Palladium theologicum, Tomus quintus: De virtutibus

On Heresy.

As among the Turks (as is commonly noted) that man is the most bitter enemy of the Christian name who, born of Christian parents, is enrolled into a Mahometan family: so among infidels none more cruelly assaults the Church than he who, having been for some time nourished in it itself, and formed by the Sacrament of faith, pertinaciously adheres to his error, and is thrust the deeper into darkness the more the ray of truth shines around him, willingly blinding himself. This heresy works, building for itself, after the likeness of an Ape, a Synagogue, which it strives to dignify with a counterfeit title of religion; of its nature, state, and condition something must be said here as the subject matter requires.

What HAERESIS (Heresy) is.

The NAME of Heresy has its origin from eligo, in Greek αἵρεσις, and it signifies an Opinion which one voluntarily and pertinaciously elects for himself, as they commonly teach with D. Bonav. here. Whence it is also called a Sect, because we follow it; and in that sense the various sects of the Philosophers were so called, because, withdrawing from the common body, they erected new Schools, as S. Bonaventura says here.

But the name of Sect was once in a good sense, as Act. 24. et 26. Now however the name of sect must be abstained from for indicating our religion, as Suarez says disp. 19. sect. 2. Lugo disp. 20. sect. 1. because it avails for expressing only alien religions, as Beda notes ad 24. Act. and we now call heretics Sectaries, and we derive sect not from following, but from persecuting, as S. Doct. notes here.

Heresy is DEFINED: Est error, fidei Catholicae contrarius, cui pertinaci animo inhaereat is, qui est professus fidem in Baptismo. It is an error contrary to the Catholic faith, to which he who has professed the faith in Baptism adheres with pertinacious mind. Thus Turrecremata defines it, lib. 4. Summae, p. 2. cap. 1. from the common mind of the Doctors in 4. dist. 13. where D. Bonav. dub. 4. D. Thom. quaest. 11. art. 2. ad 3. and his Interpreters. And more safely D. Bonau. in speculo animae, cap. 1. and p. 1. Centil. sect. 26. But in the former place D. Bonau. defines a heretic in these words: Haereticus est qui divinae legis ignorantia, vel contemptu, pertinax inventor proprii erroris, aut alieni sectator, Catholicae veritati mavult adversari, quam subiici. A heretic is he who, through ignorance or contempt of the divine law, a pertinacious inventor of his own error or a follower of another's, would rather oppose the Catholic truth than submit to it. Concerning this definition many questions occur.

The FIRST is: Whether error from ignorance is heresy: whether doubt, or merely probable assertion about matters of faith is heresy. What pertinacity is required for heresy: Whether it is required for heresy that it be in a baptized person, and other similar questions, which we shall run through.

Meanwhile I note that heresy is divided into Formal, and Objective. Formal is that actual sin by which someone is formally denominated a heretic: Objective indeed is the object which is falsely believed or asserted by the heretic, v. g. that Christ is not God, etc.

Whether one doubting concerning the articles of FAITH is a heretic.

The FIRST opinion is negative. Cited by Cano lib. 12. de locis cap. 9. Tannerus disp. 1. quaest. 8. dub. 5. num. 83. Diana follows it primo Tom. 2. p. tract. 2. miscell. resol. 53. Many say the same with these, concerning one suspending the act of judgment. Sanch. consents T. 1. lib. 2. cap. 7. Portel addit. ad dub. Reg. v. Haeresis, Puteanus 2. 2. quaest. 21. art. 2. disp. 2. Ballaeus num. 3.

BUT the common opinion proclaims as a heretic him who voluntarily and pertinaciously doubts concerning the faith, judging that thing to be doubtful, or that it can be otherwise, (which judgment Sanchez, Vasquez 1. 2. disp. 65. and Tannerus loc. cit. with Maldeno call wrongly reflexum; for an actus reflexus has another act for its object, as Coninch. notes disp. 18. dub. 7. num. 86. and Card. Lugo disp. 17. sect. 5. num. 85. but these judgments have the thing itself for their object, saying that that matter of faith is uncertain. Villalob. consents tom. 2. tract. 1. disp. 10. Sylu. 2. 2. quaest. 1. Faber de Sacr. ord. disp. 3. cap. 4. num. 112. Homob. de exam. Eccl. p. 2. tract. 12. cap. 16. Molf. 1. 1. tract. 8. cap. 8. Lara 2. 2. quaest. 11. art. 3. disp. 42. and sixteen others cited by Sanch. Therefore D. Thom. and others proclaim this voluntary judgment pertinacious [to be] heresy, whom Suarez follows disp. 19. sect. 3. Hurtad. disp. 80. sect. 4. §. 21. Coninch. dub. cit. num. 102. Lorca disp. 42. Castro Palao Tom. 1. tract. 4. disp. 3. p. 2. num. 9. and others besides these, with whom Card. Lugo subscribes disp. 20. sect. 1. num. 17. Fulienfis lib. 3. de fide, cap. 7.

I suppose from D. Bonau. in 3. dist. 17. dub. 3. that doubt is properly called the indifference of the judgment of reason, with respect to either part of the contradiction, so that it prefers neither to the other.

I SUPPOSE secondly, from the same D. Bonau. in 4. dist. 13. dub. 4. that Heresy, so called from eligere, is that in which a false opinion is deliberately elected. From which he deduces that to opine is not heresy; just as neither is to doubt. And so he seems [to side] with the former opinion.

S. Doct. also TEACHES in opusc. de profectu religios. cap. 3. that certain doubts about the faith are often assailed by the devil, which are rather to be despised; because, the more we are indignant with ourselves, and dispute with them, the more their rage is kindled. Gerson attends to this admonition tract. de foeda tentatione, alph. 62. lit. O. usque ad T. Sanchez lib. 2. decal. cap. 7. num. 13. and all the others also of the second opinion.

I ASSERT first, with D. Bonau., that one doubting concerning matters of faith is not properly a heretic.

It is PROVED first by the authors of the prior opinion, by the argument of D. Bonau. loc. cit. in 4. taken from D. August. lib. de utilitate credendi, cap. 1. and it is cited cap. Haereticus, 24. quaest. 3. and by D. Hieronymo cap. 5. ad Galat. et ad Tit. 3. and it is cited cap. Haeresis, 24. quaest. 3. and D. Thom. also uses it 1. Corinth. 11. lect. 4. et 2. 2. quaest. 11. art. 2. ad 3. Of the nature of heresy is the pertinacious election of doctrine contrary to the faith: but one doubting precisely does not elect, etc. but is suspended: Therefore.

It is CONFIRMED; for heresy is an error contrary to the faith; but error implies assent, or dissent. It is confirmed, because heresy is opposed to faith; but doubt is a mean.

I ASSERT secondly, that one doubting is an infidel privatively, because he is deprived of the certainty of assent, necessary for retaining the habit of faith.

