sin of heresy do not by that very act depart from the body of the Church is heretical : Heresy, by definition, is an act of defection from the Catholic faith and from the Church , as St. Pius V teaches in the Catechismus Romanus. The Salza & Siscoe interpretation of St. Jerome is refuted by Ballerini, who quotes the pa ssage of St. Jerome verbatim. In their fraudulent translation of the Ballerini text, Salza and Siscoe cut out the quotation of St. Jerome . It is precisely this passage of St. Jerome, commenting on St. Paul, that Ballerini based his doctrine, which I quote yet again: “ He [the heretic pope] (. . .) , who having been once or twice corrected, does not repent, but remains obstinate in a belief contrary to a manifest or defined dogma; by this his public pertinacity which for no reason can be excused, since pertin acity properly pertains to heresy, he declares himself to be a heretic , i.e. to have withdrawn from the Catholic faith and the Church by his own will , so that no declaration or sentence from anyone would be necessary .”

The fallacy in the argument, “ No tice this translation indicates that the heretic in question is one who leaves the Church of his own free will; it is not simply a Catholic who makes a heretical statement ,” is the deceptive insinuation that something more than the profession of manifest f ormal heresy is required for one to defect from the Church. A mere statement of material heresy does not suffice to sever one from the body of the Church; but a clear , undeniable, and inexcusable profession of manifest formal heresy does indeed separate t he heretic from the Church, without any judgment or 

censure pronounced by Church authority , because heresy suapte natura separates the hereic fom the body of the Church . If it is clear from the very nature of the particular act of profession of heresy, tha t it is manifestly an act of pertinacity – i.e. obstinate and conscious denial of dogma, then the perpetrator is cut off from the body of the Church ipso facto , thereby ceasing entirely by himself to be a member of the Church ( per se as Bellarmine says on Opinion No. 5)) , and also loses any ecclesiastical office he may have held, ex natura haeresis (as Bellarmine teaches on Opinion No. 4 ), and therefore ipso jure (Canon 194) , in the manner already declared by the Council of Constance to have taken place in the case of Pedro de Luna . 

Unswayed by any argumentation that challenges their position , Salza & Siscoe remain obstinately entrenched in their rejection of Catholic teaching:

« Notice Pius XII explicitly states that h e is ref erring to the “nature” of these “offenses” which is precisely what John of St. Thomas said St. Jerome was referring to. As mentioned above, the nature of these particular crimes (heresy, schism and apostasy) differs from that of other offenses which only s evers one from the Church due to an additional censure attached to them. But, as John of St. Thomas explained above, this does not eliminate the need for the Church herself to render a judgment and declare the crime – especially when the culprit is a prela te who holds office in the Church. Pius XII did not teach that the internal sin of heresy alone causes a prelate to automatically lose his office without the Church itself rendering a judgment , which is how the Sedevacantists interpret the passage. »

My reply : 

Pius XII very clearly states th at heresy, apostasy and schism by their very nature sever the perpetrator from the body of the Church, unlike other faults , even grave crimes, for which they are severed by the authority of the Church – by penalty of excommunication, as St. Pius V teaches in the Roman Catechism. It does not pertain to the nature of heresy, schism and apostasy that they are crimes, so when speaking of “schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia” , which “suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet” ; Pius XII is teaching clearly and explicitly that it is according to the nature of the external sins of heresy, schism and apostasy, that they “suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separe [n] t” ;, and NOT like other crime s, which, by the authority of the Church , sever a man from the body of the Church ( “ ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt”) . The criminality of a sin does not pertain to the nature of any sin, but exists only in virtue of the law whi ch makes it a crime, and severs the offender from the body of the Church by the penalty of excommunication, i.e., by the authority of the Church. Hence, it is a logical impossibility for the words, “schism, or heresy, or apostasy suapte natura ”, to be refe rring to these sins under the formal aspect of crime. There is no question of any additional censure or any censure at all . Heresy by its very nature separates one from the Church without any censure; while o

ther sins separate one from the Church not by t heir nature, but because they are crimes that by the authority of the Church carry the penalty of excommunication . It is precisely for this reason that the Roman Catechism distinguishes between “ haeretici et schismatici ” on the one hand, and excommunicati on the other (“postremo excommunicati”) 254 . These are the two and only ways that one is excluded from the Church. This doctrine is de fide . Salza & Siscoe have invented a third way, as I have shown in Part I – exclusion of heretics, apostates and schismatics for the crime of heresy by the mere judgment of authority of the Church without the penal censure of excommunication, and without any additional censure ( vitandus declaration) . They have superimposed their o wn heretical interpretation onto the clearly expressed doctrine of St. Jerome and the Fathers, St. Pius V, Pius XII, St. R obert Bellarmine, and Ballerini , ba sed on 

254 Catechismus Romanus , Cap. 10,9

the errant opinion of John of St. Thomas, and their own bizarre doctrine that a sin committe d as an external act external act is an internal sin.

