Post 5


“Manifest heretics can be known with certainty as such, by various external indicators.”

A curious claim is made by many post-V2 commentators – that we cannot ever know that another is an heretic unless and until the Church passes formal judgement. Probably because of the fact that those who push this novelty cannot seem to find a single quote from authority which supports this alleged “first principle” of Christian charity, they argue instead by accusing their opponents of pride and malice.

The best answer to such nonsense is merely to ignore it, and instead present the truth. We have already seen what a manifest heretic is. It now remains to show that such an heretic can be identified. Unfortunately, this point in our series requires lengthier treatment than previous ones, due to the amazing amount of confusion which has been engendered concerning it.

The key words in the statement we are seeking to prove are “certainty” and “external.”

We have already proved, from the authority of Holy Scripture, St. Thomas, and the Fathers, that we are obliged to avoid heretics. Further, it is implicit in the quotes presented in Post 2 that we can know an heretic prior to the judgement of the Church, for we are instructed how we are to know heretics.

Our Lord Himself teaches, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit, and the evil tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can an evil tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down, and shall be cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits you shall know them.” Matt. 7:15-20.

“By their fruits.” That is, not “By the judgement of the Church,” but by what is apparent; what is visible; what is produced.

St. John Chrysostom explains, "'For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.' Here again He indicates His Godhead, which knew their secrets: and that not for words only, but also for wicked thoughts, they shall suffer punishment; and that He knows it all, as God. And He saith, that it is possible even for men to know these things; for this is a natural consequence, that when wickedness is overflowing within, its words should be poured forth through the lips. So that when thou hearest a man speak wicked words, do not suppose only so much wickedness to be in him as the words display, but conjecture the fountain to be much more abundant; for that which is spoken outwardly, is the superabundance of that which is within.” [Emphasis added.]

But we delay. As Mgsr. Paul Glenn (Criteriology) explains, certitude is “the firm and unwavering assent of the mind to known truth.”

Certitude may be of various kinds – metaphysical, physical, or moral. Matters in which men's wills are essential are matters of the moral order. Hence the kind of certitude we may achieve in such matters is moral certainty.

The three kinds of certitude are all truly certitude. The difference between them is not that only metaphysical certitude is certain – no, all are truly certain. The difference is rooted in the subject matter to which they relate. That is, the difference in the kind of certitude is rooted in the difference in the truth which is seen.

St. Thomas, Summa Contra Gentiles, “Because not every truth admits of the same mode of manifestation, and 'a well-educated man will expect exactness in every class of subject, according as the nature of the thing admits,' as is very well remarked by the Philosopher (Eth. Nicom. I, 1094b), we must first show what mode of proof is possible for the truth that we have now before us.“ Of God and His Creatures - Translation (With some Abridgement) of the Summa Contra Gentiles of Saint Thomas Aquinas by Joseph Rickaby, S.J. (London: Burns and Oates, 1905).

Aristotle, in the place referred to by St. Thomas, Nichomachean Ethics, Book 1, Ch. 3, "Our discussion will be adequate if it has as much clearness as the subject-matter admits of, for precision is not to be sought for alike in all discussions, any more than in all the products of the crafts. … In the same spirit, therefore, should each type of statement be received; for it is the mark of an educated man to look for precision in each class of things just so far as the nature of the subject admits; it is evidently equally foolish to accept probable reasoning from a mathematician and to demand from a rhetorician scientific proofs."

One might remark that it is the mark of an uneducated man to insist on metaphysical proofs in matters of the moral order. And yet that is precisely what defenders of the modern heretics do, thinking that in this way they confound the faithful, and that thus we can be fooled into remaining in subjection to Christ's enemies.

Mgsr. Paul Glenn explains the nature of the different types of certitude:

“Metaphysical certitude is the unwavering assent of the mind to what things in their essence and nature must be. Our certitude that man is an animal, or that a totality is greater than any one of its component parts, is metaphysical, for the very concept of man's essence, the very ideas of totality and part, make the judgments inevitable. Metaphysical certitude is also called absolute certitude.

“Physical certitude is the unwavering assent of the mind to what expresses the order of nature and the consistency of natural laws. Our certitude that a dead man will not return to earthly life is physical; so also is our certitude that snow must be white, and that good seed will sprout when planted under favorable conditions in fertile ground.

