Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that heresy is not properly about matters of faith. For just as there are heresies and sects among Christians, so were there among the Jews, and Pharisees, as Isidore observes (Etym. viii, 3,4,5). Now their dissensions were not about matters of faith. Therefore heresy is not about matters of faith, as though they were its proper matter.

Objection 2: Further, the matter of faith is the thing believed. Now heresy is not only about things, but also about works, and about interpretations of Holy Writ. For Jerome says on Gal. 5:20 that "whoever expounds the Scriptures in any sense but that of the Holy Ghost by Whom they were written, may be called a heretic, though he may not have left the Church": and elsewhere he says that "heresies spring up from words spoken amiss." Therefore heresy is not properly about the matter of faith.

Objection 3: Further, we find the holy doctors differing even about matters pertaining to the faith, for example Augustine and Jerome, on the question about the cessation of the legal observances: and yet this was without any heresy on their part. Therefore heresy is not properly about the matter of faith.

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 pernicious and deadly doctrines, persist in defending them." Now pernicious and deadly doctrines are none but those which are contrary to the dogmas of faith, whereby "the just man liveth" (Rm. 1:17). Therefore heresy is about matters of faith, as about its proper matter.

I answer that, We are speaking of heresy now as denoting a corruption of the Christian faith. Now it does not imply a corruption of the Christian faith, if a man has a false opinion in matters that are not of faith, for instance, in questions of geometry and so forth, which cannot belong to the faith by any means; but only when a person has a false opinion about things belonging to the faith.

Now a thing may be of the faith in two ways, as stated above (1, Question 32, Article 4; 1.2, Question 1, Article 6, ad 1; 1.2, Question 2, Article 5), in one way, directly and principally, e.g. the articles of faith; in another way, indirectly and secondarily, e.g. those matters, the denial of which leads to the corruption of some article of faith; and there may be heresy in either way, even as there can be faith.

Reply to Objection 1: Just as the heresies of the Jews and Pharisees were about opinions relating to Judaism or Pharisaism, so also heresies among Christians are about matter touching the Christian faith.

Reply to Objection 2: A man is said to expound Holy Writ in another sense than that required by the Holy Ghost, when he so distorts the meaning of Holy Writ, that it is contrary to what the Holy Ghost has revealed. Hence it is written (Ezech. 13:6) about the false prophets: "They have persisted to confirm what they have said," viz. by false interpretations of Scripture. Moreover a man professes his faith by the words that he utters, since confession is an act of faith, as stated above (Question 3, Article 1). Wherefore inordinate words about matters of faith may lead to corruption of the faith; and hence it is that Pope Leo says in a letter to Proterius, Bishop of Alexandria: "The enemies of Christ's cross lie in wait for our every deed and word, so that, if we but give them the slightest pretext, they may accuse us mendaciously of agreeing with Nestorius."

Reply to Objection 3: 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. For we read : "Whenever a question of faith is in dispute, I think, that all our brethren and fellow bishops ought to refer the matter to none other than Peter, as being the source of their name and honor, against whose authority neither Jerome nor Augustine nor any of the holy doctors defended their opinion." Hence Jerome says (Exposit. Symbol ): "This, most blessed Pope, is the faith that we have been taught in the Catholic Church. If anything therein has been incorrectly or carelessly expressed, we beg that it may be set aright by you who hold the faith and see of Peter. If however this, our profession, be approved by the judgment of your apostleship, whoever may blame me, will prove that he himself is ignorant, or malicious, or even not a catholic but a heretic."

Articulus 2

Argumentum 1

Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haeresis non sit proprie circa ea quae sunt fidei.

Sicut enim sunt haereses et sectae in christianis, ita etiam fuerunt in Iudaeis et Pharisaeis, sicut Isidorus dicit, in libro etymol..

Sed eorum dissensiones non erant circa ea quae sunt fidei. Ergo haeresis non est circa ea quae sunt fidei sicut circa propriam materiam.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, materia fidei sunt res quae creduntur. Sed haeresis non solum est circa res, sed etiam circa verba, et circa expositiones sacrae Scripturae.

Dicit enim Hieronymus quod quicumque aliter Scripturam intelligit quam sensus spiritus sancti efflagitat, a quo scripta est, licet ab ecclesia non recesserit, tamen haereticus appellari potest, et alibi dicit quod ex verbis inordinate prolatis fit haeresis.