Although the lights are out, the sound remains switched on: True or False Pope? ( P 158):

« In fact, Msgr. Fenton addressed this point in an article published in the American Ecclesiastical Review in Mar ch of 1950. The purpose of Fr. Fenton’s article was to show that this citation from Mystici Corporis Christi was in no way contrary to the teaching of St. Bellarmine, who, as we have seen, taught that the sin of heresy alone does not sever a person from th e Body of the Church. Fr. Fenton began by explaining that the teaching of Pius XII was identical to what Bellarmine himself wrote in the fourth chapter of De Ecclesia Militante, when he taught that heresy, schism and apostasy, of their nature, sever a man from the Body of the Church. Fr. Fenton wrote:  “In the encyclical, the Holy Father speaks of schism, heresy, and apostasy, as sins [admissum] which, of their own nature, separate a man from the Body of the Church. He thereby follows the traditional proced ure adopted by St. Robert himself in his De Ecclesia Militante. The great Doctor of the Church devoted the fourth chapter of his book to a proof that [public] heretics and apostates are not members of the Church.”34 Fr. Fenton then noted that Bellarmine d edicated the tenth chapter of the same book (De Ecclesia Militante) to demonstrating that occult infidels or heretics (those guilty of the sin of heresy by an internal act) are really me mbers of the Body of the Church. »

[Salza & Siscoe have clearly lost the plot. Msgr. Fenton (as does Msgr Van Noort) speaks of the “sins” (not crimes) which “of their own nature separate a man from the Church”. Msgrs. Fenton and Van Noort both understand Mystici Corporis to mean that the sins of he resy, apostasy, and schism, (committed not internally, but by an external act), by their very nature separate a man from the body of the Church. What Msgr. Fenton explained is Bellarmine’s distinction between the sin of public heresy and the sin o f occult heresy; and not between the crime of heresy and the internal sin of heresy.]

True or False Pope (pp.158 – 9):

« Fr. Fenton then noted that Bellarmine dedicated the tenth chapter of the same book (De Ecclesia Militante) to demonstrating that occult infi dels or heretics (those guilty of the sin of heresy by an internal act) [PK – Occult sin is not defined as an internal act: occult sins can be internal or external, depending on whether or not they were committed with an external act, or if they were merel y sins of thought.] are really members of the Body of the Church:

“The tenth chapter of the same work is nothing more or less than a demonstration of the fact that occult infidels or heretics are really members.”35 Fenton then noted that what Bellarmine h imself wrote in the tenth chapter of the book (that the sin of heresy alone does not separate one from the body of the Church) was obviously not in contradiction to what he wrote in the fourth chapter of the same book (that public heretics are not members of the Church). Just as Bellarmine did not contradict  himself in these chapters, so likewise, there’s no reason to believe that when Pius XII repeated Bellarmine’s teaching from chapter four, he intended to contradict what the saint wrote in chapter ten of same book. Fr. Fenton said: “In writing what St. Robert [Bellarmine] included in his fourth chapter, 

the Holy Father must not be considered as denying what the same great Doctor of the Church taught in the tenth chapter of the same boo k.”36 The correct i nterpretation of Pope Pius XII’s teaching is not that he was referring to the internal sin of heresy alone, but to the public offense (the crime) of heresy, which, of its nature, severs a person from the Body of the Church with no further censure attached to the offense. It is also worth noting that the word admissum used by Pope Pius XII, which is sometimes translated as “sin” or “offense,” also means “crime.”37 A crime is a public offense, not merely an internal sin. [P.K. – A sin whether occult or publ ic, committed with an external act , is not an internal sin as Salza and Siscoe falsely maintain, but is an external sin.] And the 
public crime must be determined according to the Church’s judgment, not the private judgment of individuals that is opposed to the public judgment of the Church.38 »

[ Mons. Fenton was not explaining that Bellarmine taught , “ ( that the sin of heresy alone does not separate one from the body of the Church) ”, but that the occult sin of heresy does not separate one from the body of the Church; and that this , “was obviously not in contradiction to what he wrote in the fourth chapter of the same book (that public heretics are not members of the Church).” The public sin of heresy suapte natura (i.e. by its very nature as heresy and not because it is a crime with the penalty of excommunication attached to it) severs one from the body of the Church. It is according to the very nature of heresy as such , as Pius XII teaches in Mystici Corpori s , that it severs one from the Church without any censure when committed as a public act ; and that o ther sins sever one from the body of the Church, not suapte natura,  but because they are crimes that have the penalty of excommunication attached to them by the authority of the Church , and therefore sever one from the Church because they are crimes .]

True or False Pope (p. 159):

« The correct interpretation of Pope Pius XII’s teaching is not that he was referring to the internal sin of heresy alone, but to the public offense (the crime) of heresy, which, of its nature, severs a person from the Body of the Church with no further censure attached to the offense . [PK – If Pius XII were referring to the crime of heresy suapte natura, in so far as it is a crim e, then, as a crime, it would sever the heretic from the Church by the legitimate authority of the Church ; but this is precisely what Pius positively excludes, saying that other crimes separate one from the Church “ by the legitimate authority of the Church ” , i.e. by a censure , but NOT schism, heresy, and apostasy, which unlike other offenses , “schism, heresy, and apostasy” do NOT sever one from the Church “ by the legitimate authority of the Church”, but suapte natura sever one one the Church, according to t he very nature of the act of schism heresy or apostasy; and therefore without any censure at all.]  It is also worth noting that the word admissum used by Pope Pius XII, which is sometimes translated as “sin” or “offense,” also means “crime.”37 A crime is a public offense, not merely an internal sin. And the public crime must be determined according to the Church’s judgment, not the private judgment of individuals that is opposed to the public judgment of the Church.38 ” » [PK – Notice the utterly flawed l ogic of 1) the gratuitous proposition that since the word “ admissum” is sometimes translated as offense or crime, that therefore , it must be understood here to mean “offense” in the sense of “crime” ; and 2) because the word “admissum” is here to be understood to mean “crime” , it must therefore also mean that Pius XII refers to the crimes of schism, heresy, and apostasy suapte natura QUA CRIMES , which sever one from 

