Baptissimus Flaminis et Argumentum ad Verecundiam

Probably one of the most controverted topics of modern times is that of "who can be saved".
Inextricably bound up with this controversy is the topic of the necessity of Baptism and Baptism by desire, brought to the foreground in the 1940's by one Boston priest Fr. Leonard Feeney, who was subsequently excommunicated for disobeying his bishop, who did not approve of his apostolate. I was recently engaged in this controversy over at the Fisheaters Forum, where there were two threads simultaneously touching on this topic one "How do BOB, BOD and invincible ignorance fit in with this de fide dogma?" and "No Salvation without the Catholic Faith", the author of one of which invited me to contribute to these discussions, in view of last year's debate. I thought I'd summarize the controversy here so to better aggregate anticipated future discussions, whether at FE, or elsewhere. That is that Baptissimus Flaminis (the Latin term employed in reference to Baptism by Desire) is not de fide, that is an article of faith to be believed with Divine Faith by all the faithful on pain of anathema.

Probably the first polemic one is likely to encounter is the polemic concerning St. Alphonsus Liguori's assertion that BOD is de fide. This one has two sides to it: argumentum ad verecundiam, and the argument from silence, we will here consider the argument from authority, namely the authority of the theologians and Fathers. Here is the text to which exceptionalists refer:

Concerning Baptism of Blood and Desire

(Extract from St Alphonsus Liguori: Moral Theology, Bk. 6, nn. 95-7.)

"Baptism, therefore, coming from a Greek word that means ablution or immersion in water, is distinguished into Baptism of water [“fluminis”], of desire [“flaminis” = wind] and of blood. We shall speak below of Baptism of water, which was very probably instituted before the Passion of Christ the Lord, when Christ was baptised by John. But baptism of desire is perfect conversion to God by contrition or love of God above all things accompanied by an explicit or implicit desire for true Baptism of water, the place of which it takes as to the remission of guilt, but not as to the impression of the [baptismal] character or as to the removal of all debt of punishment. It is called “of wind” [“flaminis”] because it takes place by the impulse of the Holy Ghost who is called a wind [“flamen”]. Now it is de fide that men are also saved by Baptism of desire, by virtue of the Canon Apostolicam, “de presbytero non baptizato” and of the Council of Trent, session 6, Chapter 4 where it is said that no one can be saved “without the laver of regeneration or the desire for it.” Baptism of blood is the shedding of one’s blood, i.e. death, suffered for the Faith or for some other Christian virtue. Now this baptism is comparable to true Baptism because, like true Baptism, it remits both guilt and punishment as it were ex opere operato. I say as it were because martyrdom does not act by as strict a causality [“non ita stricte”] as the sacraments, but by a certain privilege on account of its resemblance to the passion of Christ. Hence martyrdom avails also for infants seeing that the Church venerates the Holy Innocents as true martyrs. That is why Suarez rightly teaches that the opposing view [i.e. the view that infants are not able to benefit from baptism of blood — translator] is at least temerarious. In adults, however, acceptance of martyrdom is required, at least habitually from a supernatural motive.It is clear that martyrdom is not a sacrament, because it is not an action instituted by Christ, and for the same reason neither was the Baptism of John a sacrament: it did not sanctify a man, but only prepared him for the coming of Christ."

While St. Alphonsus was probably the greatest moral theologian of all time, and demands great respect, for his learning and holiness, and veneration of the Church; his opinion does not make something de fide, he cannot make dogmas, he cannot demand the assent of the faithful, he is only one learned holy individual, and would probably decry this polemic; would he ever take upon himself the magisterial authority of the Roman Catholic Church? I doubt it.

