I’ve been hearing people say all the following:
1. That calling heretics and schismatics “Christians,” and “Christian Societies” and “Christian denominations” and “Children” or “wayward Sons” (of the church or the pope) and “Brothers” or “Brethren” and that God is “their Father,” were not at all heresies until after Vatican I, and that it was ok to use these terms before the council, is this true? Or were they heresies even before Vatican I (I’ve heard of priests and laymembers who talked that way even before Vatican I)? If they were not at all heresies, can you please show me as many quotes and sources to prove this? If they were all heresies (or are just some of them heresies?) please send me as many quotes and sources as you can find that can prove this. It sounds wrong for some reason. To me it all sounds heretical but since I am not sure, I’m asking you. What answers should I give these people since they are saying that all these words are ok to use to describe heretics and schismatics, those outside the Catholic Church and enemies of the name Christian (that is what Trent called them)?
2. Can heretics and schismatics glory in the name of Christian? I’ve heard some people say that also, that heretics and schismatics glory in the name of “Christian.” I try to tell them that they (heretics and schismatics) are not Christian so they can’t glory in or bear the name of Christian, since they are not Christians. People have said that John XXIII said it so it is ok.
3. Also what are we to do if a person writes traditional like a Catholic and then writes a heresy (or something that can be interpreted as heresy) and then writes traditional again (in the same writings) where it seems that the person corrected themselves? Is the person a heretic or do we ignore what sounded like a heresy simply because the person corrected themselves in other writings (at a later date) or sometimes in the same writing? Wasn’t this method used by heretics before and has it not been condemned? Do we condemn the writing as heretical anyway and without condemning the person who wrote it as a heretic? I’ve seen plenty of people do this for Pius XII and Leo XIII and Benedict XV in that they admit they spoke heresy but still confess these men to be their popes simply because these men then “corrected” themselves at a later date or within the same writings. As for this language that talks traditional, then ambiguose or heretical and then traditional, I know there have been plenty of priests and bishops who have done this as well. I think even Adolphe Tanquerey, did this also. I also have had people ask me what to do in such a situation. Do you call the person a heretic? In the case of a man who claims to be the pope (such as Pius XII and others) would such a man be a heretic? Or would only that part of the letter be heretical and not the man?
4. When was the first time that the church taught that those who die in the sole state of original sin go to hellfire? I thought The Council of Carthage (17th) taught this quite explicitly with the reference to Matt. 25:41 (or do I have the wrong translation?), when saying, “For he who lacks the right part will without doubt run into the left.” Are not those on the left the Goats (which include those who were not baptized) from Matt. 25:32 and will they not depart into everlasting fire as taught in Matt. 25:41?
It seems that Carthage first taught that those who die in original sin alone go to hell fire and then the Council of Basel-Florence only repeated what the Council of Carthage said when the Council of Basel-Florence said “Those not living within the Catholic Church…will depart into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels [Matt. 25:41].” Is there more proof from any other council or infallible pronouncement or definition that proves that those who die in the sole state of original sin go to hell fire? Is there any other definition that says that everyone in hell is in hellfire or the burning lake of fire? It seems to me by all means that the Council of Carthage (17th) and the Council of Florence along with those bible verses and the other saints proves that all those who die outside of the Church go to hell fire.
5. Didn’t the Council of Carthage also teach that “without baptism” a person “cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven” and “unless a man be born again of water and the holy Ghost, he shall not enter into the kingdom of God [John 3:5]?” Was this dogmatic? Did any popes agree with this councils definition and if so then what definitions?
Please read also:
Can Corrupters of Faith Worship the true God?
But men can bear something that they have stolen, that is, they can deceitfully show forth something as their own, which is truly not theirs at all. A robber can bear the expensive cloak he took from his victim, a spy can bear the identification (i.e. the name) of a high official from the enemy country, and heretics and schismatics can bear the name Christian. But all do so fraudulently and under false pretenses. In all cases above, they can bear what they have stolen (i.e. they have the power, though they lie by doing so), but they MAY NOT bear what they have stolen (i.e. it is not permitted to them, either by the Natural Law in the first case, the law of the land in the second case and Divine and Ecclesiastical Law in the third case).
If he has the character of a Christian, then why do we not call Him a Christian?
HOWEVER, a non-baptized child who dies as such WILL be condemned, since Baptism is the ONLY way to prevent it. Thus it is lawful to baptizing such a child in danger of death only, in order to avoid avoid absolutely certain damnation. (It is recommended to read about Edgardo Mortara on this point, to learn how the Church would treat such a case, if the child happened to survive the danger.)
Since there is no falsehood in God, it follows that by believing in lies about God, one cannot be said to believe in God at all, but in something other than God. Therefore, heretics do not believe in Jesus Christ, but they believe in a "jesus christ" of their own invention, or one foisted upon them by evil parents, evil government or evil spirits.
All the Baptized Become Catholics
Visible communion in the Church consists of external acts and profession. The internal forum cannot bind a Catholic to avoid a man who believes heresy, since the former is incapable of reading the latter's heart, at least not without an external manifestation of the things thereof (St. Matthew 15:18, etc.).
If the man thus baptized (say, in a Lutheran "church") remained for the rest of the ceremony, his membership in the Church Catholic would thereby be obliterated by heresy and schism (i.e. by his external and public acts of false worship and public manifestations of heretical belief). However, if he was miraculously graced by God with the proper dispositions (according to Trent), and if God singularly favoured him with a great grace to see that his sect was not the Church, and he ran screaming from the abominable place immediately upon being signed with the character, and sought out the true Catholic Church and her pastors, then he would be Catholic.
This is analogous to how each individual soul is created perfect and holy by God, and yet instantly contracts the taint of original sin upon its infusion into the body (which happens at the very moment of the souls creation). The "schismatichumen", for lack of a better word, though made a (dead, through want of the necessary dispositions for justification) member of the true Catholic Church by his true Catholic baptism, is immediately infused into a body tainted with heresy and schism.
Now this does not make heretics and schismatics members of the Church, but fallen away members, formerly members, who have been separated from her ipso facto of their external, public and false profession of heresy and adherence to a sect.
To learn more about Baptism and Limbo, please read also:
Baptism of Desire and Trent's Decree Concerning Original Sin
Limbo of Infants Without Fire is Heretical