B. Pertinacity and Heresy

Pertinacity and Heresy in Canon Law

© Copyright 2009, T. Stanfill Benns (Updated 2011. This text may be downloaded or printed out for private reading, but it may not be uploaded to another Internet site or published, electronically or otherwise, without express written permission from the author. All emphasis within quotes is the author’s unless indicated otherwise.)

In his “Dictionary of Dogmatic Theology,” Rev. Pascal Parente states that in order to judge something truly heretical, it must be opposed to a truth revealed by God, and also declared infallibly by the Church to be revealed by God. Rev. Garrigou-Lagrange then expounds further on the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas concerning heresy. He explains that Aquinas defines heresy as “obstinately [embracing] a false opinion concerning truths that belong to the faith, either directly or principally…or indirectly and secondarily, like revealed verities of less importance…A heretic is one who refuses ‘to choose whatever Christ has truly taught,’” (“The Theological Virtues: Faith”). Garrigou-Lagrange states that for a proposition to be heretical, it must directly contradict a truth of Catholic faith that has been immediately revealed. “The pure sources of revelation include: The manifest character or evidence of the revelation itself, as held by the primitive Christians; the inspired and canonical Sacred Scriptures, which contain the written Word of God; Catholic tradition and ecclesiastical traditions.

Definition of pertinacity

For heresy to be heresy, a heretic must be pertinacious, Rev. Garrigou-Lagrange tells us. “Pertinacious adherence to his error is the most distinctive character of a heretic. The sin of heresy consists in an obstinate upholding of a personal view, recognizable as being against the faith, after the opposite truth or truths of faith have knowingly become sufficiently manifiest. (…Once [heresy] becomes commonly known, especially on a large scale, it passes as manifest heresy…) Such a position cannot be ascribed to ignorance. It is the product of ill-will… Pertinacity dignifies completeness of attachment, not necessarily temporal duration. The attitude can be instantaneous, a sudden seizure of ill-will against the faith after it has been sufficiently propounded by the Church…Heretical pertinacity is not directed immediately against God’s word, or truth in revealing. Its target is the infallibility of the Church’s authority.” For formal heresy to exist, “IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE INDIVIDUAL BELIEVER REALIZES THAT THE TRUTH IN JEOPARDY HAS BEEN REVEALED.” So what is needed from the outset is proof that a false opinion concerning truths of faith was actually expressed publicly and denied directly or indirectly, and that the heretic demonstrate ill-will, or pertinacity, if only instantaneously.

St. Thomas Aquinas comments on the nature of pertinacity in the following passage of the Summa: “On the contrary, Augustine says against the Manichees: In Christ’s Church, those are heretics, who hold mischievous and erroneous opinions, and when rebuked that they may think soundly and rightly, offer a stubborn resistance, and, refusing to mend their pertinacious and deadly doctrines, persist in defending them. Now pertinacious and deadly doctrines are none but those which are contrary to the dogmas of faith, whereby the just man liveth (Rom. i. 17),” (Pt. II-II Q. 11 Art. 2). St. Thomas Aquinas later treats pertinacity alongside effeminacy as vices opposed to perseverance in Pt. II-II, Q. 138, Art. 1-2. He explains that an effeminate man, according to the Philosopher Aristotle, “is one who withdraws from good on account of sorrow caused by lack of pleasure, yielding as it were to a weak motion…” He says that effeminacy can be caused either by being accustomed to enjoy pleasures, or by natural disposition, “since his mind is less persevering through the frailty of his temperament…wherefore those who are passively sodomitical are said to be effeminate, being womanish themselves…” He continues to explain how “the delicate are those who cannot endure toils, nor anything that diminishes pleasure. Thus delicacy is a kind of effeminacy…Accordingly, just as it belongs to effeminacy to be unable to endure toilsome things, so too it belongs thereto to desire play or any other relaxation inordinately.”