“Moral certitude is the unwavering assent of the mind to what expresses the normal mode of human conduct. Thus we have moral certitude that a mother will love her child. It is to be noted in passing that the expressions, 'It is morally certain,' and 'It is a moral certainty' are 'newspaper English' for a greater or lesser degree of 'probability.' These expressions, as used casually in unscientific speech, are not to be confused with the terms moral certitude and morally certain, used in Criteriology. For these terms do not indicate a mere opinion, however probable, but true certitude, a full and unwavering assent of the mind upon evidence taken from the normal human mode of action, evidence which the mind finds sufficient to win its full assent.”

And, “That which is morally certain can be conceived of as existing otherwise, and may in fact exist otherwise without the intervention of a miracle, but not without the intervention of a human will which acts in a manner contrary to the normal and rational mode of human conduct, that is, of such conduct as proceeds from the deliberate will of a normal person. The basis and evidence of metaphysical certitude is the very essence of things; that of physical certitude is the constancy of nature; that of moral certitude is the constancy or normal human conduct.

“I am metaphysically certain that a circle cannot be square. I am physically certain that bodies at rest tend to remain at rest. I am morally certain that a man of virtue will not suddenly become vile.”

In other words, moral certainty is founded on the knowledge we have of human nature. What comes out of the mouth is that which is in the heart. “For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.” It is not “presumption” to take men at face value – it is common sense. What is “presumption” is to make excuses for men who make none for themselves, and in fact glory in their own crimes. Moral certainty excludes any reasonable doubt. Defenders of heretics implicitly prove this by their various attempts to summon unreasonable doubt.

Thus we should have a clearer idea of the meaning of “certainty.”

The other key word in this question is “external.” For some reason not at all apparent to me the defenders of heretics suffer a fixation with words. They seem to think that an heretic can only ever be known by heretical words. But that is not the teaching of the Catholic authorities, and our opponents never cite any to that effect.

In the definition of the Immaculate Conception Ven. Pope Pius IX was perfectly clear about the teaching of the Catholic Church concerning what constitutes “external heresy.” He taught, “Hence, if anyone shall dare - which God forbid! - to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.” [Emphasis added.]

And St. Pius X teaches the same thing, in Pascendi. “Although they express their astonishment that We should number them amongst the enemies of the Church, no one will be reasonably surprised that We should do so, if, leaving out of account the internal disposition of the soul, of which God alone is the Judge, he considers their tenets, their manner of speech, and their action.”

Likewise the teaching of the canonists and theologians:

St. Thomas, S. Th. II-II, Q. 12, Art. 1, Reply Obj. 2: “It belongs to faith not only that the heart should believe, but also that external words and deeds should bear witness to the inward faith, for confession is an act of faith. In this way too, certain external words or deeds pertain to unbelief, in so far as they are signs of unbelief, even as a sign of health is said itself to be healthy.”

And the Angelic Doctor gives an example of an act of this nature, “if anyone were … to worship at the tomb of Mahomet, he would be deemed an apostate.”

"External heresy is that which is manifested by exterior signs (words, signs, actions, omissions of actions)." (Merkelbach, pg. 570)

"External heresy is an error against the faith, revealed by a word or by some other exterior indication." (Prummer, pg. 365)

"To incur such an excommunication 'latae sententiae, specially reserved to the Sovereign Pontiff,' it is necessary that the heresy, after having been interiorly conceived should be exteriorly manifested by a word, a writing or an action." (Tanquerey, Syn. Theol., Mor. et Past., pg. 475)

"External heresy adds to the internal heresy a sufficient exterior manifestation, expressed by such words, signs or actions as would be conclusive." (Wernz-Vidal, pg. 444)

Summing up, we should be quite clear that when we assert that it is possible to identify an heretic with certainty, we are referring to moral certainty, for the matter is one of the moral order. And moral certainty is true certainty – “the firm and unwavering assent of the mind to known truth.” We can be truly certain that a mother loves her child. We can be truly certain that a virtuous man will not suddenly become a slave to vice. We can be quite certain that a man is an heretic.

And when we speak of “indications in the external forum,” or “external signs” or “external indicators” we are referring to words, actions, omissions, or signs. In other words, whatever evidence there is which indicates the presence or absence of the supernatural virtue of faith in the subject.

Hence, if a man speaks heresy, acts in accordance with his heresy, prays in common with heretics, and praises heresiarchs in public, and cannot be excused on the grounds of ignorance, then clearly he is an heretic himself. Both the pertinacity requisite for the crime of heresy (i.e. the fact that he knows better), and the heretical ideas which infest his mind, are clear. They are clear in the external forum, and they constitute external heresy. And an external heretic is no member of the Catholic Church, as has already been proved.


Home