It is PROVED; for in this sense cap. 1. de haereticis it is said, that one doubting in the faith is an infidel, not contrarily, as if he had an assent contrary to the faith, but privatively, because he lacks the necessary assent. Thus doubt of the faith can be condemned, just as those are condemned who deny that the soul is the form of the body, or doubt about it, as is found Clem. 1. §. Porro; and those who doubt of the immortality of the soul are condemned by Leo X. in Conc. Later. In the same sense the Fathers spoke, whom Franciscus Suarez adduces num. 12. Lorca num. 5. From which the text cap. 1. de haeret. remains exposed [to objection], which is of Pope Stephen, to whom others answer, that one doubting in the faith is called an infidel with respect to the external forum.

A third opinion of OTHERS says, that it is true when he reflects upon his own doubtful thought, and in fact elicits an erroneous judgment concerning matters of faith, so that he may judge them only probable. But these men confound the questions.

Whether one who assents with mere opinionative act to an article of FAITH is a heretic.

The SERAPHIC Doctor, loc. cit. in 3, whom Suarez follows disp. 19. sect. 4., and Cardinal Lugo disp. 17. sect. 5. n. 96., distinguish two ways of taking a probable opinion. First, as one that rests only on probable reasons. Second, as one that has joined to it a fear of the opposite. And indeed they declare that one who opines with fear is a heretic — Suarez and Lugo, following D. Bonaventure here; but in the former sense, by no means.

OTHERS, however, call one who opines about matters of faith a heretic absolutely. So Castro, Aragonius, and Azorius, as cited by Suarez, Coninck. disp. 18. dub. 7. num. 105., Castro Palao Tomo 1. tract. 4. disp. 3. p. 2. num. 12.

I ASSERT first, with D. Bonaventure, that one who opines with fear about matters of faith loses faith.

IT IS PROVED first from D. Bonaventure in corpore, et ad 3. et 4., by the reasoning which others employ: What denies the certitude of the object of faith removes it: Such is fearful opinion: Therefore.

I ASSERT second, that one who opines about matters of faith from probable reasons, without excluding a more certain assent from elsewhere, is not a heretic.

IT IS PROVED from D. Bonaventure, because Theology deals with matters of faith, and proceeds opinionatively with probable reasons, by which we are bound to be ready to render a reason to those who ask, as it is said in 1 Peter 3.

INDEED, if anyone were to say that the object, that God is, is probable, he would err, understanding that it ought not to be believed with certainty. And this alone do the arguments of Coninck show, as the Most Eminent Lugo observes.

I SEE that the dispute is more about the word than about the thing, and that it is sufficiently resolved by the distinction of the Seraphic Doctor.

An Ignorance excuses from Heresy, and What Kind of Ignorance.

THE DIFFICULTY is, because heresy means error with pertinacity, whether ignorance includes pertinacity, and what that may be.

THE FIRST opinion is, that no gravely culpable ignorance excuses from heresy. So Sotus 4. dist. 22. quaest. 2. art. 3. Lopez 2. part of the Instructorius, where he treats of excommunication, cap. 20. Palacius 3. dist. 25. disp. 2. and Lorca disp. 41. de fide, having abandoned the contrary opinion he had taught in the prima secundae, disp. 33. membr. 2. ad 3. The same seems to be the mind of D. Bonav. here, as Sanchez reports num. 19. in the place to be cited.

THE SECOND opinion asserts the same thing, when the ignorance is exceedingly gross and easily vincible. So Sayrus, and Valentia thinks it probable.

THE THIRD opinion admits it, when the ignorance is affected. So Cano, Navar, Corduba, and Torrensis, whom Suarez reports disp. 19. sect. 3. and Valentia disp. 1. quaest. 15. p. 1. diffic. 4.

THE FOURTH opinion distinguishes regarding affected ignorance; for if it is affected out of a false opinion against the Church, as if the proposition of the Church were of small moment, or with a view to erring more freely in faith, it does not excuse from heresy: But if it is affected only out of negligence and weariness of learning, or from any other cause, it does not make one a heretic. So Thomas Sanchez lib. 2. in decal. cap. 7. num. 33. citing Vasquinus prima secundae, disp. 126. cap. 2. Zumel prima 2. quaest. 76. art. 4. disp. 1. and nearly Tannerus disp. 1. quaest. 8. disp. 5. who adheres to this partly with Soto and Valentia.

THE FIFTH opinion is, that any ignorance at all, both gross and affected, excuses from heresy. So Sylvester v. haeresis, Azorius t. 1. lib. 8. cap. 9. quaestio. 8. Bannes, Aragon. quaest. 11. art. 2. Conchinchius, and others, whom Castro Palao cites and follows, tract. 4. disp. 3. p. 2. num. 5. Suarez in the said sect. 3. num. 9. Hurtad. disp. 81. §. 10. where others assert the same; and Card. Lugo disp. 16. de poenit. sect. 4. §. 6. and disp. 17. de fide, sect. 4. and disput. 20. sect. 6. Diana p. 1. tract. 5. Resol. 1. Fagund. lib. 1. cap. 4. saying this is the view of D. Bonav. and D. Thom.

I ASSERT therefore, first, that the first opinion is probable, which the holy Doctor indicates with a single word in the cited dubium.

IT IS PROVED first by the authors of the first opinion, with D. Bonav., from D. August. epist. 162. which is found in decret. 24. quaest. 3. cited there; the Apostle said, where he says: Those who defend their own opinion, however false and perverse it may be, with no pertinacious obstinacy, but seek the truth with careful diligence, ready to be corrected when they shall have found it, are not to be reckoned among heretics.

With these words of D. August. he excuses from the plague of heresy only those who diligently seek the truth; not those who neglect to find it, and much less those who deliberately flee lest they find it.

Card. Lugo RESPONDS num. 176. that Augustine excuses indeed those who seek the truth; but others he neither excuses nor declares heretics; what was certain he decided; what was less certain, about that he did not dispute.

But Lugo TWISTS the authority, because S. August. lib. contra Manichaeos, reported in cap. Qui in Ecclesia, 24. quaest. 3. declares as heretics only those who, admonished that the Church teaches the contrary, still resist pertinaciously: Who in the Church, he says, hold some diseased and perverse sentiment, if corrected so as to hold what is sound and right, resist contumaciously, and are unwilling to amend their pestilential and deadly dogmas, but persist in defending them, are heretics. The same he teaches in lib. 4. de Baptismo, contra Donatistas, cap. 16. saying: The one who through error believes the same as Photinus is first a heretic when, the doctrine having been made manifest to him, he prefers to resist the Catholic faith, and chooses to hold what he held. Fulensis urges this in lib. 3. cap. 6.

Yet these things avail Lugo nothing: For in the former passage I would have him find where S. August. has the particle only. He puts it well that pertinacious persons knowingly are heretics; but in the passage alleged by us he assigns all the conditions lest anyone be a heretic for any cause, and therefore there it is extended more broadly.

In the other passage he evidently speaks of one who is invincibly ignorant, for he says: Let us suppose two men, one of whom holds about Christ what Photinus held, and is baptized in his heresy outside the communion of the Catholic Church: but the other holds the same, yet is baptized in the Catholic Church, thinking it to be the Catholic faith. Him I do not yet call a heretic, unless, the doctrine having been made manifest to him, he should prefer to resist the Catholic faith.