This polemic is one of the most common, and generally, those who employ this polemic argue primarily on the education and reverence of, and for, the authority cited. But they know that learning and sainthood are not enough to "prove" their position. So, they prop this polemic by arguing that the teachings of a theologian or doctor the Church demand the unquestioned assent of the faithful. That Supernatural Faith is required of the individual in the opinions voiced in the works of a theologian or doctor. It sounds very shaky, because it is a shaky polemic, it simply does not sound like a very tenable premise, and they know this, so they immediately have recourse to another authority who says that theologian's works do demand this kind of assent, asserting that these works are intrinsically of the ordinary teaching authority of the magisterium, one of these individuals is the Rev. Anthony Cekada, a very witty and well-read priest whose defense of sedevacantism and the Thuc episcopal lineage have gained him one of the top places as a traditionalist scholar, argues this in his work "Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles". The Rev. refers to a letter of Pope Pius IX to the Archbishop of Munich, which states:

“For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” [1]

Rev. Cekada spends an ample amount of time propounding this premise, he says that the consensus of theologians in a matter of faith or morals is a "certain criteria of divine Tradition". [2] Let us take a look at this above papal statement, and extrapolate what it means.

"For, even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by express decrees of ecumenical Councils, or of the Roman Pontiffs and of this See..." [3]

The pope is telling the Archbishop, here, that those things which require the divine and supernatural assent of the faithful are not limited to the decrees of ecumenical councils and papal pronouncements, meaning that not all articles of faith which are to be believed by the faithful have been authoritatively proclaimed by the Apostolic See, which means that something does not have to be an ex cathedra pronouncement to be an article of the faith requiring unquestioning assent. This statement in confirming the authority of the ordinary magisterium, rather than the authoritative extraordinary magisterium of the Apostolic See.

"...but would have to be extended also to those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” [4]

The Holy Father explains to the bishop that a part of this ordinary magisterial power of the Church is occupied by the constant and universal consensus of Catholic theologians. Which means that those things which have been constantly and universally unquestioningly held as de fide by the fathers and theologians occupies the place of dogma, since such agreement on points of dogma since apostolic times duely deserves to have an integral place in Catholic doctrine.

The reason why the father spends so much of his time setting up this premise is because it is his opinion that Baptism by desire has occupied such a constant and universal consensus in Catholic theology. Up until this point, the father presents a perfectly logical thesis, but it is simply untenable that Baptism by desire has held such an unquestioned place in Catholic doctrine, as will be demonstrated. One point of clarification: This article is not a "bash fest" for Baptism by desire, but simply to position that its place is not amongst the dogmas of the faith, as will be demonstrated in the course of this article.

I will bolster my reply to the argument from authority in pointing out that theologians and Church Fathers have occasionally erred in their theology from time to time. Now anticipating the reply of those who might now discard my position because I have said that a theologian has erred, I want to say that I do not think that I am more learned than any theologian, nor that I am holier than any sainted Doctor of the Church, but simply that I am pointing out a fact of history, some theologians have erred in points of doctrine. But some will argue, perhaps, in response to this that they never erred on an essential point of doctrine, that is that they never erred on any point of doctrine which they considered de fide. I will respond to both of these responses by pointing out that St. Robert Bellarmine, a sainted doctor of the Church, held that Geocentrism was de fide. If this doctor were right, what are the ramifications? How many popes and theologians would be considered heretics or rebels against the de fide teaching of the Church? How many Catholic scientists would be held as heretical or anti-Catholic? And what would this mean for the anti-Catholics who argue that the Church has erred and has opposed true scientific progress?
St. Cyprian of Carthage held that no heretic can validly baptize because heretics are outside of the Church[5], and therefore cannot bring someone into the Church[ 6]. St. Augustine, perhaps the greatest of all the early Church Fathers, held that infants suffer the positive suffering of the damned, not only did he hold this error, but that he held it to be de fide [7], and this position also shared the common consensus of theologians from his time all the way to the time of St. Anslem[8]. St. Thomas Aquinas held that the Blessed Virgin was conceived in original sin[9], which was contrary to the doctrinal definition of Pope Pius IX, and numerous errors have been found in the works of St. Thomas [10]. It is, however, true that St. Thomas' work the Summa was laid on the altar at Trent and declared to be the purest expression of Catholic doctrine, however, it is not true that St. Thomas possessed the charism which the Roman Pontiff alone possesses, which is infallibility in teaching morals and doctrine, while he expressed Catholic doctrine very well, there is no guarantee that his writings were infallible. We do not glory in mentioning these errors, but we bring them only to mind because they prove a point, and that is that the individual opinions of a theologian on a given point of doctrine do not possess the charism of infallibility, nor do individual theologians possess the magisterial authority of the Church in teaching morals and doctrine, and it is a fact of history that certain theologians and Fathers have made errors in their teaching capacity. This means, therefore, that when a theologian tells us that something is de fide, that does not intrinsically make it so, or necessarily signify that it is, or that the teachings of a theologian demand the divine faith and assent of the faithful unconditionally. But let us, for a moment, take the premise of Fr. Cekada and other exceptionalists for granted, and say that the common consensus of numerous theologians is a sign that something is an article of faith. Now, were we to grant this premise, we would have to admit: that St. Augustine's thesis that infants suffer the positive suffering of infants is an article of faith, because it was taught by a theologian, and what's more it was taught by that theologian to be de fide, and it was uncontested for centuries, during which time it held the common consensus of theologians[11]. But, no one is willing to admit this, because it is an error, and if it is an error, and it held such respect and common consensus for so long by so many, then what are we to conclude? We must, therefore, admit that theologians can err and that error can be uncontested for long periods of time, and by a majority of theologians, and that an error has been considered de fide in the past, so that even theologians can be mistaken about what is and is not de fide.
What, then, of Fr. Cekada's thesis that the common consensus of theologians is de fide and the teaching of Pope Pius IX? We take note of Pius's statement again:

