For not every sin, however grace 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.
Michael Fighting
"Michael…who standeth for…thy people," — Dan. 12:1-12
The quote above from Pope Pius XII's Encyclical, 'Mystici Corporis Christi' shows just how serious a matter schism, heresy and apostasy are. VIII. 1. If a priest celebrates who is suspended, excommunicated, unfrocked, irregular, or otherwise canonically impeded, his consecration of the Sacrament is valid, but he commits a mortal sin, both by receiving Communion unworthily, and also by exercising priestly functions, which have been forbidden to him.
VIII. 5. Similarly, if he remembers that he is excommunicate, or suspended, or that the place is under interdict, he should make an act of contrition, and resolve to seek absolution. If, however, in the above cases, the consecration has not yet taken place, and there is no danger of scandal, he must discontinue the Mass he has begun.
When heresy is rampant, none dare call it heresy, or if they do it was only material heresy. However, the results of heresy are far more than that for many other crimes, and this is confirmed in Homiletic and Pastoral Review in an answer. (Volume 34, Number 7, page 743-4, April 1934) The question was asked about receiving a baptized non-Catholic in the Church. The usual procedure was followed with absolution from the excommunication for heresy. However, in the accompanying confession the woman confesses to having had an abortion, which is also an excommunicable offense. Let us read part of the answer: Practically there is no difficulty about censure for the sin of abortion or any other offense which the Code of Canon Law punishes with a censure, because ignorance excuses from censures (See Canon 2229, paragraph 1), and it is reasonable to assume that ordinarily the convert was ignorant of the regulations of the Church. One may object and ask why then must we insist on absolving form censure because of heresy when the convert knows nothing more about that censure than he knows of other censures. There is a difference between a public profession of faith contrary to the teaching of the Church and sins committed in one’s private life. The one is a public affair; the other is a matter of conscience only. In public violations of the rules of the Church the public authority cannot but judge that the violation was done with full knowledge, and the burden of proof that it was done in good faith rests with the one who appears to be guilty. In many instance he may not be able to prove good faith, and he will be considered guilty.
Saint Augustine says: Baptism is the privilege of the true Church, and so the benefits which flow from Baptism are necessarily fruits which belong only to the true Church. Children baptized in other communions cease to be members of the Church only when, after reaching the age of reason, they make formal profession of heresy, as, for example, by receiving communion in a non-catholic church. The Church, however requires the age of 14 be obtained to incur a censure for a crime, although one can certainly sin below that age. Since all of the effects of heresy flow from the crime, then a person under 14 incurs none of them, by law.
The very commission of any act which signifies heresy; e.g., the statement of some doctrine contrary or contradictory to a revealed and defined dogma, gives sufficient ground for juridical presumption of heretical depravity. There may be excusing circumstances which excuse from grave responsibility in the external forum, and the burden of proof is on the person whose action has given rise to the imputation of heresy. In the absence of proof, ALL such excuses are presumed not to exist. (The Delict of Heresy p. 35.)
Catholic Encyclopedia, Conversion: The conditions are, knowledge and profession of the Catholic Faith and the resolve to live in accordance with it. The right to admit converts into the Church belongs strictly speaking to the bishop. Usually all priests exercising the sacred ministry receive faculties for reconciling heretics. When conditional baptism is administered, sacramental confession is also required from the convert. It is the law clearly laid down in the Acts of the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore. The order of proceedings is as follows:
•first, abjuration of heresy or profession of faith;
first, abjuration of heresy or profession of faith; •second, conditional baptism;
second, conditional baptism; •third, sacramental confession and conditional absolution. (Tit. V, Cap. II, n. 240.)
third, sacramental confession and conditional absolution. (Tit. V, Cap. II, n. 240.)Catholic Encyclopedia Heresy:
XI. RECEPTION OF CONVERTS
Converts to the Faith, before being received, should be well instructed in Catholic doctrine. The right to reconcile heretics belongs to the bishops, but is usually delegated to all priests having charge of souls. In England a special licence is required for each reconciliation, except in case of children under fourteen or of dying persons, and this licence is only granted when the priest can give a written assurance that the candidate is sufficiently instructed and otherwise prepared, and that there is some reasonable guarantee of his perseverance. The order of proceeding in a reconciliation is: first, abjuration of heresy or profession of faith; second, conditional baptism (this is given only when the heretical baptism is doubtful); third, sacramental confession and conditional absolution.
Roman Ritual, quoting decree of Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office, July 20, 1859: Thirdly, if ascertained that the former baptism was valid, reception into the Church will consist only in abjuration of former errors, and profession of faith..,
III If the former baptism ahs been judged valid, there will be only abjuration or profession of faith, followed by absolution from censures.
I have not seen a decree on the restoration of a Catholic, who has fallen into heresy. Since this would be more grievous, I would presume that more might be required.
From of Absolution: By the authority of the Holy See which I exercise here, I absolve thee from the bond of excommunication which (perhaps) thou hast incurred, and I restore thee to union and communion of Christian fellowship and to the holy sacraments of the Church. In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
Lastly the priest imposes some salutary penance, such as prayers, visits to a church, or the equivalent.