MOREOVER Lugo concedes it to be certain that one who ignorantly, with inculpable ignorance, is ignorant of the articles is not a heretic, because he seeks the truth; and that it is an opinion, uncertain, which says that those ignorantly culpable are not heretics.

It is proved secondly by D. Bonavent. in 2. dist. 22. art. 2. quaest. 2. in corpore. In all other matters sin from ignorance and sin from knowledge share the same malice and belong to the same species (although one offending from knowledge may offend more gravely within the same species;) thus he who kills knowingly and he who kills from culpable ignorance is guilty of homicide, and so of the rest: Therefore also he who falls into heresy from such ignorance is a heretic. This argument is commonly used.

They heap up many responses of no weight, which are refuted by Hurtado disp. 82. §. 56. and Lugo in the place cited de Poenitentia, who also refutes the responses of Hurtado.

Lugo responds that they do not differ indeed in species, yet have different effects, just as casual homicide and voluntary homicide; for this latter has joined to it a graver irregularity; thus neither do they damn the heretic from ignorance and the heretic from mere malice with the same punishments.

Lugo is mistaken; for first he concedes that heresy is that of one who offends from ignorance; and consequently that before God he is guilty of this crime, and that is what I ask. But since the heretic is condemned by the Church with excommunication, it follows that this man is condemned, since he is a heretic. Hence, by saying that this man is not punished by the Church, even if it be conceded that he is a heretic, the principle is begged and a contradiction involved.

It is proved thirdly by D. Bonavent. from foundation 3. on which the others principally rely, as Lugo says n. 182. To know what is to be believed and done belongs to faith, as its acts: Therefore the opposite, namely to be culpably ignorant, belongs to infidelity: But it does not belong precisely to Paganism or Judaism, since the confession of the Christian Religion is still retained: Therefore it belongs to heresy; for there are no other species of infidelity. Nor let them say that it belongs incompletely to heresy; for since it is a most grave sin, it ought to be in some species as a complete individual, as Lorca num. 16. and Lugo num. 182. concede; nor does he solve it by saying that it is a sin against faith; yet not heresy, Paganism, or Judaism, since it is also a proper infidelity, which is divided into three heads. For the contrary is true, because one must find the species under which this sin stands.¹

It is confirmed by D. Bonavent. because for the other species of infidelity, namely Judaism and Paganism, culpable ignorance suffices.

It is proved fourthly most effectually by D. Bonavent. in corpore, for since it is necessary for salvation not to be ignorant of the things of faith, certainly all are bound to know them, and few are they who deliberately refuse to know, by affecting ignorance; but for the most part they are ignorant; and if heretics are only those who know and affect ignorance, very few will be heretics; for, as I have seen by experience, disputing with heretics, they labor under great gross ignorance, as the Most Eminent Lugo concedes num. 194.

Hence culpable ignorance rightly does not excuse in the external forum, as Castro Palao notes, Tract. 4. disp. 3. p. 2. and Menochius, Farinacius, Peña, Simancas, Albertinus, and others, cited by Diana 4. p. Tract. 7. resol. 36. Yet sometimes it helps to diminish the punishment; yet not entirely, as these assert. But all these things are true much more of affected ignorance.

You will object. One sinning from ignorance can have a universal will of eliciting acts of faith, and of believing all things that are sufficiently proposed: But heresy essentially is pertinacity.

D. Bonavent. responds in the places cited that such a man has lost faith. For truly in the cited dubium he admits this argument.

I assert therefore, secondly, that the fifth opinion is probable. It is evident from the argument adduced.

Pertinacity, from D. Bonaventura prima parte 26 Centil. sect. 18: is the Will fleeing any lessening of its excellence, irrevocably defending what it has said or done. And from the same holy Doctor in speculo animae, cap. 1. it is: Perseverance in an evil purpose against the will of superiors.

All concede it, and place pertinacity in the definition of heresy. So D. Bonavent. in the places alleged quaest. 4. See Suarez diff. 19. sect. 3. Coninch. disp. 18. dub. 7. num. 76. Farinacius de haeresi, quaest. 196. Diana 4. p. Tract. 7. resol. 36. Sanchez Tom. 1. Lib. 2. cap. 7.

Therefore the truest opinion is, that pertinacity is required. But it is doubtful: whether this pertinacity can exist before one is admonished of his error, and he himself scorns the admonition.

The first opinion is assertive, requiring a delay of time, so that incorrigibility may appear in the faith. So Alciatus Leg. 2. Cod. de summa Trinitate, Menoch. volum. 2. consil. 149. num. 49. citing Lupus, and Turrecremata. They can be founded on the words of Paul Tit. 3. Avoid a heretical man after a first and second admonition. To me, however, these Jurists seem to speak in the external forum.

Therefore the truest opinion of the Theologians is, that this admonition and delay are not required for one to be a heretic, but that it suffices that he adhere to the error with full deliberation. So D. Bonavent. in the places cited in the preceding quaestio. See Suarez diff. 19. sect. 3. num. 23. Vasquez p. 1. disp. 126. Valentia disput. 1. quaest. 11 p. 1. and innumerable others, whom Sanchez reports in the said cap. 7. num. 7. Diana in the said resol. 36. who rightly adds, with the Most Eminent Lugo num. 158. that this admonition is not required even in the external forum, and this is more true now, after the decree of Alex. VII. has been published.

The reason is, because the admonition serves only that one may take note that he holds a view against the Church; but this he can learn from another source; and he is bound to strive to learn it.

The words of the Apostle presuppose that the man, before the admonition, is already a heretic, and after it to be avoided.

I assert secondly, in the internal forum it does not suffice to be corrected by his Bishop, or by the Inquisitor, because these are not an infallible rule of faith. So Sanchez asserts num. 25. with Cano, Vasquez, and others. Valentia, Torres, Salas, and others, cited by Diana 6. The first opinion denies it. These indeed say it does not suffice even in the external forum, which however Suarez asserts num. 21. Lorca and others, cited by Diana, say it does suffice, and indeed on this account he allows it in those constituted in the holy Tribunal.

To me the opinion of the Most Eminent Lugo is proved, that there is no difference in either Forum, because if the assertion of the Bishop is not sufficient to make it credible, in no forum will it accomplish that.

I assert thirdly, for pertinacity it suffices that a man wish indirectly to resist the authority of the Church. So Suarez in the said sect. 3. num. 22. Vasquez prima secundae, disp. 126. Sanchez in the said cap. 7. num. 4. See the Cardinal Dinalus Lugo num. 163. who explains indirect pertinacity thus: if he knows that this is against the sense of the Church; and yet holds it, from any end whatsoever, whether out of grief, or honor, or some other affection. This is the exposition of D. Bonavent. p. p. Centil. sect. 26. taken from D. Augustine Lib. de utilitate credendi initio, where he says: A heretic is one who, for the sake of some temporal gain, and especially of glory and of his own supremacy, begets or follows false and new opinions about the faith.