"...those matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordinary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the world, and therefore, by universal and constant consent are held by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” [12]

Notice the bolded text, it says that those things which are considered de fide by the faithful that are considered de fide by theologians are things that must enjoy the universal and constant consensus of Catholic theologians, not merely the common consensus for a given time, or in a given place, but, always and everywhere. Pius IX's statement is in perfect accord with our above conclusions about theologians, why? Because those things which were so considered de fide by those theologians were not universal and constant, a thing must not exercise merely universality at any given time, but must be universal and constant, it must, therefore, be the consistent consensus of fathers and theologians universally in time, that is held as of the faith commonly and by all, ever since apostolic times. St. Augustine's belief was not consistent with those beliefs on the topic before his time[13] and was later contradicted both by theologians and by councils of the Church[14]. We must conclude, therefore, that the opinion of a saint on a point of doctrine does not make something doctrinal, or else we should have to hold numerous positions which are sometimes at odds with what the Church teaches, which is why Pope Alexander VIII condemned the proposition of the Jansenists that “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”[15], and why Benedict XIV declared that “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching” [16], and Pius XII that the deposit of Faith is authentically interpreted not by "each of the faithful, not even", he says, "theologians, but only", again,"the Teaching Authority of the Church.” [17]

Therefore, Catholics look not to the individual teachings of a holy Doctor or theologian for the authentic interpretation of Catholic doctrine, but to "the teaching authority of the Church", exercised either by the infallible capacity of the Pope, or by the consistent universal consensus of the Fathers. Which means that even though St. Alphonsus regarded Baptism by desire as de fide, it might not necessarily be so, nor might it even, necessarily, be true. And of course exceptionalists realize this, and respond that their opinion does hold such a unanimity of the Fathers and theologians. Fr. Cekada proceeds to claim that the doctrine of Baptism by desire does share the common consensus of the theologians, by providing a list of twenty five theologians mainly of the past 300 years, most of them of the last century and a half. He concludes by saying "all Catholics are obliged to adhere to the teaching on baptism of desire and baptism of blood." However, the rev. forgets here that this unanimity must be constant, stretching back to apostolic times, his list only reflects roughly the last 3 centuries, which represents the faith of those theologians over that span of time, but does not reflect universal anonymity, for there were theologians of the past 3 centuries who did not agree with all of the ones the father cites[18], nor does this list represent the faith of theologians before the 16th century, completely omitting 1400 years of theological consensus, and I hardly call that "unanimous", or universal and constant.
Therefore, Baptism by desire does not meet this criteria needed to reflect doctrinality, and does not, therefore, demand the adherence of Catholics. The father then proceeds to declare that it is heresy against the faith, mortal sin on the part of a Catholic to doubt or deny Baptism by Desire", making heretics of anyone who does not accept it, a conclusion that logically flows from his forgetfulness of the requirement of universality and consistency, but which is flawed, and does not meet the requirement, attaching, therefore, an undue penalty to a theological opinion. It seems also that Fr. Cekada has forgotten that he lacks the authority to attach this penalty, and that to sever communion with a Catholic in matters which are not of faith or government, as Baptism is not, is schism[19]. The question is, thus, is the reverend Cekada ignorant of his schismatic conclusion and subsequent behaviour? I believe he is, but also that he will probably never concede it, nor, perhaps, will the rest of the Catholic world who insists on this conclusion, I expect.




_____________
Endnotes:

[1] Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863
[2] Fr. Anthony Cekada, Baptism of Desire and Theological Principles, Thesis 21
[3] Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Letter to the Archbishop of Munich, Dec. 21, 1863
[4] Ibid.
[5] St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30
[6] St Cyprian, to Jubaianus (254): “…in regard to what I might think in the matter of the baptism of heretics... This baptism we cannot reckon as valid…” - Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1 P. 593
[7] Patrick J. Toner, Catholic Encyclopedia,Volume IX, Article "Limbo", New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910: "This means that St. Augustine and the African Fathers believed that unbaptized infants share in the common positive misery of the damned". And again: "St. Augustine in holding that unbaptized children share in the positive sufferings of the damned..."
[8] Ibid.: "After enjoying several centuries of undisputed supremacy, St. Augustine's teaching on original sin was first successfully challenged by St. Anselm"
[9] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, Pt. III, Q. 14, Art. 3, Reply to Obj. 1: "The flesh of the Virgin was conceived in Original Sin.”
[10] Michael Malone, The Only-Begotten, p. 70; 395
[11] Patrick J. Toner, Catholic Encyclopedia,Volume IX, Article "Limbo", New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910
[12] Pope Pius IX, Tuas Libenter, Dec. 21, 1863
[13] Patrick J. Toner, Catholic Encyclopedia,Volume IX, Article "Limbo", New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1910
[14] Ibid.
[15] Pope Alexander VIII, Errors of the Jansenists, #30
[16] Pope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (#6), June 26, 1749
[17] Pope Pius XII, Humani generis, (#21) on Aug 12, 1950
[18] Among which are: Archbp. Patrick Kenrick, Archbp. Hays, Fr. Rev. Michael Muller, C.S.S.R., Dr. Ludwig Ott, St. Francis De Sales, St. Charles Borromeo and others.
[19] Catholic Encyclopedia, Article "Heresy", sec. II, Vol. VII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company: "Schismatics... are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other... And therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not... communicate with the members of the Church...."; St. Thomas, 2a 2ae, 9, xxxix., a. I: "The unity of the Church is manifested in the mutual connection or communication of its members, and likewise in the relation of all the members of the Church to one head"

Protestants as Christians?

Very recently, I was engaged in a discussion on the distinction between formal and material heresy which became involved with the question of whether or not modern day Protestants are material or formal heretics, as to whether or not they were to be truly designated as "Christian" or part of the Church by virtue of their baptism.

St. Thomas Aquinas, speaking of heresy, said: "Now, in matters of faith, the will assents to some truth, as to its proper good, as was shown above (4, 3): wherefore that which is the chief truth, has the character of last end, while those which are secondary truths, have the character of being directed to the end.
Now, whoever believes, assents to someone's words; so that, in every form of unbelief, the person to whose words assent is given seems to hold the chief place and to be the end as it were; while the things by holding which one assents to that person hold a secondary place. Consequently he that holds the Christian faith aright, assents, by his will, to Christ, in those things which truly belong to His doctrine." [1]

St. Thomas begins by defining that heresy and faith are acts of the will, when it [the will] assents to an article of the faith [the assent of the will to the doctrine of Christ, i.e. faith], de fide [of the faith, and article of or pertaining to the doctrine of the Christian religion], or fails to do so [heresy: the failure to willingly assent to one or more articles of the faith of the Christian religion, here a distinction can be made, of the first, what is being treated upon, is willful failure to assent to the truths of religion, "Formal" or "manifest" Heresy, the second, the unconcious failure to do so, termed "Material Heresy"].

St. Thomas goes on to make this distinction: "Accordingly there are two ways in which a man may deviate from the rectitude of the Christian faith. First, because he is unwilling to assent to Christ [formal and willful heresy]: and such a man has an evil will [what we today term as "bad will"], so to say, in respect of the very end. This belongs to the species of unbelief in pagans and Jews [therefore a kind of unbelief which is mortal and severs Christian communion by the failure to assent to its communion]. Secondly, because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind.
Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas." [- The Definition of heresy] ... As Augustine says (Ep. xliii) and we find it stated in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. 3, can. Dixit Apostolus): "By no means should we accuse of heresy those who, however false and perverse their opinion may be, defend it without obstinate fervor, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion, when they have found the truth," because, to wit, they do not make a choice in contradiction to the doctrine of the Church. Accordingly, certain doctors seem to have differed either in matters the holding of which in this or that way is of no consequence, so far as faith is concerned, or even in matters of faith, which were not as yet defined by the Church; although if anyone were obstinately to deny them after they had been defined by the authority of the universal Church, he would be deemed a heretic. This authority resides chiefly in the Sovereign Pontiff."[2]

Now, our discussion went somewhat like this:

My opponent cited Vatican II in referencing his belief that Protestants in current times could not be considered formal heretics, and thus outside the Church, whereas I argued that modern day Protestants do fit this definition and thus are formal heretics, separated from the Church, the Church of Christ, i.e. the Roman Catholic Church.

Vatican II: "For men who believe in Christ and have been truly baptized are in communion with the Catholic Church even though this communion is imperfect. The differences that exist in varying degrees between them and the Catholic Church-whether in doctrine and sometimes in discipline, or concerning the structure of the Church-do indeed create many obstacles, sometimes serious ones, to full ecclesiastical communion. The ecumenical movement is striving to overcome these obstacles. But even in spite of them it remains true that all who have been justified by faith in Baptism are members of Christ's body, and have a right to be called Christian, and so are correctly accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."[3]

And Josef Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI, continues in this belief:

“Ultimately it is due to the fact that there is no appropriate category in Catholic thought for the phenomenon of Protestantism today (one could say the same of the relationship to the separated churches of the East). It is obvious that the old category of ‘heresy’ is no longer of any value. Heresy, for Scripture and the early Church, includes the idea of a personal decision against the unity of the Church, and heresy’s characteristic is pertinacia, the obstinacy of him who persists in his own private way. This, however, cannot be regarded as an appropriate description of the spiritual situation of the Protestant Christian. In the course of a now centuries-old history, Protestantism has made an important contribution to the realization of Christian faith, fulfilling a positive function in the development of the Christian message and, above all, often giving rise to a sincere and profound faith in the individual non-Catholic Christian, whose separation from the Catholic affirmation has nothing to do with the pertinacia characteristic of heresy. Perhaps we may here invert a saying of St. Augustine’s: that an old schism becomes a heresy. The very passage of time alters the character of a division, so that an old division is something essentially different from a new one. Something that was once rightly condemned as heresy cannot later simply become true, but it can gradually develop its own positive ecclesial nature, with which the individual is presented as his church and in which he lives as a believer, not as a heretic. This organization of one group, however, ultimately has an effect on the whole. The conclusion is inescapable, then: Protestantism today is something different from heresy in the traditional sense, a phenomenon whose true theological place has not yet been determined.” [4]

Now, I'll get into this statement later (See this post), but it serves well enough to establish the objection which the opposition positioned.

