Quotes
to Refute Radical “Traditionalist” Schismatics
Compiled
by Bro. Peter Dimond, O.S.B.
DEFINITION
OF SCHISM
Pope Pius IX, Quartus Supra (#12), Jan. 6, 1873, Definition of a Schismatic: “For the Catholic Church has always regarded as schismatic those who obstinately
oppose the lawful prelates of the Church and in particular, the chief
shepherd of all.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 39, A. 2: “Hence the sin of schism
is, properly speaking, a special sin, for the reason that the schismatic
intends to sever himself from that unity which is the effect of charity:
because charity unites not only one person to another with the bond of
spiritual love, but also the whole Church in unity of spirit. Accordingly
schismatics properly so called are those who, willfully and intentionally
separate themselves from the unity of the Church… Wherefore schismatics are those who refuse
to submit to the Sovereign Pontiff, and to hold communion with those members of
the Church who acknowledge his supremacy.”
Pope
Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept.
20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first place
whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe
that all those who in
baptism have received the same Catholic faith,
and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the
communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they
remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church.
In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to
you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and
outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.” (Denz. 570b)
St. Augustine, Faith and the Creed, 393 A.D.: “We believe also in the holy Church,
that is, the Catholic Church; for heretics violate the faith itself by a false
opinion about God; schismatics,
however, withdraw from fraternal love by hostile separations,
although they believe the same things we do.
Consequently, neither heretics
nor schismatics belong to the Catholic Church; not heretics, because the Church
loves God; and not schismatics, because the Church loves neighbor.”
QUOTES
WHICH PROVE THAT ALL BAPTIZED INFANTS ARE SUBJECT TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam,
Nov. 18, 1302, ex cathedra: “Furthermore, we declare, we
proclaim, we define that it is
absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to
the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Leo XIII, Nobilissima (# 3),
Feb. 8, 1884: “The Church, guardian of the integrity of the Faith – which, in
virtue of its authority, deputed from God its Founder, has to call all nations
to the knowledge of Christian lore, and which is consequently bound to watch
keenly over the teaching and upbringing of the children placed under its
authority by baptism…”
The
Catholic Church teaches that the baptized infants of heretics are actually
Catholics, even though these infants are baptized by heretics in a heretical
church building and are taken to the heretical church every week. This is de fide.
Pope Innocent IV, Council of Lyons I, March 6, 1254: “Moreover, if anyone without
repentance dies in mortal sin, without a doubt he is tortured forever by the
flames of eternal hell. – But the
souls of children after the cleansing of baptism, and of adults also
who depart in charity and who are bound neither by sin nor unto any
satisfaction for sin, at once pass
quickly to their eternal fatherland.” (Denz. 457)
It
is de fide that all baptized infants
without exception who die go straight to the “eternal fatherland”
(heaven). So, infants born to heretics
or schismatics and baptized by heretics or schismatics, and present in a
heretical church building which contains heretics, are actually Catholics. Anyone who denies this is a heretic.
Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Sess. 6, Can. 13 on Justification: “If anyone
shall say that infants, because they have not actual faith, after having received
baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema.”
(Denz. 869)
Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae christianae (#4), Jan. 10, 1890: “…Jesus Christ laid
upon His Apostles the injunction to ‘preach the Gospel to every creature,’ He imposed,
it is evident, upon all men the duty of learning thoroughly and believing what
they were taught. This duty is
intimately bound up with the gaining of eternal salvation: ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he
that believeth not shall be condemned.’ [Mk. 16:16] But the man who has embraced the Christian faith, as in duty bound,
is by that very fact a subject of the
Church as one of the children born out of her, and becomes a member of that
greatest and holiest body, which it is
the special charge of the Roman Pontiff to rule with supreme power, under
its visible head, Jesus Christ.”
WHEN
DO BAPTIZED INFANTS, WHO ARE BORN TO HERTICAL OR SCHISMATIC PARENTS, LOSE SUBJECTION
TO THE ROMAN PONTIFF AND/OR THE CATHOLIC FAITH AND THUS CEASE TO BE CATHOLIC?
A
baptized person who has the Catholic faith, as a baptized infant does, can only
cease to be Catholic through heresy, schism or apostasy.