IT IS CONFIRMED in other sins, for which it suffices that they be willed indirectly, even if the disobedience, irreligion, etc. be not willed directly.

Lugo INFERS num. 166. that he is not excused from pertinacity who is prepared to acquiesce to the Church, when nevertheless he is convinced by her with arguments, as Vasquez and Ledesma say, cited by Sanchez num. 6. Suarez num. 13. and others. For he is not prepared to obey the authority of the Church.

NEXT he notes that a protestation of faith excuses from pertinacity, as some signify, with Palao dist. 3. p. 2. num. 7. he himself adds that it is not sufficient in rigor.

Whether, that one may be esteemed a Heretic, it is necessary that he have been baptized and a believer.

I SUPPOSE with D. Bonavent. prima parte Centil. sect. 26. that one can be a heretic even if he is not an apostate from the faith altogether, or from the Church; which he proves from D. Hieronymus in cap. 5. epist. ad Galat. saying that a heretic is one who understands Scripture against the sense of the Church, even though he does not depart from it. He will therefore be a heretic if he perverts one passage of Scripture.

That baptism is not required for the note of heresy, that one must first have been baptized, Castro asserts Lib. 1. de iusta haeret. punit. cap. 8. so also Tanner. disp. 1. quaest. 8. dub. 3. citing D. Thomam, whom Bannes also reports thus 2. 2. quaest. 10. art. 5. but wrongly, as Caietanus, Aragon, and others note. Fuliensis subscribes lib. 3. cap. 6.

ALL the others reject this opinion, whom Suarez cites and follows disp. 19. sect. 5. Sanchez Lib. 2. in decal. cap. 7. num. 34. Hurtadus disp. 82. sect. 2. §. 11. Castro Palao tom. 1. tract. 4. disp. 3. p. 1. num. 20. Card. Lugo disp. 20. sect. 4.

The REASON is intimated by D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 39. art. 2. quaest. 2. in corpore taken from the Apostle prima Cor. 5. which the Council of Trent uses, sess. 14. cap. 2. Since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not first entered her by the gate of baptism. For what have I, says the Apostle, to do with judging those who are without. Whence it comes about that neither can a Catechumen be esteemed a heretic, if he falls away from the belief of some article.

The Most Eminent Lugo notes that one baptized with an invalid baptism, namely on account of a substantial defect, is not a heretic, if afterwards he denies some article. So also Sanchez cap. 7. num. 34. Castro Palao in the place cited, Suarez sect. 5. num. 8. Hurtado disp. 82. §. 17. for there the reason of the Council of Trent still holds.

YOU WILL SAY in the year 1619. Maurus, who offended against our religion, was punished, even though he was not found to be baptized, and he himself alleged this.

Card. Lugo RESPONDS that he was punished on account of excess against our Religion: for the Church may punish Pagans and Jews subject to Christian Princes, either when they deny articles which they hold in common with us, as to believe in one God the Creator; or when they sacrifice to demons, or when they try to seduce Christians, as is evident from the Bull of Gregory XI. beginning: Admodum dolemur audivimus, and the Bull of Gregory XIII. which begins: Antiqua Iudaeorum improbitas, which Peña reports, among the Apostolic letters at the end of the directorium, about which Diana treats 4. p. Tract. 7. de poenis debit. etc. resol. 2. and Castro Palao §. 6. There those are decreed to be punished also for other causes, for instance if they vomit heretical blasphemies against Christ, saying that he was a sinner; that the Mother of God was not a Virgin (for that reason lately a Jew, whom I know of, was beaten with scourges at Cremona) If they aid heretics: if they carry about, retain, or divulge prohibited books: if they hold Christians up to derision, spitting upon the sacred Host, the Cross, Christ the Lord: if they have Christian nurses, or force them, when they communicate, to pour milk into privies in contempt of the sacred communion.

IT IS USUALLY DOUBTED also about one doubtfully baptized; see Diana Tract. 8. resol. 113. where he reports the opinion of Didaci Canterae in qq. crim. cap. 1. de haeret. num. 5. who says, if he was born and educated among Christians, he is presumed baptized.

The SECOND part of the quaestio requires, whether he who is to be punished as a heretic must previously have been a believer, or have believed.

The SENSE of the Church is, that he is esteemed a heretic even if he has not believed before. See Suarez disput. 16. sect. 4. and disp. 19. sect. 5. and others, cited by the Cardinal Lugus disp. 18. sectione tertia.

Whether the Church can compel heretics to receive the CATHOLIC FAITH.

ON this Bellarmine disputes at greater length Tom. 1. Lib. 3. de Laicis, cap. 21. et 22. Valencia disp. 1. q. 11. puncto 3. Suarez disp. 20. sect. 3.

HERETICS — certain very ancient lovers of liberty, and of a bad peace, cried out that all should be left in their own religion, and cherished and kept in fraternal peace. So a certain Apelles, in Eusebius lib. 5. hist. cap. 13. Nicephorus lib. 4. cap. 29. provided, however (they say), that they confess Christ the Redeemer. Much the same did George Cassander teach in our own time, in Bellarm. cap. 19. But let these men hear the Apostle Paul: What concord hath Christ with Belial?

HERETICS, sectarians, enemies of Catholics, and lovers of a most foul liberty, have said that such men are not to be punished in any way. So thought of old the Donatists, and recently John Hus, and Luther, in Bellarmine, cap. 21. and it is the universal complaint of heretics against us. It is truly marvelous that they, execrating the just punishments of the most holy Inquisition, found in England so many unusual kinds of torments for putting Catholics to death, that they far surpassed the tyrannies of the Barbarians.

The unshaken truth of the holy Church asserts that heretics are justly punished, and can be compelled to profess the faith.

THIS was defined in the Council of Constance sess. 15. and by Leo X. in the Bull against the articles of Luther, and in cap. ad abolendam, and cap. excommunicamus, and other de haeret. cap. super eo, of the same title, Lib. 6. from Leo Pope epist. 2. to the Bishops of Italy, and other letters, cited by Suarez num. 11. and by Lucius P. epist. to the Bishops of France. The Fourth Council of Toledo, cap. 57. and 59. from the Nicene, where it was requested of Constantine that he punish the Arian heretics.

The same is evident from the Laws of the best Princes, who established the gravest penalties against heretics: Leg. Manichaeos. Leg. Arrianis. Leg. quicunque Cod. de haeret. which laws St. Augustine praises, Lib. 1. contra epist. Parmen. c. 7. and epist. 166. ad Donatistas, where he adds that only the Emperor Julian the Apostate left heretics unpunished. Wherefore in Lib. 2. Retract. cap. 5. and epist. 48. and 50. he retracts what he had said before, that heretics were not to be punished with bodily punishment; and in Lib. 1. contra epist. Parmeniani, cap. 7. and tract. 11. in Ioan. and epist. 50. ad Bonifacium, he asserts that the punishment of death is owed to them. D. Gregory also may seem [to hold this], Lib. 1. epist. 72. Bernard serm. 66. in Cant. and Lib. 4. de consider. Leo epist. 91. et 923.

