Question V: What pertinacity is required for heresy

Pertinacity, from D. Bonaventura prima parte 26 Centil. sect. 18: is the Will fleeing any lessening of its excellence, irrevocably defending what it has said or done. And from the same holy Doctor in speculo animae, cap. 1. it is: Perseverance in an evil purpose against the will of superiors.

All concede it, and place pertinacity in the definition of heresy. So D. Bonavent. in the places alleged quaest. 4. See Suarez disp. 19. sect. 3. Coninch. disp. 18. dub. 7. num. 76. Farinacius de haeresi, quaest. 196. Diana 4. p. Tract. 7. resol. 36. Sanchez Tom. 1. Lib. 2. cap. 7.

Therefore the truest opinion is, that pertinacity is required. But it is doubtful: whether this pertinacity can exist before one is admonished of his error, and he himself scorns the admonition.

The first opinion is assertive, requiring a delay of time, so that incorrigibility may appear in the faith. So Alciatus Leg. 2. Cod. de summa Trinitate, Menoch. volum. 2. consil. 149. num. 49. citing Lupus, and Turrecremata. They can be founded on the words of Paul Tit. 3. Avoid a heretical man after a first and second admonition. To me, however, these Jurists seem to speak in the external forum.

Therefore the truest opinion of the Theologians is, that this admonition and delay are not required for one to be a heretic, but that it suffices that he adhere to the error with full deliberation. So D. Bonavent. in the places cited in the preceding quaestio. See Suarez disp. 19. sect. 3. num. 23. Vasquez p. 1. disp. 126. Valentia disput. 1. quaest. 11 p. 1. and innumerable others, whom Sanchez reports in the said cap. 7. num. 7. Diana in the said resol. 36. who rightly adds, with the Most Eminent Lugo num. 158. that this admonition is not required even in the external forum, and this is more true now, after the decree of Alex. VII. has been published.

The reason is, because the admonition serves only that one may take note that he holds a view against the Church; but this he can learn from another source; and he is bound to strive to learn it.

The words of the Apostle presuppose that the man, before the admonition, is already a heretic, and after it to be avoided.

I assert secondly, in the internal forum it does not suffice to be corrected by his Bishop, or by the Inquisitor, because these are not an infallible rule of faith. So Sanchez asserts num. 25. with Cano, Vasquez, and others. Valentia, Torres, Salas, and others, cited by Diana 6. The first opinion denies it. These indeed say it does not suffice even in the external forum, which however Suarez asserts num. 21. Lorca and others, cited by Diana, say it does suffice, and indeed on this account he allows it in those constituted in the holy Tribunal.

To me the opinion of the Most Eminent Lugo is proved, that there is no difference in either Forum, because if the assertion of the Bishop is not sufficient to make it credible, in no forum will it accomplish that.

I assert thirdly, for pertinacity it suffices that a man wish indirectly to resist the authority of the Church. So Suarez in the said sect. 3. num. 22. Vasquez prima secundae, disp. 126. Sanchez in the said cap. 7. num. 4. See the Cardinal Dinalus Lugo num. 163. who explains indirect pertinacity thus: if he knows that this is against the sense of the Church; and yet holds it, from any end whatsoever, whether out of grief, or honor, or some other affection. This is the exposition of D. Bonavent. p. p. Centil. sect. 26. taken from D. Augustine Lib. de utilitate credendi initio, where he says: A heretic is one who, for the sake of some temporal gain, and especially of glory and of his own supremacy, begets or follows false and new opinions about the faith.

IT IS CONFIRMED in other sins, for which it suffices that they be willed indirectly, even if the disobedience, irreligion, etc. be not willed directly.

Lugo INFERS num. 166. that he is not excused from pertinacity who is prepared to acquiesce to the Church, when nevertheless he is convinced by her with arguments, as Vasquez and Ledesma say, cited by Sanchez num. 6. Suarez num. 13. and others. For he is not prepared to obey the authority of the Church.

NEXT he notes that a protestation of faith excuses from pertinacity, as some signify, with Palao dist. 3. p. 2. num. 7. he himself adds that it is not sufficient in rigor.