Concerning pertinacity, St. Thomas refers to St. Isidore who describes it as “one who holds on impudently, as being utterly tenacious.” Pertinacious or pervicacious, “signifies that a man perseveres in his purpose until he is victorious.” The Philosopher calls such men “head-strong, or self-opinionated, because they abide by their opinions more than they should…The reason why a man is too persistent in his own opinion is that he wishes by this means to make a show of his own excellence: wherefore this is the result of vainglory as its cause…The pertinacious man exceeds by persisting inordinately in something against many difficulties: yet he takes a certain pleasure in the end…Since however this pleasure is sinful, seeing that he desires it too much, and shuns the contrary pain, he is like the incontinent or effeminate man.” St. Thomas defines the virtue perseverance, opposed to effeminacy and pertinacity, as “long persistence in any kind of difficult good.” As Holy Scripture testifies, “He that shall persevere till the end, he shall be saved,” (Matt. 24: 13). Heretics find keeping the faith too difficult, and so they sin against perseverance by stubbornly refusing to examine and admit the errors they invent to alleviate their difficulties. They tenaciously cling to those errors rather than clinging to the truths of faith.

Woywod-Smith on evil will

Commenting on Can. 1828, which warns against conjecturing about something not proven as “a fact established by evidence in the case,” Revs. Woywod-Smith write: “(5) All persons are presumed to know the law (CANON LAW DOES NOT ADMIT IGNORANCE AS AN EXCUSE FROM THE LAWS THAT DISQUALIFY A PERSON OR RENDER ACTS INVALID…)” Canon 2199 states that “The imputability of an offense depends on the evil will (dolus) of the delinquent.” Canon 2200 defines this evil will as “a deliberate will to violate the law and presupposes on the part of the mind a knowledge of the law and on the part of the will freedom of action. Given the external violation of a law, the evil will is presumed in the external forum until the contrary is proved.” Woywod-Smith write: “The authorities presume, therefore, that a subject knows the law and, if he violates it, he is considered to have broken it willfully. If he claims to be free from liability, the burden of proof rests with him.” The censures for heresy and schism are ipso facto, or latae sententiae, and under Can. 2242 Woywod-Smith observe: “Contumacy of the offender is implied in the deliberate violation of a law to which a censure latae sententiae is attached, and therefore the censure is incurred immediately with the breaking of the law. The violation is considered to be deliberate where disqualifying and invalidating laws are concerned, such as a lack of jurisdiction which invalidates the Sacrament of Penance.” Rev. Garrigou-Lagrange notes that under Can. 985, n. 1: “Apostates from the faith, heretics, and schismatics incur irregularities ex delicto, by the sinfulness of their condition (whether material or formal).” This confirms the statements made by other authors concerning the return of those from heresy held by one after the age of 14, who wished to be admitted to orders.

Belloc on heresy

In the Introduction to his work, “The Great Heresies,” Hilaire Belloc provides the following components of heretical perversity: “Heresy means…the warping of a system by ‘exception’: by ‘picking out’ one part of the structure and implies that the scheme is marred by taking away one part of it, denying one part of it, and either leaving the void unfilled or filling it with some new affirmation. “The denial of a scheme wholesale is not heresy, and has not the creative power of a heresy. It is of the essence of heresy that it leaves standing a great part of the structure it attacks. It is the taking away from the moral scheme by which we have lived of a particular part, the denial of that part and the attempt to replace it by an innovation.” Every heresy contains just enough truth, on its face, to deceive the unwary. It is this false ring of truth that has ensnared so many and caused the shipwreck of their faith.

“The Delict of Heresy” and pertinacity

Those who consider pertinacity as indicating length of time in the error are mistaken. Rev. Eric MacKenzie, in his 1932 dissertation, “The Delict of Heresy,” says that heresy “consists not merely in error, but in error which is consciously and deliberately conceived by excluding the evidence which would otherwise lead to a true judgment…Heresy is an externalized, morally imputable violation of the Church’s law…committed most commonly by words written or spoken…[or by] signs, acts or omissions.” He defines pertinacity as “holding firmly.” To be pertinacious, Rev. MacKenzie explains, the following must exist:

1. “There must be a series of intellectual acts under the direction and control of the will.

2. The intellect must formulate an erroneous judgment of denial or doubt, (expressed as actual heresy).

3. The intellect must then come to some realization of the opposed doctrinal authority, (correction by others).

4. The intellect must revert to difficulties and objections, (defending the error to others).

5. The intellect must refuse to attend to the extrinsic evidence of the doctrinal authority,” (rejection of correction and defense of the heresy).

He concludes: “Heresy consists precisely in holding firmly to error which is in some way known to be error, for reasons which may be true in themselves, but which do not justify the assent given to the error.” Since all of the above could occur over a short space of time, pertinacity, then, does not refer to length of time in the heresy, but holding firmly to it despite contrary proofs.