My argument went somewhat like this:

The Catholic Church is one Church of the faithful, not of heretics; heretics are outside the Church:

St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, lib. II, cap. 30: “Finally, the Holy Fathers teach unanimously not only that heretics are outside of the Church..."

That all members of the Church must obey the Holy See:

Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: "Therefore they are in dangerous error who think that they can attach themselves to Christ the Head of the Church, without adhering faithfully to his Vicar on earth."

Heretics do not profess properly and truthfully all that the Church has taught in every last detail, word and intention.

I Lateran Council: "If ANYONE does not profess properly and truthfully all that has been handed down and taught publicly to the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of God, to the last detail in word and intention: let him be anathema."

Heretics are not members of the Catholic Church.

St. Cyprian: "He is no Christian who is not in Christ's Church." (Epistle to Antonianus," 52)

St. Augustine - If anyone holds to a single heresy, he is not a Catholic. ("On Heresies," no.88; PL 42)

St. Peter Canisius: "Who is to be called a Christian? He who confesses the doctrine of Christ and His Church. " (St. Canisius Catholic Cate-chism, Dillingen, 1560, Question no. 1)

Fr. Michael Müller, C.SS.R., "The Catholic Dogma," 1888: "What Protestant Belief In Christ is - .(Protestants) never had any divine faith in Christ. 'He who does not believe all that Christ has taught,' says St. Ambrose, 'denies Christ himself.' (In Luc. c. 9.) 'It is absurd for a heretic,' says St. Thomas Aquinas, 'to assert that he believes in Jesus Christ. To believe in a man is to give our full assent to his word and to all he teaches. True faith, therefore, is absolute belief in Jesus Christ and in all he has taught. Hence he who does not adhere to all that Jesus Christ has prescribed for our salvation has no more the doc-trine of Jesus Christ and of his Church, than the Pagans, Jews and Turk's have.' 'He is' says Jesus Christ, 'a heathen and publican.'"

Tertullian: "...Heretics, however, have no fellowship in our discipline, whom the mere fact of their excommunication testifies to be outsiders. I am not bound to recognize in them a thing which is enjoined on me, because they and we have not the same God, nor one—that is, the same—Christ."

Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of Doctrine proposed by Her authoritative Magisterium.”

That the view of Vatican II and Josef Ratzinger is a novelty.

Pius IX, Letter from the Holy Office, September 16, 1864: "It [this novelty] can be summed up in this proposition, that the true Church Jesus Christ is made up of one part Roman Church, established and propagated throughout the world, and one part the schism of Photius, and the Anglican heresy, both of which have, with the Church of Rome, one same Lord, one same faith, one same baptism."

Leo XIII, Officio sanctissimo, December 22, 1887: "But he who in his manner of thinking and acting would separate himself from his shepherd and from his Sovereign Pastor, the Roman Pontiff, has no further bond with Christ: “He that heareth you, heareth me, he that despiseth you, despiseth me” (Luke X: 16). Whoever is estranged from Christ does not reap; he scatters."

Schismatic and heretical sects, then, do not communicate in the unity of the Church, are not in the Church, because they hold to false doctrine and are not in union with Rome. They are not “united to the Catholic Church by very close bonds.”

Therefore schismatic sects and heretical sects have no further bond with Christ. They are not in “partial communion” with the Catholic Church, and which are part of the Church of Christ. In fact, they scatter against Christ in their activities.

Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: "Consequently, as in the real assembly of the faithful there can be only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith: and he who refuses to hear the Church must be considered, by the order of the Lord, as a heathen and a publican. And they who are divided by reasons of faith or of government cannot live in this one Body, and in its one Divine Spirit."

The opposition returned that Protestants were not removed from the Church by virtue of the notion that they were merely material heretics and thus did not fall under the sentence of excommunication imposed by the Apostolic See.

... As Augustine says (Ep. xliii) and we find it stated in the Decretals (xxiv, qu. 3, can. Dixit Apostolus): "By no means should we accuse of heresy those who, however false and perverse their opinion may be, defend it without obstinate fervor, and seek the truth with careful anxiety, ready to mend their opinion, when they have found the truth," because, to wit, they do not make a choice in contradiction to the doctrine of the Church. Accordingly, certain doctors seem to have differed either in matters the holding of which in this or that way is of no consequence, so far as faith is concerned, or even in matters of faith, which were not as yet defined by the Church; although if anyone were obstinately to deny them after they had been defined by the authority of the universal Church, he would be deemed a heretic. This authority resides chiefly in the Sovereign Pontiff."

I proceeded to point out the fact that most Protestants obstinately defend their error and seek to undermine, distort, ignore, or attack the truth of the Catholic religion rather than seek the truth about it with a willingness to mend their opinion, and thus fall under the category which Aquinas lays forth:

"...because he is unwilling to assent to Christ [formal and willful heresy]: and such a man has an evil will [what we today term as "bad will"], so to say, in respect of the very end. This belongs to the species of unbelief in pagans and Jews [therefore a kind of unbelief which is mortal and severs Christian communion by the failure to assent to its communion]. Secondly, because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind. Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas."

The opposition simply denied this:

I simply deny that most Protestants "refuse" to be informed. ...they just are not opposed to learning the truth, no matter what you may think about it.

But then goes on to contradict himself, agreeing with me in an attempt to disagree with me:

...because of their errors, they do not believe that the Catholic Church has something to say to them about their salvation. And from their perspective, based in sola scriptura, there is no reason for them even to suspect that the Church has something to say to them that they need to hear. If they argue with you on the Internet and refuse to listen to what you say, it's not because they are not interested in the truth. It's because they think that they already have it, and that you are going to be contradicting it, and consequently they see no reason to listen to you. I think that they are mistaken of course, but that's not the point. They don't.

If their refusal to assent to the truth does not constitute obstinacy, then what does? This person says that no matter what, no one who believes that they are right can be truly called a heretic, which means that there is no such thing, for we are all excused of it [heresy] if we believe that we are right (See Also) [which is error, for all heretics think they are right, that's why there are heretics, yet who does not know that those heretics in the past have been condemned as such, and excommunicated, and expelled from the Church either by solemn declaration or by process of Divine or ecclesiastical law?]. It is that they trust not God and His truth, but themselves.

"though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind. " - Aquinas on Heresy

"But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme (truth and the formal motive of faith. "In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them" (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not "bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. "You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel" (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3). [5]

Thus, for this reason, modern day Protestants, who reject Catholic truth and refuse to assent to it, can truly be called heretics and thus not Christian nor members of the Catholic Church (See also).

But this is not the only leg which my argument stood on. The second pin was that Protestants were not Christian and were outside the Church because they were divided from the Church in both faith and government, that not only were Protestants heretics, but even if the heresy were cut from the equation, they would still be schismatics in one sense in that they reject the authority of the Roman Pontiff, involving heresy, and refuse communion with him.

Schism: Schismatics, says St. Thomas, in the strict sense, are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other and of all the members with the head. Now this head is Christ whose representative in the Church is the supreme pontiff. And therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not submit to the supreme pontiff nor communicate with the members of the Church subject to him. Since the definition of Papal Infallibility, schism usually implies the heresy of denying this dogma. [6]

Pius IX, Letter from the Holy Office, September 16, 1864: “they are separated from the communion of the Church who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See.”

According to Pope Pius IX and the teaching of the Church those who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See are not in communion with the Church. They are cut off, severed, excommunicated for being schismatics by operation of Divine Law. Therefore, for this reason Protestants are not fellow Christians or members of Christ's Church, which is the Catholic Church. Therefore, those PRotestants who were baptized, thus made members of the Catholic Church, are separated from the Catholic Church by refusing to acknowledge and accept the authority and power of the Apostolic See.

Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, January 6, 1928: "No one is in the Church of Christ, and no one remains in it, unless he acknowledges and accepts with obedience the authority and power of Peter and his legitimate successors."

Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, June 29, 1943: "Therefore they are in dangerous error who think that they can attach themselves to Christ the Head of the Church, without adhering faithfully to his Vicar on earth."