the Church by the legitimate authority of the Church, but “ with no furt her censure attached to the offense ”; and NOT according to the clear meaning of the words in the text of the encyclical which speak simply of “schism, heresy, and apostasy”, “suapte natura” — ( i.e. according to their intrinsic nature, and not according to t he extrinsic factor of being crimes, since according to their very nature they are not crimes , but sins ) , which separate one from the Church, and NOT by any censure or penalty incurred or imposed by the legitimate authority of the Church , as is the case w ith other crimes. The heretical Salza/Siscoe interpretation of this text of Mystici Corporis , irremediably involves the passage in an irreconcilable contradiction .]

Again on p. 159: “ A crime is a public offense, not merely an internal sin. ” [PK - A cr ime is an external sin, and not an internal sin at all.] “ And the public crime must be determined according to the Church’s judgment, not the private judgment of individuals that is opposed to the public judgment of the Church.38 ” [This is a most deceptive verbal sleight of hand. Pius XII was not referring at all to the internal sin of heresy, but to the external sin of heresy, which by its very nature separates one from the Church, as distinct from other sins which only separate one from the Church because they have the censure of excommunication attached to them by the authority of the Church . Other crimes that carry the penalty of excommunication also sever one from the body of the Church, without any additional censure, so interpreted that way, there wou ld be no distinction left, because all public crimes that carry the penalty of excommunication sever one from the body of the Church without any additional censure; and therefore heresy, apostasy and schism would as crimes be indistinguishable from other c rimes. The Salza/Siscoe interpretation of Mystici Corporis is as patently nonsensical as it is heretical .]

(ibid. pp. 281 - 282) :

« By referring to heretics as those who “separate themselves from the Church,” who “turn away from the Church,” and who “depart by themselves from her,” Bellarmine is referring not to those who merely profess a heretical proposition, but to those who openly leave the Church (no longer accepting the Church as the rule of faith). »

[I have already answered these objections above, explaining (and quoting St.Thomas Aquinas), that the act of formal heresy constitutes a rejection of the Church as the rule of faith ; so I limit myself here to the already quoted passage of, Fr. Gerald McDevitt : “The defection of faith must be public. It is to be noted immediately that adherence to or inscription in a non - catholic sect is not required to constitute the publicity that t he canon demands. ” In the above cited work, The Very Rev. H. A. Ayrinhac comments on Canon 2197, that public defection from the faith means: “Public defection from the faith, by formal heresy or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society. The offense must be public, that is, generally known or liable to become so before long.”

The word “manifest” means, “clear or obvious to the eye or mind”. If not only the matter of heresy is clearly man ifest, but the conscious and wil lful profession of “ a doctrine that immediately, directly, and contradictorily opposes the truths revealed by God and authentically set forth as such by the Church,” 255

255 A. Michel, Dictionnarire de théologie catholique, VI, ii

is patently obvious to the mind, then the person who professes it may be judged by others to b e a heretic, even without a judicial pronouncement of the Church, since no one needs any official declaration to be made in order to form a judgment of opinion on a matter that by its very nature is already “clear or obvious to the eye or mind”. The propos ition that one is not a manifest heretic until an ecclesiastical judge pronounces that one is a manifest heretic is absurd on its face, since by the very fact that the heresy is manifest, it is already “clear or obvious to the eye or mind” before any judgm ent is pronounced; yet this is precisely the silliness that John Salza and Robert Siscoe maintain in their rabid legalism. However, it is clearly the doctrine of the Catholic faith that if a person is a manifest heretic, then it is manifest that heresy has suapte natura severed that one from the body of the Church, and if he is a holder of ecclesiastical office, he has automatically lost office and all habitual or ordinary jurisdiction ex natura haeresis , before any sentence is pronounced by the Church. Thu s, in such a case when the heresy of a pope is expressed in such a manner that the pertinacity is manifested sponte sua (as was the case of Pedro de Luna “Benedict XIII” 256 ) against a manifestly evident dogma, or a defined dogma, explicitly professed by all Christians; and especially if it be one of the principal dogmas, known even to the most ignorant Catholics, or known to all men as a matter of Natural Law, then it is patent that in such a case, no warnings would be necessary, being that warnings would be superfluous under those given circumstances; and therefore the fall from office for manifest heresy would be plainly evident as a judgment against himself as Bellarmine argues in his refutation of Opinion No. 4, and therefore a tacit renunciation of offic e , as Ballerini under stood Bellarmine’s opinion to mean : that the Pope, “in some manner” would “have abdicated the Pontificate” . Ballerini notes that this was the position expressed by the Council of Constance in regard to the case of Pedro de Luna, that the council did not declare that it deposed him, but declared him to simple “be deposed” ( “depositum declaruit potius quam deposuit” ) . Bellarmine explains clearly what was his meaning in these two passages, which is utterly opposed to the interpretation of Salza and Siscoe: 1) “Yet heretics are outside the Church, even before excommunication , and deprived of all jurisdiction, for they are condemned by their own judgment , as the Apostle teaches to Titus; that is, they are cut from the body of the Church without  excommunication , as Jerome expresses it.”; and, 2) “Nor does the response which some make avail, that these Fathers speak according to ancient laws, but now since the decree of the Council of Constance they do not lose jurisdiction, unless excommun icated by name, or if they strike clerics. I say this avails to nothing. For those Fathers, when they say that heretics lose jurisdiction, do not allege any human laws which maybe did not exist then on this matter; rather, they argued from the nature of he resy.” ( De Romano Pontifice II xxx ) There are only two ways out of the Church: 1) excommunication by Church authority; or, 2) heresy, schism or apostasy – “ leaving the Church of their own free will” (St. Jerome) ; and not as Salza and Siscoe heretically cla im, by the judgment of the Church without any 