IT IS PROVED by D. Bonaventure on 2. Ioan. on these words: Having made a whip of cords, he cast out those selling doves, sheep, and oxen. Where he exercised the power of the forum, showing that sellers of doves, that is, of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, were to be punished for simony: the oxen, who undergo Ecclesiastical labors for merely temporal reward: and the sheep, who call away the sheep of Christ from his pastures, and sell the truths of the faith to the devil, perverting them and dragging them into heresies, as the Fathers expound.

The holy Doctor observes, moreover, that he had twice reproved their acts, saying: But you have made the house of my Father, a den of thieves.

IT IS PROVED secondly by the holy Doctor in 4. dist. 18. p. 2. quaest. 1. from 1 Corinthians 5. where he delivered the incestuous man to satan for the destruction of the flesh; and 1. ad Timot. 1. He delivered Hymenaeus and Alexander to satan, to torture even of the body, as he observes on the last.

IT IS PROVED thirdly by D. Bonaventure on 22. Lucas and 19. Ioannis, where Peter drawing a sword struck the servant of the Pontiff, whose name was Malchus. There he shows the Pontifical power of Peter, in that he struck the servant of the Pontiff, Malchus, which means King, understanding the people of the Jews, which was made a servant by its unbelief, whose right ear he cut off, that it might no longer hear error. And if he was corrected, it was not because he was to use the sword; but because not for the occasion, as D. Bernard notes, Lib. 4. de consideratione ad Eugenium. That the sword, even the temporal and material one, was understood to be given to the Church, Sanderus proves learnedly de clave David, lib. 2. cap. 11. from D. Augustine contra Faustum.

IT IS PROVED fourthly by D. Bonaventure in 4. dist. 18. p. 2. quaest. 1. for since the Church is a well-ordered Monarchy, it ought to have a power proportioned to amending the fallen and coercing rebels and the contumacious; for so it is done in every rightly ordered Republic; and no crime is more pernicious than heresy. As therefore the Physician, when a soothing remedy does not help, uses the knife and fire; so in our matter the Lord, the best founder and institutor of the Church, gave arms for governance, and remedies apt for preserving the body of the Church unharmed, that when soothing remedies do not avail, they may be cut with the sword of excommunication and burned with a punishment worthy of their most pestilent disease.

THIS power is FOUNDED on Matth. 16. where it is said to Peter: Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven, etc. And Matth. 18. If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican, as D. Bonaventure teaches, eadem dist. p. 2. quaest. 5.

THAT THIS power was prefigured by Phinees, son of the Pontiff, Numer. 25. when he pierced the fornicating sacrilegious Idolaters, and that work was by God rewarded to him with the supreme priesthood, D. Bonaventure notes on the place secondly cited, Lucas 22. from the Interlinear Gloss. Nor can this power be denied without error, as Suarez admonishes num. 21. Cast. Lugo num. 10. disp. 21. sect. 1. and it is evident from the definition of Innocent IV. in the Council of Lyons, and cited in cap. Ad Apostolicae, de sentent. et re iudicata, in 6.

With these means of D. Bonaventure all the more recent authors make use.

YOU OBJECT first. In Scripture we are only commanded to avoid heretics, not to kill them: Ad Titum 3. secunda Timoth. 2. prima Thessal. 3. and prima Ioan. Hence Christ did not punish the disciples withdrawing from him, but said to the others: Will you also go away? Ioan. 6. as Cyprian also noted, epist. 55. Matth. 18. however commands only separation from the heretic: Let him be to thee as the Ethnic.

The holy Doctor RESPONDS to that place of John, that Christ said this lest he seem to flatter the disciples, and he was unwilling to hold them by force and necessity in the following of him of such great perfection, of which the others had shown themselves unworthy and incapable. He did not dismiss them, therefore, to the world, or to errors; but he was unwilling to use coercive power.

To that of Matth., the holy Doctor observes in 4. dist. 18. p. 2. quaest. 1. fundamento primo, that Christ immediately added: Amen I say to you: Whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven, giving them the power of punishing those whom he had said were to be cast out with anathema. Wherefore even the Apostles indeed applied separation, but also coercive punishments. The holy Doctor observes further, in Hexaëmer. serm. 16. that the Church could not always coerce rebels, because she lay under Pagan Princes; but in the time of Constantine she raised her head, and began to use her power against heretics, decreeing in the Council of Nicaea that the Arians be punished.

YOU OBJECT secondly, Lucas 11. to James and John, wishing to call down fire from heaven against the Samaritans, Christ objected.

The holy Doctor RESPONDS that at that place those Disciples were led by a bitter, not a reasonable, zeal, against those who were still infidels and not yet instructed. Then he adds that Christ wished to admonish them, that he willed in that first coming of his to show humility and patience toward blind infidels, as Jerome interprets, ad Algasiam.

YOU OBJECT thirdly, Matth. 13. the Lord reproved the servants wishing to pluck up the Zizania: but heretics are understood, as Cyprian expounds, Lib. 3. epist. 3. Chrysost. and Ambr. in Maldonatus.

IT IS ANSWERED from D. Bonaventure, de sex alis Seraph. cap. 7. and sermone Dominica prima in Quadragesima, that by the Zizania are understood all the impious whatever, and not heretics: whence also D. Augustine, who had understood heretics by it, afterwards retracted it, Lib. 2. Retract. cap. 18. where from Cyprian he understands all the wicked. The same think Gregory, Ambrose, Theophylactus, in Cornelius there; and as he does not command thieves, adulterers, etc. to be killed, so neither heretics; and yet he does not prohibit all these from being rooted up: he only prohibits that they be taken away rashly, lest with the wicked the good also. Lest gathering the zizania, you root up also the wheat together with it, as D. August. warns, Lib. 3. cont. epist. Parmen. cap. 2.

From what has been said they infer that this power of the Church extends even to those who were baptized in infancy and fall away from the faith. Nay, the Fourth Council of Toledo, can. 55. includes even those baptized out of fear.

THEY INFER secondly, that the sons of heretics can be led to baptism per se. See Suarez 3. part. Tom. 3. disp. 25. sect. 3. I said per se, because per accidens say the opposite, if it be certain that those boys are to be brought up by their parents in heresy; for then it would redound to the injury of Baptism. See Suarez here disp. 25. sect. 5. and Card. Lugo disp. 21. sectione 1.

On the other means which the Church uses against heretics, by prohibiting their Books.

Heretics CRY OUT wailing against this truly effective Antidote, whose complaints Bellarmine refutes, Lib. 3. de Laicis, cap. 20. Suarez disp. 20. sect. 2.

Nor is this remedy new in the Church, for in Actorum 19. many brought vain and superstitious Books to be burned.

St. CLEMENS, Lib. 1. constitut. Apost. cap. 7. reports that the Books of the Gentiles and of false prophets were prohibited to the faithful by the Apostles; and in the Council of Nicaea, by the testimony of Nicephorus, Lib. 8. cap. 18. it was decreed that the Books of Arius be burned, and Constantine added the penalty of death for those who concealed them.

