Question VI: Whether, for one to be deemed a heretic, it is necessary that he have been baptized and one of the faithful

I SUPPOSE with D. Bonavent. prima parte Centil. sect. 26. that one can be a heretic even if he is not an apostate from the faith altogether, or from the Church; which he proves from D. Hieronymus in cap. 5. epist. ad Galat. saying that a heretic is one who understands Scripture against the sense of the Church, even though he does not depart from it. He will therefore be a heretic if he perverts one passage of Scripture.

That baptism is not required for the note of heresy, that one must first have been baptized, Castro asserts Lib. 1. de iusta haeret. punit. cap. 8. so also Tanner. disp. 1. quaest. 8. dub. 3. citing D. Thomam, whom Bannes also reports thus 2. 2. quaest. 10. art. 5. but wrongly, as Caietanus, Aragon, and others note. Fuliensis subscribes lib. 3. cap. 6.

ALL the others reject this opinion, whom Suarez cites and follows disp. 19. sect. 5. Sanchez Lib. 2. in decal. cap. 7. num. 34. Hurtadus disp. 82. sect. 2. §. 11. Castro Palao tom. 1. tract. 4. disp. 3. p. 1. num. 20. Card. Lugo disp. 20. sect. 4.

The REASON is intimated by D. Bonavent. in 4. dist. 39. art. 2. quaest. 2. in corpore taken from the Apostle prima Cor. 5. which the Council of Trent uses, sess. 14. cap. 2. Since the Church exercises judgment on no one who has not first entered her by the gate of baptism. For what have I, says the Apostle, to do with judging those who are without. Whence it comes about that neither can a Catechumen be esteemed a heretic, if he falls away from the belief of some article.

The Most Eminent Lugo notes that one baptized with an invalid baptism, namely on account of a substantial defect, is not a heretic, if afterwards he denies some article. So also Sanchez cap. 7. num. 34. Castro Palao in the place cited, Suarez sect. 5. num. 8. Hurtado disp. 82. §. 17. for there the reason of the Council of Trent still holds.

YOU WILL SAY in the year 1619. Maurus, who offended against our religion, was punished, even though he was not found to be baptized, and he himself alleged this.

Card. Lugo RESPONDS that he was punished on account of excess against our Religion: for the Church may punish Pagans and Jews subject to Christian Princes, either when they deny articles which they hold in common with us, as to believe in one God the Creator; or when they sacrifice to demons, or when they try to seduce Christians, as is evident from the Bull of Gregory XI. beginning: Admodum dolemur audivimus, and the Bull of Gregory XIII. which begins: Antiqua Iudaeorum improbitas, which Peña reports, among the Apostolic letters at the end of the directorium, about which Diana treats 4. p. Tract. 7. de poenis debit. etc. resol. 2. and Castro Palao §. 6. There those are decreed to be punished also for other causes, for instance if they vomit heretical blasphemies against Christ, saying that he was a sinner; that the Mother of God was not a Virgin (for that reason lately a Jew, whom I know of, was beaten with scourges at Cremona) If they aid heretics: if they carry about, retain, or divulge prohibited books: if they hold Christians up to derision, spitting upon the sacred Host, the Cross, Christ the Lord: if they have Christian nurses, or force them, when they communicate, to pour milk into privies in contempt of the sacred communion.

IT IS USUALLY DOUBTED also about one doubtfully baptized; see Diana Tract. 8. resol. 113. where he reports the opinion of Didaci Canterae in qq. crim. cap. 1. de haeret. num. 5. who says, if he was born and educated among Christians, he is presumed baptized.

The SECOND part of the quaestio requires, whether he who is to be punished as a heretic must previously have been a believer, or have believed.

The SENSE of the Church is, that he is esteemed a heretic even if he has not believed before. See Suarez disput. 16. sect. 4. and disp. 19. sect. 5. and others, cited by the Cardinal Lugus disp. 18. sectione tertia.