256 “ Now such harass ment she, the Church received from Benedict, who obstinately with the fact attacked the article unam, sancatm? He fulminated these most terrible anathemas against the Council, and against adherents to other Pontiffs, and made the more precipitous attacks i n order to keep himself on the illegitimately occupied throne; claiming that the Church of Jesus Christ to have perished in all other parts of the world, and that it was restricted only in Paniscola, as he said to the legates of the Council: ‘That is not a Church, but in Paniscola, I say, is the true Church,. . This is Noah's Ark’. So then be could be considered, as noted by Ballerini, to have been a public schismatic and heretic, and consequently to have fallen from papacy, even if he had been validly elev ated to it.”( Gregorio XVI: Il trionfo della santa sede e della chiesa contro gli assatti dei novatori, p. 47)

additional censure, “ but heretics deliver the sentence upon themselves” (St. Jerome), without any censure or judgment by the Church, “ for they are condemned by their own judgment ” (Bellarmine). ]

Salz a & Siscoe in their reply to my irrefutable proofs, have manifested again their blind adherence to heresy -- an adherence which is impervious to all correction; by stubbornly persisting in their heretical belief, even after multiple corrections, that manif est formal heresy, which is the obstinate denial or doubt of an article of faith, of its own nature does not separate one from the body of the Church by the very act itself; but only the canonical crime of heresy , of its own nature, severs one from the bod y of the Church, without any additional censure , but, nevertheless, by some means of juridical censure : by the authority of the Church.

This heretical opinion , which clumsily conflates the mutually opposed doctrines of Pius XII and John of St. Thomas, and thereby interpolates Mystici Corporis and falsifies its doctrine, directly opposes the plainly expressed and explicitly stated teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, (as I have repeatedly demonstrated), as well as the infallible teaching of the universal and ordinary magisterium of the Church.

As I explained before: The Catholic belief on heresy is stated in scripture, interpreted unanimously by  the Fathers , explicated by St. Robert Bellarmine, definitively taught by the universal and ordinary Magisterium of the Church, and taught by the Supreme Pontiffs to the whole Church in their ordinary  magisterium. The doctrine that, «The sin of manifest heresy pe r se, like apostasy and schism, has the intrinsic effect of separating the heretic from the body of the Church by itself, without any ecclesiastical censures or judgment; and is distinguished from other sins which do not by their very nature, separate the sinner from the body of the Church; and who, therefore, for grave offenses can only be separated from the Church by a sentence of excommunication incurred or inflicted by legitimate ecclesiastical authority», is taught plainly and explicitly in Mystici Cor poris: " In Ecclesiae autem membris reapse ii soli annumerandi sunt, qui regenerationis lavacrum receperunt veramque fidem profitentur, neque a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt, vel ob gravissima admissa a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt." and, "Siquidem non omne admissum, etsi grave scelus, eiusmodi est ut — sicut schisma, vel haeresis, vel apostasia faciunt — suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet ."

Here, Pius XII plainly and definitively teaches, in unison with the unive rsal magisterium and the unanimous consensus of the ancient Fathers, that heretics (as well as schismatics, and apostates), separate themselves from the body of the Church, "miserably by themselves" ( semet ipsos misere separarunt ) because heresy by its v ery nature separates one from the body of the Church   ( suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet ); as opposed to those who are separated from the Church "by legitimate authority" ( a legitima auctoritate seiuncti sunt ).

Hence, it pertains to th e very nature of heresy ( which in its nature is not a crime), ( and therefore NOT due to the circumstance that it happens to also be a canonical crime); that the manifest act of formal heresy, by itself , separates one from the body of the Church, without an y judgment or censure 

by Church authority; since all other sins , ( BUT NOT HERESY, SCHISM AND APOSTASY), that separate one from the body of the Church, do so BY LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY, i.e. by the censure of excommunication, and NOT SUAPTE NATURA. Thus, Pius XII teaches explicitly and plainly that according to the nature of the external sin of manifest heresy, one separates oneself from the union of the body of the Church, and thereby ceases, by that act, to be a member of the Church; since only those are MEMB ERS ( In Ecclesiae autem membris reapse ii soli annumerandi sunt ), who have not miserably separated themselves , OR been severed for grave offenses by legitimate authority (i.e. excommunication); and those guilty of heresy, are not separated from the body of the Church by " legitimate authority" , but heresy itself, by its very nature, separates one from the BODY of the Church " suapte natura hominem ab Ecclesiae Corpore separet ".