IN the Fourth Council of Carthage, can. 16. it is permitted to Bishops alone, in case of necessity, to read the Books of heretics; and Theodosius, in the Lege damnato, Cod. de haereticis, by the precept of the Council of Ephesus, ordered the Books of Nestorius to be burned. Leo I. epist. 91. and Gelasius, in cap. Sancta Romana, dist. 15. prohibited the Books of heretics; and Leo adds that those Bishops are to be judged heretics who would permit Books of this kind in the houses of the faithful. The same is evident from the Fifth Synod, act. 1. and by L. quicunque, §. nulli, and §. omnes, Cod. de haeret. all the Books of Eutyches are prohibited and adjudged to the fire, by the precept of the Council of Chalcedon, act. 3. See the Allegati Doctores reporting other things, with Basilio Pontio in Appendice, post Lib. 12. de matrimonio, cap. 2.

The RATIO is from D. Bonaventure, in Diaeta, tit. 6. cap. 3. because sincere instruction is necessary to us for salvation and the knowledge of God; for we draw spiritual things through corporeal ones. Two senses are chiefly those by which the discipline to be learned is taken in, Sight, and Hearing. And indeed by sight we read the book of creatures, and therefore we rise up into the knowledge of God. For the invisible things of God, being understood by those things that are made, are seen, Rom. 1. We also read Books cut with letters; and truly the Books of Scripture are most apt for this: whence also Christ, Lucae 24. He opened their sense, that they might understand the scriptures. See therefore on the contrary how much books teaching heresies can harm; for they are more subversive and pestilential, since they contain sacrilegious doctrines. For these move most powerfully, since they are more diligently elaborated, and they endure. Hence the Gentiles cautiously prohibited Books adverse to their sects, as Valerius Maximus reports, Lib. 1. cap. 1. and Tullius, Lib. 1. de natura Deorum.

Let the Heretics not grieve that the reading of the Books of the Gentiles is permitted to us, for the Books of Heretics are adorned for that very end with specious titles and doctrines, to seduce: but the Books of the Gentiles report errors already outworn and exploded, which are not so dangerous. Indeed certain Books of the Jews and Turks are prohibited, in which there are some things more dangerous.

But the Books of Heretics are prohibited in the Bull of the Supper which contain heresy, or treat of religion.

He includes, moreover, there also one epistle of a heretic, as Suarez brings forward, disp. 20. sect. 2. Hugolinus in him, Megala 3. p. lib. 3. cap. 1. num. 55. Farinacius de haeresi quaest. 180. num. 70.

OTHERS, however, deny it with sufficient probability: Sanchez 42 cap. 10. num. 20. Durandus, and Bonacina, whom Palao reports and follows, primo Tract. 4. disp. 2. part. 10. Layman, Pottel, and Sousa, whom Diana brings forward and seems to approve, p. 1. Tract. de Bulla Cruciata, resol. 34. and Card. Lugo disp. 21. sect. 2. §. 1. The ratio is, because odia are rather to be restricted. It is confirmed, because although it is not licit to print books without the author's name on sacred subjects, the prohibition of the Council of Trent sess. 4. remaining in force, usage itself has nevertheless declared that these small writings are not contained under that decree, as Azorius testifies, Tract. 1. Lib. 8. cap. 8. cap. 17. quaestio 4. Lugo num. 33.

ALL persons, however, are included in this prohibition, according to the decree of Urban VIII. de motu proprio, 2. Aprilis 1631.

But those are excommunicated who read, or retain, print, or in any way whatsoever defend them, for any cause whatever, publicly or secretly, by any device or pretext. See Cardinal Lugo, and what was said Tomo 4. disp. 17. de conscientia, quaest. 10. ad proposit. ultimam.

Whether we are bound to avoid the conversation of heretics.

Soto ASSERTS it, 4. dist. 25. quaest. 1. art. 1. et 3. and dist. 20. quaest. 1. art. 5.

The COMMON opinion, however, denies it, as long as the heretic has not been juridically declared and denounced, because the Council of Constance indulged communication with all excommunicates, except those denounced by name and public strikers of clerics. So the authors in Sanchez Lib. 2. decal. cap. 9. So Henriquez with others, Lib. 13. cap. 5. Suarez 3. p. Tract. 5. disp. 9. sect. 2. Toletus Lib. 1. summae, cap. 9. Tannerus disp. 1. quaest. 9. dub. 5.

Whence it is to be noted that the Seraphic Doctor, in 4. dist. 18. p. 2. q. 1. asserts the opinion of Soto, but before the Council of Constance: at that time, however, it was the common opinion.

The DIFFICULTY, however, is: whether it is sufficient for someone to be declared a heretic; or whether it is also required that he be declared excommunicate.

TO ME it seems sufficient that he be declared a heretic; for excommunication is infallibly linked to heresy. So both Soto, Medina, Henriquez, and others, whom Sanchez reports, Lib. 2. cap. 9. who however holds the opposite with others; and Suarez, de censuris, disput. 9. thinks it probable with Card. Lugo disp. 22. sect. 1.

WE MAY also communicate with them in sacred things, namely by assisting at Mass together with a heretic. So all the Doctors in Sanchez, dicto cap. 9. against Basilium Poncium, in Appendice de matrimonio Catholici cum haeretico, cap. 9.

WE MAY also receive the Sacraments from a heretic, in the manner of our Church, in necessity, unless scandal arise from another source. See Sanchez num. 10.

Many other things on this matter Sanchez discusses, Lib. 2. in Decal. c. 9. Card. Lugo disp. 14. sect. 5. §. 5. and d. 22. sect. 2.

I shall touch upon SOME doubts which I find discussed in the Seraphic Doctor. The first is: Whether marriage with a heretic, or heretic woman, is valid.

On these, Thomas Sanchez Lib. VII. de matrim. disp. 72. Ferrarius, opusc. de matrim. Catholici cum haeretico. Basilius Poncius in his Appendice, post Lib. XII. de matrim. In common, however, the Doctors of Law and the Theologians assert with D. Bonaventure, 4. dist. 39. quaest. 1. whom Sanchez reports, num. 2. and Poncius, and it is gathered from cap. decernit de haereticis, in 6.

But if the heretic promise to convert, and there be moral certitude, the marriage will be not only valid but even licit, as is had in the C. Chalcedonensi cap. 14. So Hurtado disp. 76. §. 229. Sà, under the word matrim. num. 8. Card. Lugo disp. 22. sect. 1. Although Sanchez denies it, disp. 72. num. 4. Poncius in Appendice, capite 8.

The second is, whether a spouse may put away a spouse fallen into heresy; and indeed it was defined in the C. Trident. sess. 24. cap. 5. that marriage is not on that account dissolved.

That they may be separated, however, is certain; for besides fornication, the Tridentine defines other causes for which they may be separated, sess. 24. can. 8. The same is evident from cap. Quanto, de divortiis, and from cap. litteras at the end, and cap. transmissa, de restit. spoliat. and cap. 1. ut lite non contestata.