“Ignorance in Relation to the Imputability of Delicts”

In this work, Rev. Innocent Swoboda, O.F.M., J.C.L. observes: “One who is well versed in the law, or one who holds an office in regard to the things pertaining to the office,” is presumed to be unable to claim ignorance of the law or its penalty or ignorance of some fact concerning the delict. Swoboda explains that in a pastor, priest or judge, a knowledge of the law is so strongly presumed that even if ignorance is claimed, it would most likely be considered crass by an ecclesiastical court, or culpable, (meaning the offender is at fault). Crass ignorance is subjectively defined by Swoboda as “A COMPLETE LACK OF DILIGENCE WHEN IT IS KNOWN THAT THE TRUTH COULD BE EASILY DISCOVERED….A COMPLETE AND TOTAL FAILURE TO USE ANY EFFORT TO FULFILL THE OBLIGATION OF KNOWING THE LAW OR THE PERTINENT FACTS SURROUNDING THE LAW. THE FAILURE ITSELF MAY ARISE FROM MERE SLOTH OR FROM A SINFUL HABIT OF ACTING WITHOUT DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE RESULTS OF ONE’S OWN CONDUCT…ONLY THE IGNORANCE OF THOSE THINGS WHICH CAN BE EASILY LEARNED CAN BE CONSIDERED CRASS OR SUPINE,” (and Swoboda combines both error and ignorance for the purposes of his dissertation). As Swoboda notes, “IF A MAN IS NOT FIT FOR A CERTAIN POSITION [SUCH AS THAT OF A JUDGE, CONFESSOR OR PASTOR], HE IS BOUND TO GIVE IT UP WHEN HE REALIZES THIS FACT; OTHERWISE HE WILL JUSTLY BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR HIS OWN MISTAKES.”

“Cum ex Apostolatus Officio,” para. 3:

“We likewise consider it fitting that those who do not refrain from evil through love of virtue should be deterred therefrom through fear of penalties. Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquis, Dukes, Kings or Emperors, who must teach others and give them good example to keep them in the Catholic Faith — WHEN THESE PREVARICATE, THEY SIN MORE GRAVELY THAN OTHERS; FOR THEY NOT ONLY LOSE THEMSELVES, BUT DRAG DOWN WITH THEM TO PERDITION AND THE PIT OF DEATH COUNTLESS OTHER PEOPLES ENTRUSTED TO THEIR CARE AND GOVERNMENT OR OTHERWISE SUBJECT TO THEM.

“We sanction, establish, decree and define, THROUGH THE FULLNESS OF OUR APOSTOLIC POWER, that although the aforesaid sentences, censures and penalties keep their force and efficacy and obtain their effect, all and sundry Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarchs, Primates, Cardinals, Legates, Counts, Barons, Marquis, Dukes, Kings and Emperors who in the past have, as mentioned above, have strayed or fallen into heresy or have been apprehended, have confessed or been convicted of incurring, inciting or committing schism or who, in the future, shall stray or fall into heresy or shall incur, incite or commit schism or shall be apprehended, confess or be convicted of straying or falling into heresy or of incurring, inciting or committing schism, BEING LESS EXCUSABLE THAN OTHERS IN SUCH MATTERS, in addition to the sentences, censures and penalties mentioned above, (all these persons) are also automatically and without any recourse to law or action, completely and entirely, forever deprived of, and furthermore disqualified from and incapacitated for their rank…

“They shall be treated, as relapsed and subverted in all matters and for all purposes, just as though, they had earlier publicly abjured such heresy in court. They can never at any time be re-established, re-appointed, restored or recapacitated for their former state or for Cathedral, Metropolitan, Patriarchal or Primatial Churches, for the Cardinalate or other honor or for any other greater or lesser dignity or for active or passive voice, or authority…

“RATHER, THEY SHALL BE LEFT TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE SECULAR POWER, to be punished with a fitting chastisement. Or else, by the kindness and clemency of this See, having shown signs of true repentance and fruits of worthy penance, they shall be confined in some Monastery or other religious house, to do perpetual penance in the bread of sorrow and water of sadness. As such they are to be considered, treated, reputed; as such to be shunned and denied all solace of humaneness by all persons of whatever state, degree, class, condition and pre- eminence, even those specially distinguished as Bishops, Archbishops, Patriarch and Primates or through any other great ecclesiastical dignity…”

This is the old law governing heresy, (Canons 2314, 2316-2317, 188 n. 4, 167 §4 and others). As such, whenever there is doubt, this old law is to be followed in place of the doubtful law, (Can. 6 §4).