The doctrine of John of St. Thomas on this point, which Salza & Siscoe quote in their defence, is directly opposed to the teaching of Pius XII , since John of St. Thomas states explicitly, "she [the Church] judges the quality of the crime that excludes from the Church without any over added censure, as long as it is declared by the Church.” Thus, the opinion of John of St. Thomas directly opposes the doctrine of Mystici Corporis , which teaches explicitly that heretics separate themselves from the body of the Church BY THEMSELVES, and cease to be members according to the nature of her esy; AND NOT "BY LEGITIMATE AYTHORITY".

Salza & Siscoe then obfuscate , by distinguishing between spiritual and legal separation from the Church; attempting to persuasively falsify the clear teaching of Mystici Corporis ; basing themselves again on their false doctrine that the sin of heresy is internal, so that the sin of heresy would only spiritually separate one from the Church; and only the crime of heresy would legally separate the heretic from the Church. (In Mystic i Corporis, Pius XII does not speak of such a distinction, but simply teaches that heresy by its very nature separates one from the body of the Church; and w hen I pointed out to them that the sin of heresy can be internal or external, and that the external sin of manifest heresy by its very nature separates one from the body of the Church, Salza & Co. then obfuscated again byobjecting that even the external and public sin of heresy can be occult if the form of the sin is not visible. Again, they retreat to the fallacy that the sin of heresy is internal. However, it remains true that when the form , i.e. the pertinacity of the sin is externally manifested in a manner that is public or will soon become public; the sin suapte natura severs the heretic from the body of the Church ; so that the heretic then ceases to be a member of the Church.

The fallacy of their unstated premise is that the pertinacity is not manifest without canonical warnings, unless the heretic expressly rejects the Church as the rule of faith, or explicitly declares that he knows what he denies is a dogma of faith. However, I have already explained in Part III the mind of the Church on this point, quoting eminent authorities, according to which canonical warnings are not always necessary ; and neither is it necessary that one explicitly state that he knows what he denies is a dogma, or that one explicitly rejects the Church as the rule of faith, for one to be automatically be separated from the body of the Church, and thereby cease to be a member of the Church. Manifest heresy according to its nature as a direct and conscious denial of any article of faith constitutes a rejection of the Church as the rule of faith , and thereby separates the heretic from the body of the Church. The foundatio nal error in the legalistic doctrine of Salza & Siscoe on this point, is that pertinacity 

cannot be “determined” or “established”, except by juridical process. The patent fallacy o f this legalist Fundamentalism is most obvious when one considers that the p ertinacity of heresy is knowable to the human mind in the same manner, according to the same cognitive process and criteria, whether in the mind of a private individual or an ecclesiastical judge; and therefore, if the individual is incapable of gaining ce rtitude in such a matter, than likewise, an ecclesiastical judge would also be incapable of attaining to such knowledge, so that he would be unable to pronounce judgment. Salza & Siscoe assert that it is only the Church, by some seemingly magical power, t hat can “determine” or “establish” that the heretic has indeed committed manifest formal heresy – even under such circumstances when the obstinate pertinacity is manifest and undeniable to all those who have the eyes to see and the ears to hear, and the un willingness to shut them. The formal heresy and consequent ipso jure loss of office can be known and understood by anyone who possesses the knowledge and mental capacity to judge the matter; but it can only be juridically enforced by a declaratory sentence by those who possess jurisdiction to juridically render the judgmen t. 

Since it pertains to the nature of heresy (as well as schism and apostasy) that it separates the heretic from the body of the Church, and thereby causes the cessation of membership in the Church, the manifest act of formal heresy suffices, as an a ct of defection from the faith, to cause the cessation of Church membership by itself , as opposed to all other sins, which do not separate the sinner from the body of the Church suapte natura , but rather because they are crimes , the legitimate authority of the  Church casts them out of the Church and ends their membership in the Church by means of excommunication . Hence, it is patent that the opinion of John of St. Thomas on this point is heretical, in so far as it denies the doctrine of the universal magis terium which holds that, according to its nature, the sin of manifest heresy by itself, without the jud gment of Church authority, separates the heretic from the the body of the Church. Likewise, the opinion of Billot, according to which the heretic defects from membership in the Church only if the heretic expressly rejects the Church as the rule of faith which was permissible or at least tol erated during the time when he wrote his opinions on this point, by requiring this additional qualification as a condi tion for defecting from Church membership, thereby denies the doctrine of the universal magisterium, explicitly stated by Pius XII in  Mystici Corporis , which teaches that heresy, according to its nature , by itself, and therefore without any additional qual ification and without any ecclesiastical censure whatsoever , severs one from the body of the Church and cuts one off from membership in the Church. It is on the firm basis of this doctrine of the universal and ordinary magisterium, that the provisions of C anon Law for automatic loss of office due to defection from the faith are founded and logically hinge; as well as being the principle on which is based the doctrine which Bellarmine demonstrates to be the unanimous teaching of the Fathers; according to whi ch, the manifest heretic automatically loses office and all ecclesiastical dignity ipso facto , before any judgment is pronounced by the Church; as the Council of Constance taught in the case of Pedro de Luna, as Pope Gregory XVI explained: "So then be coul d be considered, as noted by Ballerini, to have been a public schismatic and heretic, and consequently to have fallen from the pontificate , even if he had been validly elevated to it.”