Basically the presumption of Canon 2200 as applied to heresy is treated as absolute. As we quoted above: There is a difference between a public profession of faith contrary to the teaching of the Church and sins committed in one’s private life. Material heresy is still the public profession of a faith contrary to the Catholic faith. In the ‘70’s and ‘80’s more latitude may be granted, because of the lack of information. However, the true Catholic must be seeking the truth, and this should be pointed out. Remember my idea of applying the Commandments of the Church and yours of defining what a Catholic truly IS? This is essential to understanding the question of material schism and heresy. (I don’t think material apostasy is possible, as apostasy is an abandonment of the practice of religion, which must be deliberate.)
From The Jurist, volume 132, page 405
IRREGULARITY ARISING FROM SECT AFFILIATION
A young man in my parish joined the Methodist Church at the age of fifteen. He was baptized in it in infancy. At sixteen, through association with Catholic young men in high school, he became a convert to the Church. Does he labor under any irregularity from which a dispensation should be obtained?
PEDAGOGUS
Since the young man joined the Methodist Church after he had attained the age of puberty, he does not escape the penalties which the Code visits upon his act. Clearly it may be assumed that he has been absolved from the excommunication in accordance with the provisions of canon 2314, § 2, since it is apparent from the statement of the case that he is a good Catholic and proposes to study for the priesthood. It is very likely, however, that he has not been dispensed from the vindicative penalty of infamy of law (infamia juris) .1 Only the Holy See can dispense from this penalty.2 One who labors under it is irregular ex defectu, not ex delicto. Of course, even considered as an irregularity ex defectu, its presence is pre-vented, in the internal forum, by the good faith of the party affected: that is, good faith prevents the incurring of the vindicative penalty of infamy of law, and in the absence of the latter, there is an irregularity ex defectu. In the external forum, however, the dispensation should be duly sought from the Sacred Congregation of tie Sacraments.
The young man is also subject to the impediment arising ex delicto from this heresy in accordance with canon 985, 1°. In the internal forum, good faith would excuse him; in the external forum, however, a dispensation should be sought from this irregularity also from the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments.
I Cf. can. 2314, § 1, 3°. Si sectae acatholicae nomen dederint vel publice adhaeserint, ipso facto infames sunt et, firma praescripto can. 188, n. 4, clerici, monitione incassum praemissa, degradentur.
:'Can. 2295. Infamia iuris desinit sola dispensatione a Sede Apostolica concessa;
A Story
Although this is based on a true story, We do not remember the exact details and so this is fictionalized. There was a nun, who had been illegitimately excommunicated by her bishop. She was traveling with friends who were unaware of this fact. However, she zealously observed the limitations of the excommunication. She would go to church on to visit with her friends, but she always went to Mass alone so they would not question why she refrained from receiving Holy Communion. Eventually her appeal was heard and the illegitimate excommunication lifted.
Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis Christi, paragraph 22 stated: Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. In the next paragraph he stated: For not every sin, however grace 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. By including all three it can be concluded that Pope Pius XII settled the question on schism, and schism as well as heresy and apostasy severs a man from the Church, therefore removing him ipso facto (automatically) from office.
Wherefore, if any should presume to think in their hearts otherwise than as it has been defined by Us, which God avert, let them know and understand that they are condemned by their own judgment; that they have suffered shipwreck in regard to faith, and have revolted from the unity of the Church; and what is more, that by their own act they subject themselves to the penalties established by law, if, what they think in their heart, they should to signify by word or writing or any other external means. Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854, Pope Pius IX (DZ 1641)
Pope Pius XII used similar words in defining the dogma of the Assumption in the Apostolic Constitution Munificetissiums Deus, November 1, 1950: Therefore, if anyone, which may God forbid, should dare either to deny this, or voluntarily call into doubt what has been defined by Us, he should realize that he has cut himself off entirely from the divine and Catholic faith.
Pope Leo XIII in Satis Cognitum states: Heresies and schisms have no other origin than that obedience is refused to the priest of God, and that men lose sight of the fact that there is one judge in the place of Christ in this world" (Epist. xii. ad Cornelium, n. 5). No one, therefore, unless in communion with Peter can share in his authority, since it is absurd to imagine that he who is outside can command in the Church. Wherefore Optatus of Milevis blamed the Donatists for this reason: "Against which ages (of hell) we read that Peter received the saving keys, that is to say, our prince, to whom it was said by Christ: 'To thee will I give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the gates of hell shall not conquer them.' Whence is it therefore that you strive to obtain for yourselves the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven—you who fight against the chair of Peter?"
Pope Pius VI condemned the Jansenist proposition: Likewise, the proposition which says “useless and vain is the formula introduced some centuries ago of general absolution from excommunications into which the faithful might have fallen,”-false, rash, injurious to the practice of the Church. (Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 1794) Anyone know where this formula is?