Now, so far we've covered the fact that Protestants are severed from the Church by
1. Refusal to assent to the truth, constituting obstinate heresy.
2. Refusal to acknowledge the authority and primacy of the Apostolic See.

However, there is still one more reason why modern day Protestants are separated from the true Church of Christ, a second kind of Schism, that of refusing communion with other Christians, which Protestants do every day.

Schismatics... are they who of their own will and intention separate themselves from the unity of the Church. The unity of the Church consists in the connection of its members with each other and of all the members... therefore the name of schismatics is given to those who will not... communicate with the members of the Church subject to him [the Roman Pontiff]. [7]

Therefore, Protestants are severed from the Catholic Church in a three-fold manner, Schism from the Apostolic See, Schism with other Christians, and obstinate heresy, then there can be no doubt that modern day Protestants are indeed not Christians and are separated from the Church, falling under the sentence of excommunication, and/or anathema.

St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. "No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic" (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).

"...can it be lawful for anyone to reject any one of those truths without by the very fact falling into heresy? without separating himself from the Church? - without repudiating in one sweeping act the whole of Christian teaching? For such is the nature of faith that nothing can be more absurd than to accept some things and reject others. Faith, as the Church teaches, is "that supernatural virtue by which, through the help of God and through the assistance of His grace, we believe what he has revealed to be true, not on account of the intrinsic truth perceived by the natural light of reason, but because of the authority of God Himself, the Revealer, who can neither deceive nor be deceived" (Conc. Vat., Sess. iii., cap. 3). If then it be certain that anything is revealed by God, and this is not believed, then nothing whatever is believed by divine Faith: for what the Apostle St. James judges to be the effect of a moral delinquency, the same is to be said of an erroneous opinion in the matter of faith. ...But he who dissents even in one point from divinely revealed truth absolutely rejects all faith, since he thereby refuses to honour God as the supreme truth and the formal motive of faith. "In many things they are with me, in a few things not with me; but in those few things in which they are not with me the many things in which they are will not profit them" (S. Augustinus in Psal. liv., n. 19). And this indeed most deservedly; for they, who take from Christian doctrine what they please, lean on their own judgments, not on faith; and not "bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ" (2 Cor. x., 5), they more truly obey themselves than God. "You, who believe what you like, believe yourselves rather than the gospel" (S. Augustinus, lib. xvii., Contra Faustum Manichaeum, cap. 3).

"For this reason, as the unity of the faith is of necessity required for the unity of the church, inasmuch as it is the body of the faithful, so also for this same unity, inasmuch as the Church is a divinely constituted society, unity of government, which effects and involves unity of communion, is necessary jure divino. "The unity of the Church is manifested in the mutual connection or communication of its members, and likewise in the relation of all the members of the Church to one head" (St. Thomas, 2a 2ae, 9, xxxix., a. I). From this it is easy to see that men can fall away from the unity of the Church by schism, as well as by heresy. "We think that this difference exists between heresy and schism" (writes St. Jerome): "heresy has no perfect dogmatic teaching, whereas schism, through some Episcopal dissent, also separates from the Church" (S. Hieronymus, Comment. in Epist. ad Titum, cap. iii., v. 1011). In which judgment St. John Chrysostom concurs: "I say and protest (he writes) that it is as wrong to divide the Church as to fall into heresy" (Hom. xi., in Epist. ad Ephes., n. 5)

Hence the teaching of Cyprian, that heresy and schism arise and are begotten from the fact that due obedience is refused to the supreme authority. "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). - Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #9, June 29, 1896.

______________
Endnotes:

[1] Summa Theologica, Secunda Secundae Partis Q. 11, A. 1
[2] Ibid.
[3] Vatican II, Unitatis Redintegratio, Decree on Ecumenism, # 3
[4] The Meaning of Christian Brotherhood, pp. 87-88
[5] Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum, #9, June 29, 1896.
[6] Catholic Encyclopedia, Article "Heresy", sec. II, Vol. VII. Published 1910. New York: Robert Appleton Company, - Newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm
[7] Ibid.