Thus Opinion No. 5, understood as a hypothesis, unlike O pinio ns 3 & 4, rests on the firm basis of magisterial doctrine that heresy by itself, according to its nature, and not by any human law , separates the manifest heretic from the body of the Church; and on the basis of this doctrine, it was thus judged by Be llarmine to 

be the true opinion: “Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church ; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” This opinion also reconciles the otherwise irresolvable opposition between the universally accepted doctrine of the Canon si papa ; which states that a pope may not be judged accept for heresy; and the infallible teaching that the pope may be judged by no o ne (which was also upheld by Gratian) , since the judgment to be rendered against the fallen Pontiff would not be pronounced on one who would still be the pope, head and supreme judge, but on a pope who would already have become minor quolibet catholico ; or in the words of Gregory XVI, one who would have already “fallen from the pontificate”; and who would therefore, in the words of Innocent III, be “shown to be already judged” 

《

Sermo II: "In tantum enim fides mihi necessaria est ut cum de caeteris peccatis solum Deum judicem habeam, propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judicari. Nam qui non credit, iam iudicatus est . (Joh.3 18)”; and: “Servus enim, secundum Apostolum, «suo domino stat aut cadit (Rom. xiv). » Propter quod idem Apo stolus ait; « Tu quis es, qui judicas alienum servum?» (lbid.) Unde cum Romanus pontifex non habeat alium dominum nisi Deum, quantumlibet evanescat, quis potest eum foras mittere, aut pedibus conculcare? Cum illi dicatur: «Collige causam tuam in sinum tuu m? » Verum non frustra sibi blandiatur de potestate, neque de sublimitate vel honore temere glorietur; quia quanto minus judicatur ab homine, tanto magis judicatur a Deo. Minus dico; quia potest ab hominibus judicari, vel potius judicatus ostendi , si videl icet evanescat in haeresim; quoniam «qui non credit, jam judicatus est » ( Joan. iii). In hoc siquidem casu debet intelligi de illo, quod si sal evanuerit , ad nih ilum valet ultra, nisi ut , mitta tur foras, et conculcet ur ab hom ninibus .” (Sermo IV De Diversis )

》

Unswayed by the iron logic of theological demonstration, Siscoe , unfathomably obdurate in his obstinate pertinacity, resorts to patently absurd argumentation: 

《

The article of yours from which these quote (sic) were taken is FULL of errors from start to finish. You even seek to interpret Bellarmine in light of the minor quilobet catholico argument, when Bellarmine explicitly rejects itt (sic). You would know that if you took the time to study the origins of tha t theory, which you clearly haven’t. But you will be able to read a very detailed explanation of it in the upcoming second edition of True or False Pope?.

》

One wonders why Siscoe is so afraid to state even briefly his “detailed explanation” of what he calls the “theory” of minor quolibet catholico . The fact that he refers to the simple notion of minor quolibet catholico – a generally valid principle of Canon Law, as a “theory” betrays his abysmal ignorance of the subject matter. As a principle, it i s still applied in canonical r ulings that remain valid to the present day. One such example of its valid application in Canon Law is the ruling of the Holy Office on the extraordinary minister of baptism. The Salamanca faculty’s commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law mentions the order of precedence to be observed in determining who must be the extraordinary minister of the sacrament. It explains that a cleric is to be preferred to a layman, and a layman to a lay woman. In the footnote, the commentary cit es a ruling of the Holy Office which applies the principle of minor quolibet catholico to this order of precedence in the choosing of an extraordinary minister. The ruling, the footnote explains, is to be applied “ inter catholicos ”; so that a non - Catholic is allowed to perform the baptism only if there is no C a tholic of either sex available to administer the sacrament. Thus, a non - Catholic man is outranked by any Catholic male or female – the underlying principle being that the non - Catholic is minor quolibe t catholico . This ruling remains in force up to the present day.

It is absurd on its face for anyone to say that St. Robert Bellarmine rejected this universally recognized principle; so what is it then, that according to Siscoe, Bellarmine “explicitly rejected”? Siscoe elaborates, 

« I have two older books that discuss the origins and history of the minor quolibet catholico theory in detail, and I have the original treatise from the person who came up with it. […] I also have the complete treatise in the original Latin. I understand the theory. I know who came up with it, why he did so, and what canons he tried to reconcile by creating it. I know the problems associated with it, and I also know that none of the recent Popes would can be considered “less than any Catholoc” (sic) ( minor quolibet catholico ), since certain specific conditions are required, which none of them met – not even Francis. Finally, by understanding the theory, I also know that Bellarmine did not hold it, since he positively affirmed what those who held the theory denied, and, in fact, what the theory itself was specifically created to avoid affirming. » Siscoe, in spite of his attempt to keep it as a closely guarded secret, gives it away in his statement, “ Finally, by understanding th e theory, I also know that 

Bellarmine did not hold it, since he positively affirmed what those who held the theory denied,and, in fact, what the theory itself was specifically created to avoid affirming. ” 