The sectarian heretics urge the place of Matth. 5. and 19. But I say to you, that whosoever shall put away his wife, excepting the cause of fornication, maketh her to commit adultery: and he that shall marry her that is put away, committeth adultery.

Cardinal Lugo RESPONDS, disp. 22. sect. 3. with Sanchez Lib. X. disp. 15. cap. 14. Bellarmine Lib. I. de matrim. cap. 14. that Christ speaks of perpetual separation, and by his own authority, without the consent of the wife put away.

This exposition, however, as to his own authority, D. Bonaventure refutes, in 4. dist. 35. quaest. 3. where he shows from usage that the judgment of the Church is necessary.

Therefore the holy Doctor RESPONDS, quaest. 1. ad 5. that fornication is there expressed as the cause of separating himself perpetually, because among the causes it is evident, since it is against the faith directly belonging to marriage; but the remaining causes he holds are to be litigated: And that he speaks of perpetual separation is proved; for there, cap. 5. he had premised the use of divorce, which was toward perpetual separation. The holy Doctor observes also that the divorce of the Church now used is different from that old repudium. See the holy Doctor, q. 1. On these things, however, I shall treat in the Tractate on marriage.

The excommunication inflicted on heretics.

We must now treat of the punishments of heretics, and first of the spiritual ones.

The first and most ancient spiritual punishment of heretics is excommunication, as is clear from the chapter Achaina, 24. q. 1, the chapter Ad abolendum, the chapter Excommunicamus, 1. and 2. de haeret., the chapter Quicunque, eodem titulo in 6., the chapter Noverit.

Moreover, in the Bulla Coenae an excommunication is imposed, and renewed yearly, reserved to the Supreme Pontiff. Now this is the most ancient of all excommunications, as Azorius notes, Tomo I, lib. VIII, cap. 10, quaestio 1.

It is incurred for external heresy, not for mental heresy, as the Doctors of Law teach commonly, whom Sanchez reports, Lib. II, cap. 8, num. 2. The Church does not judge of merely occult things, that is, of merely internal ones; but the external heretic, though occult, incurs it, as is taught commonly, as reported by Hurt., sect. 4, n. 36.

Yet Arez, disp. 21, sect. 2, reports that some held that in general censures are not incurred for an occult crime, which Croufers teaches concerning heresy in reg. S. Francisci, cap. 7, sect. 4, fol. 518, as reported by Diana, 6. parte, Tract. 6, miscel. resol. 51. But a great question concerns absolution from heresy, which question depends on knowing the quality of this censure.

I shall therefore set out the Anathema hurled by the Bulla Coenae against heretics, according to the modern exemplars of Urban VIII, and also according to the Bulls of Paul V and Gregory XV. Moreover, from the aforesaid sentences, no one can be absolved by anyone other than the Roman Pontiff, unless he be in articulo mortis; nor even then, unless he gives caution of standing by the mandates of the Church and of making satisfaction, even under pretext of any faculties and indults whatsoever granted by us and the said See, and by the decrees of any Council, to any Ecclesiastical secular persons, and of any Orders, even Mendicant, even military Regulars, even those endowed with Episcopal or any other greater dignity, etc. See disp. 17, quaest. 10, sect. 3, tom. 4, de actibus humanis.

A grave question however arises, because in the Council of Trent, sess. 24, cap. 6, Bishops are granted the faculty of absolving from occult heresy and other occult cases reserved to the Apostolic See.

Two celebrated opinions exist: The first is that the faculty granted to Bishops by the Tridentine Council still exists, and was not removed by the Bulla Coenae: Sanchez reports the Doctors, Lib. I, Decal., cap. 21, who admits that opinion to be probable. Others are reported by Diana, p. p., Tract. de Absol. ab haeresi, resol. 2, to whom he adds others in 4. p., tract. 4, miscel. resol. 239, and 5. p., tract. 13, miscel. resol. 43. Suarez called it probable, Tract. de censuris, disp. 21, sect. 3, though afterwards he attacks it. Hurtado defends it most strongly, disp. 84, sect. 2, §. 11, and Fagundez, lib. I, cap. 15, reporting twenty Doctors on the second precept of the Church, lib. VIII, cap. 8; Bass., V. Haeresis, num. 18, reporting many.

The second opinion asserts that the faculty was taken from the Bishops by the Bulla Coenae.

Navarr. holds this, summa Latina nova, cap. 27, num. 275, adding that Pius V and Gregory XIII so declared; Peña, in directorio Inquisit., 3. p., quaest. 92, com. 141, saying it was so often declared in the supreme Roman General Inquisition; and Azorius says Clement VIII so declared; Suarez says the Congregation of the Most Eminent Cardinals so declared. Many others agree, as reported by Diana, and Castrum Palaeum, Tract. 4, disp. 4, p. 3, § 1.

Cardinal Lugo, disp. 23, sect. 3, §. 1, thus reconciles the opinions: if a Bishop does not believe that the Pontiff wished to revoke the faculty, he may probably embrace the first opinion, which has so many, and therefore weighty, authors; but if he believes it, he must stand by the second opinion. He himself, however, testifies that he cannot agree with the first, because morally he is certain that the will of the Apostolic See is contrary. But Fagundez says Gregory XIII declared the opposite, and that this is not established by the S. Congr. Bass. adds that in the S. Congr. in the year 1639 it was permitted.

For my part it does not appear whence derogation was so immediately made from so great a Council; for what is said, Etiam si concessum virtute alicuius Concilii Generalis, does not sufficiently distinguish what was withdrawn from the Tridentine faculty; a later law speaking indistinctly and generally must be limited by the earlier one specially contrary to it, as Fagundez says, also praec. 2. eccl., lib. VIII, cap. 8.

He adds that nothing certain is established concerning the Oracles of Pius V, Gregory XIII, or Clement VIII, or of the former Congr., which would exclude even the Most Reverend who hold this faculty from the Council, which Lugo, n. 87. The distinction of Fagundez, that it was derogated in law but not in fact, is empty, because the law is uncertain.

Included in this faculty are Prelates having quasi-episcopal power: thus Rodr., tomo 2, c. 10, and tom. p. 99, reg. quaest. 24, art. 16, and quaest. 61, art. 9; Henriq., lib. 4, de irreg., cap. 18; Sanchez, lib. 2, decis., cap. 11; Sayrus, lib. 11; Auil., de cens., p. 7, disp. 10; Flor. de mena, lib. 3, var. quaest. 23. For the Bulla Coenae does not take from them that faculty which they had before, as Fagundez says, num. 21.

These PRELATES, I say Ecclesiastical ones having a diocese, not regulars, as the authors cited note.

That regular Prelates do not have this by law Suarez proclaims, lib. 4, de Poenit., disp. 30, sect. 2; Garc., de benef., p. 7, cap. 11; Armenda, addit. ad recopil. Nauar., tit. 18; lib. 7, de irreg.; Fagundez, num. 21. For before the Council they did not have that right, nor is it given them by the Council.