Ergo haeresis non est proprie circa materiam fidei.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, etiam circa ea quae ad fidem pertinent inveniuntur quandoque sacri doctores dissentire, sicut Hieronymus et Augustinus circa cessationem legalium.

Et tamen hoc est absque vitio haeresis.

Ergo haeresis non est proprie circa materiam fidei.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, contra Manichaeos, qui in ecclesia christi morbidum aliquid pravumque quid sapiunt, si correcti ut sanum rectumque sapiant, resistant contumaciter, suaque pestifera et mortifera dogmata emendare nolunt, sed defendere persistunt, haeretici sunt.

Sed pestifera et mortifera dogmata non sunt nisi illa quae opponuntur dogmatibus fidei, per quam iustus vivit, ut dicitur Rom. I.

Ergo haeresis est circa ea quae sunt fidei sicut circa propriam materiam.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod de haeresi nunc loquimur secundum quod importat corruptionem fidei christianae. Non autem ad corruptionem fidei christianae pertinet si aliquis habeat falsam opinionem in his quae non sunt fidei, puta in geometricalibus vel in aliis huiusmodi, quae omnino ad fidem pertinere non possunt, sed solum quando aliquis habet falsam opinionem circa ea quae ad fidem pertinent. Ad quam aliquid pertinet dupliciter, sicut supra dictum est, uno modo, directe et principaliter, sicut articuli fidei; alio modo, indirecte et secundario, sicut ea ex quibus sequitur corruptio alicuius articuli.

Et circa utraque potest esse haeresis, eo modo quo et fides.

Ad 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod sicut haereses Iudaeorum et Pharisaeorum erant circa opiniones aliquas ad Iudaismum vel Pharisaeam pertinentes, ita etiam christianorum haereses sunt circa ea quae pertinent ad fidem christi.

Ad 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod ille dicitur aliter exponere sacram Scripturam quam spiritus sanctus efflagitat qui ad hoc expositionem sacrae Scripturae intorquet quod contrariatur ei quod est per spiritum sanctum revelatum.

Unde dicitur Ezech. XIII de falsis prophetis quod perseveraverunt confirmare sermonem, scilicet per falsas expositiones Scripturae.

Similiter etiam per verba quae quis loquitur suam fidem profitetur, est enim confessio actus fidei, ut supra dictum est.

Et ideo si sit inordinata locutio circa ea quae sunt fidei, sequi potest ex hoc corruptio fidei.

Unde leo Papa in quadam epistola ad proterium episcopum Alexandrinum, dicit, quia inimici christi crucis omnibus et verbis nostris insidiantur et syllabis, nullam illis vel tenuem occasionem demus qua nos Nestoriano sensui congruere mentiantur.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, et habetur in decretis, XXIV, qu. III, si qui sententiam suam, quamvis falsam atque perversam, nulla pertinaci animositate defendunt, quaerunt autem cauta sollicitudine veritatem, corrigi parati cum invenerint, nequaquam sunt inter haereticos deputandi, quia scilicet non habent electionem contradicentem ecclesiae doctrinae. Sic ergo aliqui doctores dissensisse videntur vel circa ea quorum nihil interest ad fidem utrum sic vel aliter teneatur; vel etiam in quibusdam ad fidem pertinentibus quae nondum erant per ecclesiam determinata. Postquam autem essent auctoritate universalis ecclesiae determinata, si quis tali ordinationi pertinaciter repugnaret, haereticus censeretur.

Quae quidem auctoritas principaliter residet in summo pontifice.

Dicitur enim XXIV, qu. I, quoties fidei ratio ventilatur, arbitror omnes fratres nostros et coepiscopos non nisi ad Petrum, idest sui nominis auctoritatem, referre debere.

Contra cuius auctoritatem nec Hieronymus nec Augustinus nec aliquis sacrorum doctorum suam sententiam defendit.

Unde dicit Hieronymus, haec est fides, Papa beatissime, quam in catholica didicimus ecclesia. In qua si minus perite aut parum caute forte aliquid positum est, emendari cupimus a te, qui Petri fidem et sedem tenes.

Si autem haec nostra confessio apostolatus tui iudicio comprobatur, quicumque me culpare voluerit, se imperitum vel malevolum, vel etiam non catholicum sed haereticum, comprobabit.