Canon 2232 §1, also Canon 2261 §2 and infamy of law

There seems to be a confusion between excommunicates proper and those excommunicated for heresy and schism among Traditionalists. Traditional priests and bishops have always assumed that Can. 2261 §2 applies to all excommunicates, regardless of why they have been excommunicated. Rev. Francis E. Hyland, in his 1928 dissertation, “Excommunication,” comments on this subject as follows.

“The question of whether excommunicates cease to be members of the Church has given rise to quite a controversy among theologians. Suarez is under the opinion that persons under ban of excommunication continue to be members of the Church…Bellarmine maintains that excommunicates cease to be members of the Church…According to the more common opinion of most of the recent dogmatic theologians the tolerati do not cease to be members of the Church, [but] with regard to the vitandi, the more commonly accepted opinion is that, at least temporarily, they are cut off from all external communion with the Church. Tanquerey remarks that the question has little practical bearing since the Church is wont to declare as vitandi only notorious heretics and schismatics. FROM THESE REMARKS IT IS CLEAR THAT THOSE EXCOMMUNICATES UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THIS CANON ARE NOT THOSE EXCOMMUNICATED FOR HERESY AND SCHISM, FOR THESE ARE ALREADY OUTSIDE THE CHURCH, AS REV. TANQUEREY OBSERVES.” It is one thing to argue that simpliciter tolerati, as Hyland describes them, can validly and licitly administer the Sacraments and offer the Mass under Can. 2261 §2. It is quite another to argue that heretics and schismatics, notorious by notoriety of fact and who no longer are even members of the Church, can validly and licitly provide the same.

Simpliciter tolerati seems to be those whose excommunication for an offense (other than heresy or schism) is not notorious because it is occult or known only to a few and who can claim that they do not need to observe the censure in the external forum. This Traditionalists equate with material heresy and schism. They claim that because this is all they can be accused of in way of a censure, this allows them to operate under Can. 2261 §2 when requested to do so by the faithful. It could so allow them, that is, if they had truly possessed jurisdiction at some time prior to their excommunication for any offense other than heresy or schism. Hyland explains that, “In pre-Code law, all excommunicates were deprived of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in such a manner that they could not exercise acts thereof, at least licitly. This privation affected even the toleratiVitandi were altogether stripped of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, [but] the tolerati were not altogether stripped of the power of jurisdiction, but were forbidden to exercise acts thereof. Even if they were publicly known to be under a ban of excommunication, they could validly exercise jurisdiction as long as they were not objected to by the faithful. [However], THE FAITHFUL COULD PREVENT THEIR JURISDICTIONAL ACTS FROM HAVING EFFECT BY OBJECTING TO THEM ON THE SCORE OF EXCOMMUNICATION AND BY PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF THE CENSURE,” (Can. 2259).

Conclusion

The proofs concerning jurisdiction first appeared in several different places in the mid 1980s; this information has literally been “out there” for over two decades. In the Benns-Bawden book “Will the Catholic Church Survive…” also the succeeding “Election Updates,” it is specifically noted that these priests and bishops never had jurisdiction of any kind. Therefore they cannot claim that it is supplied to them, so have no right to act under Can. 2261 §2 by claiming supplied or any other kind of jurisdiction. It also is pointed out that by denying the necessity of the papacy and other de fide truths they are under censure for heresy and schism. In the book, both authors specifically requested that these priests cease and desist from any and all celebration of the Mass and administration of the Sacraments, except in danger of death, (and since that writing it has been discovered that even this is forbidden to those laboring under infamy of law, an impediment that afflicts all-so called Traditionalist clerics and laymen posing as clerics today). Others also have demanded that they do the same since the mid 1980s. Hyland states that in the case of Can. 2232 §1, “This canon states that a latae sententiae penalty, whether medicinal vindictive, ipso facto binds the delinquent who is conscious of the delict in both forums; before a declaratory sentence, however, the delinquent is excused from observing the penalty whenever he cannot observe it without loss of good repute and no one can exact the observance of this penalty in the external forum UNLESS THE DELICT IS NOTORIOUS.”