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi (# 23), June 29, 1943: “For not every sin, however grave it
may be, is such as of its own nature to
sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.”
QUOTES
ON THE TRINITY AND THE INCARNATION AS THE TWO MYSTERIES OF FAITH WHICH MUST BE
POSITIVELY KNOWN BY ALL ABOVE REASON TO BE SAVED
Notice
that this dogmatic creed declares that the Catholic faith, in terms of its
simplest components (i.e. what you would
absolutely have to tell every man above reason without exception before baptism
and so that he could be saved and have the Catholic faith) is the Trinity
and the Incarnation. No other dogma can be rejected, of
course, but these are the only two which must be positively known by all above
reason. Notice that this dogmatic creed
uses the phrase “whoever wishes” or wills to be saved, indicating that it is
speaking of those above reason.
Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence,
Athanasian Creed, Sess. 8, Nov. 22, 1439, ex cathedra: “Whoever wishes
to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one
preserves this whole and inviolate, he will without a doubt perish in
eternity.– But the Catholic faith is this, that we worship one God in the
Trinity, and the Trinity in unity…
“But it is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believe
also in the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...the Son of God is God
and man... This is the Catholic faith; unless each one believes this
faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved.”
Below
we see that the Holy Office under Pope Clement XI responded that a missionary
must, before baptism, explain these absolutely
necessary mysteries to an adult who is at the point of death.
Response of the Sacred Office to
the Bishop of
“Q. Whether a minister is bound, before
baptism is conferred on an adult, to explain to him all the mysteries of our
faith, especially if he is at the point of death, because this might disturb
his mind. Or, whether it is sufficient,
if the one at the point of death will promise that when he recovers from the
illness, he will take care to be instructed, so that he might put into practice
what has been commanded him.
“A. A promise is not sufficient,
but a missionary is bound to explain to an adult, even a dying one who is not
entirely incapacitated, the
mysteries of faith which are necessary by a necessity of means, as are
especially the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation.”
Another question was posed at the same time
and answered the same way.
Response of the Sacred Office to
the Bishop of
“Q. Whether it is possible for a crude and
uneducated adult, as it might be with a barbarian, to be baptized, if there
were given him only an understanding of God and some of His attributes…
although he does not believe explicitly in Jesus Christ.
“A. A missionary should not baptize one who does not believe explicitly
in the Lord Jesus Christ, but is bound to instruct him about all those
matters which are necessary, by a necessity of means, in accordance with
the capacity of the one to be baptized.”
The
same truth is taught by St. Thomas Aquinas.
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: “After grace had been revealed, both the learned and simple folk are bound to
explicit faith in the mysteries of Christ, chiefly as regards
those which are observed throughout the Church, and publicly proclaimed, such as the articles which refer to the Incarnation, of which we have
spoken above.”
Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica: “And consequently, when once grace had been
revealed, all were bound to explicit
faith in the mystery of the Trinity.”
Notice
that no other mysteries are mentioned as absolute necessities of means for all
above reason. Here is another Holy
Office Decree reflecting the same truth:
Errors
condemned under Pope Innocent XI, March 4, 1679, #64: “A person is fit for
absolution, however much he labors under an ignorance of the mysteries of the
faith, and even if through negligence, even culpable, he does not know the
mystery of the most blessed Trinity, and of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus
Christ.” (Denz. 1214)
Pope St. Damasus, 382 A.D.: “This,
then, is the salvation of Christians: that
believing in the Trinity, that is, in the Father, and in the Son and in the
Holy Spirit, and baptized in it…”
St. Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity, 356 A.D.: “This, therefore, is the true faith
which brings blessedness to men: to acknowledge Him as God and man,
to confess Him as the Word and as flesh, neither forgetting His divinity in
view of His humanity, nor ignoring His flesh because He is the Word.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol
1:873)
It
should now be well established that not all aspects or dogmas of the Faith must
be known by all above reason, but only the Trinity and the Incarnation are
absolutely necessary for everyone above reason to know without any exceptions
or excuses for ignorance.
St. Alphonsus,
quoted in Fr. Michael Muller’s The
Catholic Dogma: “‘Some
theologians hold that the belief of the two other articles - the Incarnation of
the Son of God, and the Trinity of Persons - is strictly commanded but not
necessary, as a means without which salvation is impossible; so that a
person inculpably ignorant of them may be saved. But according to the more common and truer opinion, the explicit
belief of these articles is necessary as a means without which no adult can be
saved.’ (First Command. No. 8.).”
The
point here is that these two mysteries stand in a unique position among
Catholic dogmas. No other Catholic
teaching can be rejected without heresy, but these but these are the two which
absolutely must be known and believed by all above reason to be Catholic.
DEFINITION
OF HERESY
Canon 1325, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “After
the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining
the name Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts something to be
believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one] is a heretic.”
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. II-II, Q. 5., A. 3: “Now it is manifest that
he who adheres to the teaching of the Church, as to an infallible rule, assents
to whatever the Church teaches; otherwise, if, of the things taught by the
Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to
reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible
rule, but to his own will. Hence it is evident that a heretic who
obstinately disbelieves one article of faith, is not prepared to follow the
teaching of the Church in all things; but if he is not obstinate, he is no
longer in heresy but only in error.”
Objection: If heresy is only
an obstinate rejection of Catholic dogma, what about those who are baptized as
infants and taught to deny the Trinity and Incarnation or taught things
contrary to them? Are you saying that they could have the Catholic faith
because they aren’t aware that the Catholic Church condemns their opinion? Doesn’t this argument prove that people who
are raised with false opinions on other matters are also heretics, even if
they’re not obstinate against Catholic teaching.
Answer:
No. As covered already, a person above
reason who has a false opinion, which contradicts essential faith in the
Trinity and the Incarnation, cannot have the Catholic faith because these two
mysteries are uniquely necessary.
Knowledge of these two mysteries is absolutely necessary for all those
above reason to be saved. So a false opinion about these matters – i..e.
false opinions which would destroy faith in these dogmas – necessarily entails
heresy, while false opinions on other matters do not unless accompanied by
obstinacy. Notice how St. Thomas Aquinas expresses exactly our position on this
matter:
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. I, Q. 32, A. 4: “Anything
is of faith in two ways; directly, where any truth comes to us principally as
divinely taught, as the trinity and unity of God, the Incarnation of the Son
and the like; and concerning these truths a false opinion of itself involves
heresy, especially if it
be held obstinately. A thing is of faith, indirectly, if
the denial of it involves as a consequence something against faith; as for
instance if anyone said that Samuel was not the son of Elcana, for it follows
that the divine Scripture would be false. Concerning [these other] such things anyone
may have a false opinion without danger of heresy, before the matter has been
considered or settled as involving consequences against faith, and particularly if no obstinacy is shown; whereas when it
is manifest, and especially if the Church has decided that consequences follow
against faith, then the error cannot be free from heresy. For this reason many things are now
considered heretical which were formerly not so considered, as their
consequences are now more manifest. So
we must decide that anyone may entertain contrary opinions about the notions,
if he does not mean to uphold anything at variance with faith. If, however, anyone should entertain a false
opinion of the notions, knowing or thinking that consequences against the faith
would follow, he would lapse into heresy.”
So
if a person has been baptized as an infant, and hits the age of reason in a
family where his parents are heretics or schismatics, he can certainly be
Catholic, if he has faith in the Trinity and Incarnation and doesn’t
obstinately reject any other Catholic teaching.
This is proven by the following quotes, as well as logic flowing from
the points above.
Council of Elvira, Canon 22,
300 A.D.: “If someone leaves the
Catholic Church and goes over to a heresy, and then returns again, it is
determined that penance is not to be denied to such a one, since he has
acknowledged his sin. Let him do
penance, then, for ten years, and after ten years he may come forward to
communion. If, indeed, there were children who were led astray, since they have
not sinned of their own fault, they may be received without delay.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:
611n)
This
obviously means that the children above reason who were attending the church of a heretical sect with their parents
were not heretics because they were not obstinately against something they knew
to be taught by the Church. This is
ancient teaching of the Church. And this
is exactly what we have said is the position of the Church, and what certain
bad willed schismatics have called heretical.
This also shows that the unity of the Church is not defined by buildings
which are in or not in communion with the Church. If that were true, then an infant baptized in
a building that is notoriously heretical and out of communion with the Catholic
Church (e.g. a Protestant building) could not become Catholic.
Fr.
Muller quoting Orestes Brownson, in The
Catholic Dogma, p. 204: “Unquestionably,
authorities in any number may be cited to prove – what nobody disputes –
that pertinacity in rejecting the authority of the Church is essential to
formal or culpable heresy, that persons may be in heretical societies
without being culpable heretics, and therefore, that we cannot say that all
who live and die in such societies are damned precisely for the sin of heresy.”
Pope Pius XI, Ecclesiam Dei, Encyclical on St.
Josaphat, Nov. 12, 1923: “Our Saint
[Josaphat] was born of schismatic parents but was validly baptized and received
the name of John. From his earliest
years he lived a saintly life.
Although he was much impressed by the splendors of the Slavic liturgy,
he always sought therein first and foremost the truth and glory of God. Because of this, and not because he was
impressed by arguments, even as a
child he turned towards communion with the Ecumenical, that is, the Catholic
Church. Of this Church he always
considered himself a member because of the valid baptism which he had received. What is more, he felt himself called by a
special Providence to re-establish everywhere the holy unity of the Church.”
Pope
Pius XI says here in Ecclesiam Dei
that St. Josaphat was born of Eastern Schismatic parents in an area which was
separated from the Chair of Peter and acceptance of the Papacy. St. Josaphat was validly baptized as an
infant (and thus became a Catholic). As he grew up, he attended the Eastern
Schismatic Slavic liturgy with his parents, but was still a Catholic and even
“saintly” according to Pope Pius XI.
He was a Catholic, even though
he was attending a schismatic church building, because he had not
obstinately embraced the Eastern Schism by rejecting the Papacy. Thus, his baptism as an infant made him a
member of the Church (and subject to the Roman Pontiff) and he did not cease to
be a member until he obstinately embraced schism or heresy, which he did not, even
though he was attending a schismatic church with his parents. This is a precise articulation of our position
on when the baptized children of heretics become schismatics and/or heretics:
it is not at the age of reason, but when they obstinately embrace schism or
heresy.
Certainly
St. Josaphat had unusual good will, as proven by the fact that later on as an
adult he converted many Eastern Schismatics back to Catholic unity. But this quote, among the other facts,
strikes a death-blow to the false position that anyone above reason who attends
a church building which would be
outside of communion with the Catholic Church is a schismatic and/or
heretic. No, it’s when they obstinately
embrace the schism or heresy of the leaders of that group and thus become
members of that sect by such an obstinate embrace of schism and/or heresy.
It
should also be noted that those who are above the age of fourteen or so, and
attend a notoriously heretical or schismatic church building (e.g. a Protestant or Eastern Schismatic church
building where the leading pastor which notoriously and openly rejects the
Papacy and/or other Catholic dogmas), are presumed to be obstinate against
Catholic teaching. The same presumption could
not be made about people who attend a church which professes to be Catholic and
professes union with the Papacy (such as the SSPX), but holds false positions
about the current issues. With regard to
those churches you would have to know what an individual believes and is
willing to accept to determine whether or not he is a Catholic or a heretic
and/or schismatic.
Thus,
I have established the following points without a doubt from the teaching of
the Catholic Church:
·
Baptized infants
are made subject to the Roman Pontiff, not by knowledge of who the Roman
Pontiff is, which none of them have, but by their reception of baptism, as Pope
Leo XIII teaches above. Baptism is the
key component in initial subjection to the Roman Pontiff. An infant’s reception of baptism makes him a
subject of the Church and the Roman Pontiff (who has supreme authority in the
Church) even in schismatical church buildings until they themselves sever that subjection by heresy or schism.
If
they don’t know about any other Catholic dogmas (other than the Trinity
and Incarnation), then they are not heretics but Catholics [Christians], unless
they hold a position that is incompatible with Faith in the Trinity and Incarnation
or deny a truth that all know about God and the natural law or deny something
that they know to be clearly taught in Scripture. For instance, if the
baptized person described above claims to believe in the Trinity and
Incarnation but holds that all religions are more or less good, then he is a
heretic and does not have the Catholic Faith (even before he knows that such
a position is condemned by the Church) because his belief is
incompatible with true Faith in the Trinity as the one true God, which
belief he must have to be said to have the Catholic Faith in its simplest
components.