It is clear that Siscoe is again resorting t o verbal sleight of hand when he attempts to equate the principle of minor quolibet catholico with the theory of one man ( among many ) who employed it in his doctrine on papal loss of office for heresy. What is comical in a pathetic way is how Siscoe is afr aid to mention the titles or authors of the books, and the name of the man to whom he attributes the creation of the “theory”. In all probability he is referring to Huguccio of Pisa, but that is really a matter of little importance. So, what is it that Bel larmine supposedly affirmed, that Huguccio and the early Decretists of the French school specifically avoided affirming? The canonists who applied the principle minor quolibet catholico to a heretic pope did so in order to not violate the principle of papa l immunity from judgment. Their doctrine held that the heretic pope would have already ceased to be pope ipso jure because of his heresy; and therefore he could be declared deposed without having to subject the reigning pontiff to trial and judgment, which would violate the doctrine of papal immunity. It is precisely this doctrine of the early Decretists which is the origin of Opinion No. 5, which Bellarmine calls the “fifth and true opinion”. Based on their fundamentalistic oversimplification of Bellarmine ’s refutation of Opinion No. 2, Salza & Siscoe falsely claim that Bellarmine “positively affirmed” that the heretic pope must be judged by the Church in order to lose office ; whereas in reality, as I have already demonstrated with the verbatim passage of the Holy Doctor, that Bellarmine positively excluded that the pope can ever be judged by anyone, and that only if he were by his manifest heresy to cease by himself to be pope, a Christian, and a member of the C hurch , could he then be judged and punished b y the C hurch. 

What has been the most recent reply of Salza & Siscoe to my utter demolition of their arguments?They have totally ignored my arguments, and instead have simply repeated their old arguments essentially unchanged; apparently hoping that th eir readers will not even be aware that they have been discredited and refuted. Salza and Siscoe are utterly obstinate and incorrigible in their errors. Salza has recently submitted a two - part article to the Catholic Family News for publication. I have read his unpublished article. Salza argues like a lunatic: he repeats his argument over and over again, ignoring their refutation, as if totally oblivious to the fact that his arguments have been destroyed. So, while there are many more errors in the Salza /Siscoe magnum opus , one needs to draw a line under their madness, and as Ballerini would say, Quid igitur laboremus pluribus?

i Christopher Conlon quotes multiple authorities in his excellent article, On the Admonitions of Titus 3:10: An analysis of Catholic history, laws, and teachings which illustrate the true nature of the "admonitions" referenced in Titus 3:10:“A man that is a heretic after, the first and second admonition avoid” (pp. 4 - 7)

«

These admonitions or correptions must be given to such as err, by our spiritual governors and pastors, to whom if they yield not, Christian men must avoid them. (Rheims New Testament, p.549)

According to the original annotations of the Rheims NT, in St. Paul’s Epistle to Titus, “he instructeth him, and in him all B ishop s” (p.545), affirming that the purpose of the Epistle to Titus is to instruct the Church hierarchy. Then, in the specific annota tion for Titus 3:10, it is explained that the admonitions mentioned therein are given by our “spiritual governors and pastors”. If, after these admonitions, the heretic does not yield to our spiritual governors and pastors, then the faithful must avoid the hereti c. Though a layman might attempt to admonish or instruct a heretic in some way, the Rheims New Testament annotation shows that the admonitions that could effectively result in having to avoid, or shun, a heretic are those that come from the author ities in the Church. The layman’s admonition is obviously not the same as the admonitions of Church officials mentioned in Titus 3 :10. Those admonitions of a layman, therefore, have no bearing on the instruction of Titus 3:10and who ought to be avoided. Though there may be other reasons to avoid a heretic, the instruction of Titus 3:10 does not oblige the faithful to avoid any one if only a laymen has admonished them, since the passage is referring to authoritative, or official, admonitions. These official admonitions in Titus 3:10 are, in other words, canonical admonitions.

Canonical Admonitions

The only article of the Catholic Encyclopedia with the word “admonition” in the title, the 1907 article, Canonical Admonition s, defines these as, "A preliminary means used by the Church towards a suspected person, as a preventive of harm or a remedy of evi l" (Burtsell). According to this article, an Instruction directed by Pope Leo XIII states that, "Among thepreservative measu res are chiefly to be reckoned the spiritual retreat, admonitions, and injunc - tions." This Instruction also says, "the canonical ad monitions may be made in a paternal and private manner (even by letter or by an intermediary person), or in legal form, but always in such a way that proof of their having been made shall remain on record." It is then explained that these admonition s are f ounded, “after an investigation to be made by one having due authority, with the result of establishing a reasonable basis for the suspicion.” The first admonition is a paternal admonition, by which “the prelate either personally or through a confidential delegate informs the suspected person of what has been said about him, without mentioning the source of information, and without threat, but urges amendment.” If the paternal admonition, and other measures, are ineffective; then a legal admonition is resor ted to, and this is, “to a great extent akin to the summons to judgment.” 

Canon 2143 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law prescribes the way in which admonitions are to be administered.

Admonitions, if necessary, may be made orally or in writing. If they are adm inistered orally, this must be done by the Ordinary in the presence of the chancellor, or some other of - ficial of the diocesan court, or two witnesses. If by letter, the latter should be registered and receipted by the post office…

(Augustine, p.405. 1921)

That the admonitions mentioned in Titus 3:10 are canonical admonitions is obvious from the fact that, as was previously shown , St. Paul’s Epistle to Titus, including the instruction in verse 3:10, was addressed to him in his capacity as a Church offici al. The 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article on heresy also explains that this instruction to Titus was an early piece of legislation i n regards to the way the Church dealt with and excommunicated heretics.The spirit which animates the dealings of the Church wi th heresy and heretics is one of extreme severity. St. Paul writes to Titus: "A man that is a heretic, after the first and se cond admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such a one, is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned by his own judgment" (Titus 3:10 - 11). This early piece of legislation reproduces the still earlier teaching of Christ: ‘And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican’ (Matthew 18:17); it also inspires all subsequent anti - heretical legislation . The sentence on the obstinate heretic is invariably excommunication. He is separated from the company of the faithful, delivered up ‘to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ’ (1 Corinthia ns 5:5).