AS FOR privileges, our P. Bonagratia, published in the year 1667 at Cologne, reports: the privilege of Pius V given to the Preachers, that they may do what the Bishops also can, in this matter. And from Suarez, Tom. 4, de Relig., tract. 8, lib. 2, c. 20, and from Urban ab Ascens., tract. 2, cap. 3: regular Prelates can absolve their subjects from all censures from law or from man, even public ones, Clement IV and Sixtus IV excepted, namely the 4 cases of the Bulla Coenae: relapse into heresy, schism, falsification of Apostolic letters, carrying prohibited things to infidels. But the other cases, even simony, are included. See Com. Priv. mend., tit. Absol., where this is granted to Ministers, VICs, and Custodes. Sigism. de elect., num. 2, disp. 66, extends this to the contentious forum, an author of the Rota, per Pluteum, decis. 90 — except the cases of the S. Officii.

MOREOVER Gregory XIII grants the 4 cases adduced together with the others to the Society of Jesus, as Suarez reports, loc. cit. But the ample privilege granted by Pius V to the Cassinese Prelates is reported by Tamburin., de cas. reserv., t. 1, §. 1; which privilege is extended to those sharing with them; that they may absolve all their own, even persevering novices, from all cases, censures, punishments incurred through them before, as well as after entry, and even those of the Bulla Coenae to be incurred. Hence, he says, this is extended to the notorious in the forum of conscience.

BUT IF it were probable that the privileges of the Mendicants were not derogated by the year of the publication of the Bulla Coenae, as Rodriq. teaches, tomo 1, qq. quaest. 10, art. 9; Suarez, de relig., tom. 4, tract. 10, lib. 9, cap. 20, num. 18; Diana, p. 1, tract. 5, resol. 6; Sousa, in Bulla coenae, cap. 23, disp. 100; Bonagratia, V. Absolutio; Eligius Bassaeus, V. haeresis, num. 18, and others as reported by these, then approved Mendicant religious, according to the form of law, could absolve seculars from the cases of the Bulla Coenae, and even from heresy, provided it be occult; and this latter part is proved by them first from the concession of Urban IV, as reported by Rodriq., tom. 1, qq. quaest. 61, art. 3, Compend. Privileg. mendic.

V. Absolutio, as to seculars, num. 19, in which he grants to the Carmelite Brothers that, by the license of the Ecclesiastical Prelates — that is, as Sixtus IV declared, provided confessors presented according to the form of law — they may hear the confessions of all Christ's faithful, on account of the devotion of those recurring to them, unless they have committed such things for which the Apostolic See would deservedly need to be consulted. But for a mere relapse, after heresy abjured before a Judge, the Apostolic See must be consulted, because Sixtus IV, as is had in the Monum. ordinum, concession 348, declares that only relapsed ones are to be sent to the Apostolic See, together with Schismatics, falsifiers of Apostolic letters, and those carrying forbidden things to infidels: Therefore, from occult heresy, that probability being posited, it would be lawful for the aforesaid to absolve.

IT IS PROVED secondly from the concession of Sixtus IV made to the Order of Minors, as is had in the aforesaid Comp., num. 20 of the same title, in which he grants to those mentioned the faculty of hearing confessions, and of absolving from all cases of excommunication, suspension, interdict, and any irregularity whatsoever reserved to the Ordinary both by law and by man, as often as necessary, of dispensing, of commutting and relaxing any vows whatsoever, and of enjoining a salutary penance, just as the Diocesan can. But heresy, at least occult, or not yet brought to judgment, is reserved to the Ordinary both by the old law and by the new of Trent: Therefore. The minor is proved from the Tridentine, sess. 24, cap. 6, as Sanchez notes, lib. 4, moral., cap. 54, num. 27; Diana, part. 1, tract. 11, resol. 28, and p. 3, tract. 3, resol. 13. Further, he says, p. 4, tract. 4, resol. 239: it can rightly be said that the Bulla Coenae only prohibits the absolution of heresy and other crimes when they are public, and therefore does not derogate from the Tridentine faculty, which speaks of occult crimes.

Bassaeus ADDS at the place cited that the aforesaid opinion was seen and tolerated on 18 July 1629 in the Consistory of the S. Congregation of the Most Eminent Cardinals, and admitted even by many Doctors of S. Theology of the royal Academy of Douai.

But he says, V. Irregularitas, 11, num. 5, that that crime is occult which is not notorious by the sentence of a Judge, or by a confession of the crime made in judgment, or by fame among the people, in a College, or in the neighborhood; or if it has not yet been brought to the contentious forum; and Bassaeus says, from the sense of others, that this last seems to be the sense of the Council of Trent, loc. cit.

BUT indeed a Decree has now been published by Alex. VII, in the year 1665, 24 Sept., in which among other propositions he condemns this one: The opinion asserting that the Bulla Coenae only prohibits the absolution of heresy and other crimes when they are public, and that this does not derogate from the Tridentine faculty, which speaks of occult crimes, was seen and tolerated on 18 July 1629 in the Consistory of the S. Congr. of the Most Eminent Cardinals.

YET P. Bonagratia says, V. Absolutio, as to seculars, num. 44, at the end, that the Pontiff makes no mention of revoking the privileges of the regulars, and that those privileges still remain in force; see what was said in session 11, quaest. 10, disp. 17, de conscientia, tom. 4, de actibus humanis.

FOR MY PART, with the things reported from the mind of others, I judge that nothing is safe in these absolutions, and accordingly I do not embrace the first opinion. For since the value of absolution hangs on the will of the Pontiff, and that appears to me to refuse it, I exhort no one to use it in the meantime.

On the other spiritual Punishments of heretics.

Card. Lugo, disp. 23, sect. 4, Fagundez, and Suarez, at the places cited, enumerate THESE.

THE FIRST is, that they be not buried in sacred ground: cap. Quicunque, de haeret. in 6. Yet Suar., de Cens., disp. 12, sect. 4, num. 13; Coninch., diff. 14, dub. 8, mem. 64; Hurtad., disp. 76, sect. 1, subsect. 1; Lugo, disp. 14, sect. 5, §. 5, num. 159, understand this text of those alone condemned by sentence. Whence he infers that now the Church is polluted only by the burial of those to be avoided.

The SECOND punishment is irregularity. See Sanch., lib. 1, cap. 15; Suar., disp. 21, sect. 5, and disp. 43, de Cens., sect. 1; Diana, 2. p., tract. 1, misc. R. 24, and others as reported by these.

Yet others judge it probable that the occult heretic is not irregular. Diana reports them, p. 1, supr. R. 114, and 2. p. supra, resol. 24, and p. 4, tract. 1, de Irreg., resol. 46.

The third punishment is infamy: cap. Excommunicamus, l. §. Credentes, and cap. Statuimus, eodem tit. de haeret. in 6, and cap. Infames, 6. quaest. 1, and Authent. Gazaros, C. de haeret. initio, and L. Cunctos populos, de Summa Trin. See Suar., disp. 21, sect 5.

The fourth punishment is, that the heretic be deprived of benefices and offices acquired, and be rendered incapable of future ones. See Lugo, disp. 23, sect. 4, §. 2.