By invoking Can. 2261 §2 for all these years, which now amounts to decades, these clerics have admitted that they have suffered some kind of excommunication. Otherwise they would simply offer Mass and Sacraments minus any caveat whatsoever. But in admitting this, they do not likewise admit there is any way they can resolve or have resolved their excommunicated status. They also hope and pray none of their opponents put together the fact that if one remains excommunicated for one year and shows no sign of repentance, that person incurs suspicion of heresy, (Can. 2340 §1). If one remains under suspicion of heresy for six months without showing signs of repentance and his offense is notorious by notoriety of fact; if they do not amend despite warnings, then they are subject to the penalties for heresy, (Can. 2315). These penalties include infamy of law, which makes null and void any and all of their ecclesiastical acts, and even laypersons can incur infamy of law, (see separate article on infamy of law in this section). Only the Apostolic See can remove this penalty. Therefore, for this reason also, Can. 2261 § 2 has no application to those excommunicated ipso facto for membership in a non-Catholic sect, or for heresy or for schism, for these excommunicates also incur infamy of law. These men were long ago publicly advised of their heresies and have been requested to cease and desist on numerous occasions. They have failed to amend. The Church considers them heretics and schismatics, founders of non-Catholic sects, and so must we.

 

Part II:  Pertinacity and Heresy in Regards to Imputability

Imputability  (Can. 2199) depends on the existence of the evil will, culpability of the ignorance or the lack of due diligence on the part of the offender, and states that such conditions remain to be determined. One of the footnotes cited in Canon Law for this canon is Paul IV’s Cum ex… Now Sanborn has called this law into doubt. So Sanborn is attempting to manipulate an infallible bull here in order to make his point. But until these conditions in Can. 2199 can be determined, the evil will is presumed in the external forum in Can. 2200.  Pertinacity can be established as existing only after the imputability is considered and confirmed or ruled out. Pertinacity is not yet presumed, only guilt is presumed, yet the presumption yields to truth if the one accused can disprove the allegation. Pertinacity does not even come into play until after guilt is determined and the offender is advised it exists. It is decided after the fact, not taken into account at the time of the offense. THEN Can. 1325§2 comes into play when a) the imputability is certainly established; b) the warnings (whether by laity or clergy) are given and c) the warnings are ignored and the offender persists in his error.

Once something is positively proven to have occurred which contradicts the known mind of the Church, a warning can be given unless the offense was public (for then it is not required), or it can be shown that the offender has already received the warnings. Canon 2200 establishes a presumption of law; the burden of proof rests with the accused. As stated in Can. 1827, “He who has a presumption of law in his favor is freed from the burden of proof, which is shifted to his opponent. If the latter cannot prove that the presumption failed in the case, the judge must render sentence in favor of the one on whose side the presumption stands.” And only a lawful superior can make such a determination; how to assess this burden of proof rests with them. St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches concerning the presumption of law: “In doubt, decide for that which has the presumption.” Pertinacity or no, we, not Sanborn and the followers of his baseless theory, have the presumption of law in our favor.

Here we see that Sanborn falsely claims that the presumption of imputability above is an error in scholastic argument, (circular argument) when it is no such thing. Rather Sanborn is the one who argues in a circle (also called begging the question) by claiming pertinacity is required for imputability to exist without offering any proofs whatsoever to support this statement. Rev. Joseph Walsh writes in his work “Logic” (1940) that: “Begging the question consists in assuming as true that which is [yet] to be proved. This is done in various ways by: (b) taking as a premise a universal proposition which cannot be admitted without a proof which presupposes the truth of the proposition which is to be our conclusion.” Pertinacity is not sufficiently defined and distinguished; it cannot be simply assumed to mean what Sanborn says it means without proof that this is the case. It certainly cannot be used as a basis upon which to predicate the truth of how the determination and accusation process of heresy does or does not work in Can. 2200 §2. Lacking a definition, Sanborn assigns to pertinacity a vehemence and an importance that definitions of this term do not bear out.

