Catholic Knight ... your last post was correct.

Formal / Material has nothing to do with "innocence", "sincerity", etc. where it comes to dogmatic theology, but has a place only in moral theology with regard to the internal forum, where sin or moral fault may be exculpated by an invincible ignorance.

With regard to Catholic faith, the material aspect has to do with WHAT is believed, and the formal with WHY it's believed.

I could sit down, read my Bible, apply my own private interpretation, and come up with a set of beliefs that is 100% consistent with Catholic dogmatic teaching.  But I'd still be a formal heretic, since I do not adhere to those beliefs due to an infallble God-given rule of faith.  I believe all the WHAT but not due to the correct WHY, i.e. I would lack the formal motive of faith.

I am a Protestant, and with total innocence and sincerity believe my religion to be true.  Yet this sincerity matters nothing.  While God would not impute moral guilt to such a one, despite his innocence, he lacks the formal motive of faith, submission to the Church's Magisterium as the rule of faith, and therefore despite all the sincerity in the world, he's a formal heretic.

I am a Catholic who adheres to one or another heresy, but it's only because I'm a poor uneducated peasant and a dummy with low IQ (Johannes here can relate).  I know about the Church and have every intention to believe everything the Church teaches (as expressed, say, in the Act of Faith).  I am a Material heretic only.  St. Augustine lays down the litmus test for this type of heretic as being someone who would immediately abandon his former heretical belief once informed of the truth.  I recall when I was young that I had a heretical view of the Immaculate Conception.  But as soon as someone told me, "Uh, well, that's not what it means.  This is what the Church teaches about it.", my response was, "Oh, sorry." and I instantly adhered to this correct belief.  That's material heresy, and that alone is material heresy.  Now, in this case, there could be SOME culpability that God would imput to me as sin, i.e. if I were too lazy to study my catechism, that might be a mortal sin to adhere to such heresy, but we're back now into the internal forum, whic God alone can discern.

Now, I claim to be a Catholic but I decided that, despite the Church's teaching, I don't believe in papal infallibility.  It's total bunk, perhaps even heresy.  I'm a formal heretic.  That's because, knowing what the Church teaches, I reject it anyway, and basically reject the infallible teaching authority of the Church as my rule of faith, but prefer my own private judgment.  This is why they say that if you deny one dogma you deny them all, because in denying the one, you deny the rule that underlies all dogmas, thereby showing I don't have the formal motive of believe, even if I happen to believe ever single dogma besides that one, since I now believe it because I choose to believe it, following my own lights as my rule of faith.

So ... this notion of formal vs. material heresy somehow pertaining to sincerity and the internal forum has been a gradual butchering of the terms with a view toward undermining EENS dogma.

There are in fact many in the Novus Ordo who think the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church because they see this guy calling himself pope and prancing around Rome in a white cassock.  They may or may not even know what's in Vatican II, much less believe what's in it.  And if they do believe it, if their motive is, "Well, the Church teaches this, so I accept it." ... they have the formal motive of faith and are material heretics only.  I know many such.  Again, I ask myself, if there were a Traditional pope elected and the Church restored, if the pope then condemned, say, Religious Liberty, would this person accept it.  In many cases, I'm sure that he would.  And, in either case, I can't judge them to be outside the Church by assuming that they would not.

I am a Catholic who adheres to one or another heresy, but it's only because I'm a poor uneducated peasant and a dummy with low IQ (Johannes here can relate).  I know about the Church and have every intention to believe everything the Church teaches (as expressed, say, in the Act of Faith).  I am a Material heretic only. 

There are in fact many in the Novus Ordo who think the Conciliar Church is the Catholic Church because they see this guy calling himself pope and prancing around Rome in a white cassock.  They may or may not even know what's in Vatican II, much less believe what's in it.  And if they do believe it, if their motive is, "Well, the Church teaches this, so I accept it." ... they have the formal motive of faith and are material heretics only.  I know many such.  Again, I ask myself, if there were a Traditional pope elected and the Church restored, if the pope then condemned, say, Religious Liberty, would this person accept it.  In many cases, I'm sure that he would.  And, in either case, I can't judge them to be outside the Church by assuming that they would not.

YOU DO ADMIT IT - TWICE!  The N.O. Catholics are material heretics - Good for you buddy I knew you had it in ya.

Now, do you agree with Van Noort that, "it is the more common opinion that material public heretics are not members of the Church."?

And second, you don't consider Religious Liberty already condemned by multiple popes? Are you serious

You don't have to "judge" them to be outside the Church, but you are allowed to hold that opinion - simply because it IS the more common opinion of the theologians and it IS tolerated, and you CANNOT claim someone is a schismatic for holding it (as you do of me).

No, moran.  Some are, some aren't.

Take Athanasius Schneider.  Identity the heresy he professes and adheres to and provide evidence.

I see that I have gained some respect from you  - now you bump me back up from "idiot" to your own IQ level of "moran"

Schneider acknowledges a HERETICAL hierarchy as his rule of faith - so he implicates himself in their crimes against the faith and for that reason is a public material heretic.

Van Noort explains further:

“The unity of faith which Christ decreed without qualification consists in this, that everyone accepts the doctrines presented for belief by the Church’s teaching office. In fact our Lord requires nothing other than the acceptance by all of the preaching of the apostolic college, a body which is to continue forever; or, what amounts to the same thing, of the pronouncements of the Church’s teaching office, which He Himself set up as the rule of faith. And the essential unity of faith definitely requires that everyone hold each and every doctrine clearly and distinctly presented for belief by the Church’s teaching office; and that everyone hold these truths explicitly or at least implicitly, i.e., by acknowledging the authority of the Church which teaches them.”^[14]

One can believe whatever they like about what happened at Vatican II, and the post-conciliar papal pretenders, i.e., antipopes, false elections, kidnapped pope, Siri Theory, we are all living in the Matrix, etc.

But what one CANNOT do is acknowledge the heretics as their rule of faith, for so by doing they implicitly accept those heresies, even if they deny said heresies with their lips. They choose innocently or ignorantly to place themselves under a false hierarchy running a false church and for that reason they attach themselves to antichrist not Christ. You just can't have it both ways, unless you devolve into subjectivism.

This makes him (Schneider) at the least a material heretic himself (though again, I doubt it and consider him formal myself because he certainly knows more and presents himself as "learned", though I do still admit the possibility that he could just be material).

So, I am assuming because I have asked you the Van Noort question about 50 times and you refuse to answer - that you DO agree with the more common opinion that material public heretics are not members of the Church. But you would like to be "charitable" and assuming that many are acting in good faith and still belong to the Church because they have the formal cause (motive). But that is just the thing - they don't have the correct cause - they error about who the magisterium is objectively and that has REAL consequences. Subjectively there may be no guilt for them in this matter, but objectively that makes them material public heretics by that association.

It is this very same thing that led St. Servatus to tell the Catholics who adhered to their Arian bishop, "I declare him to be no bishop and all those who hold communion with him are not deserving of the title Christian." St. Servatus did not say, "I don't consider you Christians because you believe in Arianism, no - he said, "I don't consider you Christians if you remain under this heretic."

Catholics are bound by Divine Law to separate from heretics, and that includes placing themselves under heretics - even if it is only in lip service. It is equitable to offering the pinch of incense without meaning it. Many Christians in times past have innocently followed heretics, fully convinced they were being subject the true magisterium, but they were still objectively outside the Church.

You should. It pertains to dogmatic facts (and all that flows therefrom).
So, to claim you could care less is very dangerous to faith.

It wouldn't really matter if he was just any ol'antipope - who was keeping the faith and people were innocently following him believing him to be the true pope - but once you introduce the matter of heresy - the whole game changes - and we are all "playing" for keeps.

It is why Vigano (to tie this back into the OP a bit) said this:

Expanding on his position via a June 28 statement, Viganò stated that “in order to separate myself from ecclesial communion with Jorge Mario Bergoglio, I would have to have first been in communion with him, which is not possible since Bergoglio himself cannot be considered a member of the Church, due to his multiple heresies and his manifest alienness and incompatibility with the role he invalidly and illicitly holds.”


"As I stated in my communiqué of June 20, I do not recognize the authority of the tribunal that claims to judge me, nor of its prefect, nor of the one who appointed him. This decision of mine, which is certainly painful, is not the result of haste or a spirit of rebellion; but rather is dictated by the moral necessity which, as bishop and successor of the apostles, obliges me in conscience to bear witness to the truth, that is, to God Himself, to Our Lord Jesus Christ."

Taken from: Archbishop Viganò: I accuse Bergoglio of heresy and schism - LifeSite

The same "moral necessity" he is talking about above - is a necessity for us all - he just has more of a responsibility to proclaim it then the laity, but we are no less obligated to hold the same.

Johannes,  I have been a traditional Catholic for thirty-five years, and I do not wake up in the morning and tell myself, "Gosh, if I do not figure out this pope situation then how am going to be able to live my Catholic life? In fact, if Francis is or is not pope, then how am I going to go to the traditional Mass every day and say my rosary?"  The simple fact of the matter is, that if Bellarmine, or Suarez, or any number of theologians were alive today, they would be equally as confused as Bryan Shepherd is, and they, at the end of the day, would argue themselves silly on the matter."   

The situation with pope Francis is no different than the son who says to his father, "Dad, I am moving out of the house because you do immoral things and command immoral things.  I will pray for your conversion."  It would be absolutely ridiculous to maintain that because I go down the street and tell some person that X is my dad, then I am somehow committing a sin.  This is truly absurd.  

Take Athanasius Schneider.  Identity the heresy he professes and adheres to and provide evidence.

+(?)Schneider may be a heretic on EENS.

It is manifest, but I am unsure of this being formal or how culpable he may be.

+(?)Schneider may be a heretic on EENS.

It is manifest, but I am unsure of this being formal or how culpable he may be.

What's the trad position on EENS?