(Wilhelm)

Affirming what the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia article said above and further showing that the admonitions in Titus 3:10 are what would be called canonical admonitions, the 1932 book,The Delict of Heresy, by Rev. MacKenzie, states that St . Paul’s order to Titus in this verse indicates part of a “more or less formal process of trial.”

Paul’s orders to Titus have already been quoted, requiring that there be a first and second warning, and then avoidance of th e heretic. He also wrote to Timot hy decreeing that there must be two witnesses before certain punishments be inflicted, and this text has been thought to indicate a more or less formal process of trial even in these earliest days of ecclesiastical organi zation.

(MacKenzie, p.4. 1932)

The following quotes also illustrate that the Church officials are those that determine, by their admonitions, who is to be avoided. 

“A fortiori, therefore, must the faithful have been obliged to shun the company of those whom the Apostles found necessary to separate from the communion of the faithful.”

(Excommunication. Francis Hyland, J.C.L., p.36. 1928)

“Those who voluntarily separate themselves from the Church are (a) heretics, i.e., those who profess a doctrine declared as heretical by the Church, and inf idels, who entirely reject the Church’s teaching. Fore whosoever publicly departs form the unity of the faith thereby ceases both inwardly and outwardly to belong to the Church. Therefore St. Paul admonishes the pastors of the Church: “A man that is a here tic after the first or second admonition, avoid” (Tit. iii. 10). If such a man still belonged to the fold the Apostle would not admonish the pastors to shun him."

(Handbook of the Christian Religion. Wilmers, Wilhelm,S.J., p.381. 1891)

“The heretic, St. Pa ul instructs Titus, shall be admonished a first and a second time of the grave character of his offense; if he will not heed, he must be avoided by Christians as a man in evident bad faith, who stands self - condemned… a heretic was a person who deliberately taught a doctrine he knew to be false, in contradiction of the infallible teaching of the Church. Heretics were consequently cut off from all association with the faithful, who must hold no relations with them so long as they obstinately refuse to heed th e official remonstrances of the Church authorities.”

(The American Catholic Quarterly Review, vol.24. “Church and State in the Fourth Century.” Rev. 

Maurice M. Hassett, pp.301 - 302. 1909)

“The external enforcement of laws against heretics as heretics, alwa ys involves some judicial process. This process may have various stages, marked by the judicial sentences imposed: a declaratory sentence that excommunication has been incurred by a delict of heresy; a sentence of juridical infamy; deprivation of offices, benefices, etc.; deposition and degradation. The issuance of any of these sentences (save the declaratory sentence), requires canonical warnings and trials, with full observance of th e criminal code in all details of the process.”

(The Delict of Heresy. Re v. Eric MacKenzie, A.M., S.T.L., J.C.L., p.98. 1932) 

“And in matters spiritual, a bishop, by virtue of his office, is an inquisitor of the same kind. It is his duty, laid down in the plainest language of Holy Writ, to watch over those who are entrusted to his charge; and where he sees any going astray, to "reprove," to "rebuke sharply," and "with all authority," and if necessary, "after the first and second admonition to reject, " that is, to cut off from the society of the church, or in other words, to exc ommunicate (2 Tim. iv, 2. Titus i, 13. ii, 15. iii, 10). This, I say, is contained in the very idea of a bishop, or overseer "of God's flock. He is bound to maintain the integrity of the fai th, and to keep his people from being corrupted by teachers of fal se doctrines; and he has authority given him for this special purpose.” 

(The Catholic Missionary, “The Inquisition.” Andrew Kim (first Korean - born Catholic priest), Martyred, p.5. 1853)

“Moreover, so far from wishing to tolerate such persons in the Church, St. Paul warns the faithful to avoid them (Romans 16:17), calls upon those who are set over Churches to cast out the recalcitrant heretic, as one who is "subverted and self - condemned" (Titus 3:10 - 11), and, in a particular instance, tells St. Timoth y that he has "delivered" two such heretics "to Satan" — that is, cast them out of the Church — "that they may learn not to blaspheme" (1 Timothy 1:20).”

(The Catholic Encyclopedia. “Union of Christendom”. Sydney Smith, S.J. 1912)

“Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics… If however, he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater the punishment. If any refuse to avoid such persons aft er they have been pointed out by the Church [postquam ab ecclesia denotati fuerint], let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction. Clerics should not, of course, give t he sacraments of the Church to such p estilent persons nor give them a Christian burial…” 

(Fourth Lateran Council, Constitution 3, On Heretics. Pope Innocent III. 1215)

The admonitions that Titus is instructed to give are clearly official admonitions, or those that come from aauthority; and they relate to the Church’s official process of excommunicating and separating heretics from the faithful. This fact is a lso drawn from the works of St. Thomas Aquinas. » (The author then presents the exposition of St. Thomas.)