Does the violation of the law (Can. 1325 §2), which Sanborn says cannot be had without the pre-existence of pertinacity, pertain to Can. 1325 §2? Not according to the heading of the canons, which Rev. Cicognani tells us must be used to determine the nature of the subject matter in the Code. Can. 1325 §2 falls under the heading  “Of the Teaching Authority of the Church.” The heading for Canons 2199 and 2200 §2 reads: “Of the Imputabilty of an Offense, the Causes Which Aggravate or Diminish Imputability and the Juridical Consequences of an Offense.” Sanborn is assuming the juridical consequences before they are even determined by bringing in pertinacity before it can even be shown to exist. Canon 1325 is merely advising Catholics how heresy is viewed by the Church and when and how it takes place. Canons 2199-2200 deal with what is required to qualify the offense AS AN ACTUAL CRIME. The violation of the law is presumed in Can. 2200 §2, precisely as the heading indicates, but not the pertinacity. The pertinacity is NOT presumed because the offender still has the ability to present evidence to prove that the law was never violated in the first place.

Imputability stands alone, preceding any determination of pertinacity. Canon 2199 lays down the basis for Can. 2200 prior to the determination of whether or not pertinacity even exists. This canon clearly states that it Presupposes all the conditions mentioned in Can. 2199 until the contrary is proven. The level of Sanborn’s sophistry here is deplorable; clearly he intends to confuse his readers in order to make his point, and this in itself demonstrates his ill will. He makes no effort whatsoever to establish his case by quoting approved sources on this subject or identifying the Church’s definition of pertinacity, as the scholastic method and canons of the Code bid him to do. How does Sanborn, engrossed in his skewed idea of “logic,” possibly convince himself that anything the V2 usurpers did was NOT against the known mind of the Church?! How can he prove that men who have spent decades denying the pre-Vatican 2 teaching of the Church on apostolicity and jurisdiction to follow their own will are not pertinacious? The following theologians define and qualify the true nature of pertinacity:

• St. Thomas Aquinas comments on the nature of pertinacity in the following passage of the Summa: “On the contrary, Augustine says against the Manichees: In Christ’s Church, those are heretics, who hold mischievous and erroneous opinions, and when rebuked that they may think soundly and rightly, offer a stubborn resistance, and, refusing to mend their pertinacious and deadly doctrines, persist in defending them.  Now pertinacious and deadly doctrines are none but those which are contrary to the dogmas of faith, whereby the just man liveth (Rom. i. 17),” (Pt. II-II Q. 11 Art. 2).

• Rev. Garrigou-Lagrange teaches in his “The Theological Virtues: Faith” that: “Pertinacious adherence to his error is the most distinctive character of a heretic. The sin of heresy consists in an obstinate upholding of a personal view, recognizable as being against the faith, after the opposite truth or truths of faith have knowingly become sufficiently manifiest. (…Once [heresy] becomes commonly known, especially on a large scale, it passes as manifest heresy…) Such a position cannot be ascribed to ignorance. It is the product of ill will… Pertinacity dignifies completeness of attachment, not necessarily temporal duration. The attitude can be instantaneous, a sudden seizure of ill-will against the faith after it has been sufficiently propounded by the Church…Heretical pertinacity is not directed immediately against God’s word, or truth in revealing. Its target is the infallibility of the Church’s authority,” and certainly that is the case with Traditionalists, who ignore the need of obeying papal teaching.

• Revs. Bouscaren-Ellis define pertinacity under Can. 1325 §2 as follows: “[In the definition of a heretic] pertinaciter does not imply duration, nor violence; it simply means setting up one’s mind against the known mind of the Church.”

• Canon E. J. Mahoney writes: “Guilt or culpability, or in other words good or bad faith, does not enter into the definition of heresy, because the word ‘pertinaciter’ does not necessarily convey this notion: it is merely a convenient and brief way of stating that a person knows some doctrine to be taught by the Catholic Church and nevertheless withholds his assent…People who know of the Catholic Faith and nevertheless, for reasons that seem good to them, elect to follow another rule of faith are ‘pertinacious,’”(Priest’s Problems,” p. 440-441, 1958). Sound like Traditionalists?

• “Obstinacy may be assumed when a revealed truth has been proposed with sufficient clearness and force to convince a reasonable man,” (Dom Charles Augustine: A Commentary on Canon Law, Vol. 6, pg. 335.)

• Catholic Encyclopedia on heresy: “Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church’s decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions.” Yet in reality, Rev. Adolphe Tanquerey teaches, such a material heretic is outside the Church.

Duration does not necessarily qualify pertinacity, Garrigou-LaGrange states, but it certainly may be considered an aggravating factor when a truth has repeatedly been proposed and denied over an extended period of time. The “repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth” tactic is Communist propaganda, put to very good use by the Novus Ordo church as well as Traditionalists.

Content Protection by DMCA.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *