Secunda Secundae · Faith

Of Heresy

II-II, q. 11 · Four articles

Prooemium · Thomas's plan for this question

Deinde considerandum est de haeresi. Circa quam quaeruntur quatuor. Primo, utrum haeresis sit infidelitatis species. Secundo, de materia eius circa quam est. Tertio, utrum haeretici sint tolerandi. Quarto, utrum revertentes sint recipiendi.

We must now consider heresy: under which head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether heresy is a kind of unbelief?

(2) Of the matter about which it is;

(3) Whether heretics should be tolerated?

(4) Whether converts should be received?

1 Whether Heresy Is a Species of Unbelief?
2 Whether Heresy Is Properly About Matters of Faith?
3 Whether Heretics Ought to Be Tolerated?
4 Whether the Church Should Receive Those Who Return from Heresy?

Articulus I

Whether Heresy Is a Species of Unbelief?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haeresis non sit infidelitatis species. Infidelitas enim in intellectu est, ut supra dictum est. Sed haeresis non videtur ad intellectum pertinere, sed magis ad vim appetitivam. Dicit enim Hieronymus, et habetur in decretis, XXIV, qu. III, haeresis Graece ab electione dicitur, quod scilicet eam sibi unusquisque eligat disciplinam quam putat esse meliorem, electio autem est actus appetitivae virtutis, ut supra dictum est. Ergo haeresis non est infidelitatis species.

It would seem that heresy is not a species of unbelief. For unbelief is in the understanding, as stated above (Q. 10, A. 2). Now heresy would seem not to pertain to the understanding, but rather to the appetitive power; for Jerome says on Gal. 5:19: [Cf. Decretals xxiv, qu. iii, cap. 27] "The works of the flesh are manifest: Heresy is derived from a Greek word meaning choice, whereby a man makes choice of that school which he deems best." But choice is an act of the appetitive power, as stated above (I-II, Q. 13, A. 1). Therefore heresy is not a species of unbelief.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, vitium praecipue accipit speciem a fine, unde philosophus dicit, in V Ethic., quod ille qui moechatur ut furetur, magis est fur quam moechus. Sed finis haeresis est commodum temporale, et maxime principatus et gloria, quod pertinet ad vitium superbiae vel cupiditatis, dicit enim Augustinus, in libro de Util. Cred., quod haereticus est qui alicuius temporalis commodi, et maxime gloriae principatusque sui gratia, falsas ac novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur. Ergo haeresis non est species infidelitatis, sed magis superbiae.

Further, vice takes its species chiefly from its end; hence the Philosopher says (Ethic. v, 2) that "he who commits adultery that he may steal, is a thief rather than an adulterer." Now the end of heresy is temporal profit, especially lordship and glory, which belong to the vice of pride or covetousness: for Augustine says (De Util. Credendi i) that "a heretic is one who either devises or follows false and new opinions, for the sake of some temporal profit, especially that he may lord and be honored above others." Therefore heresy is a species of pride rather than of unbelief.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, infidelitas, cum sit in intellectu, non videtur ad carnem pertinere. Sed haeresis pertinet ad opera carnis, dicit enim apostolus, ad Gal. V, manifesta sunt opera carnis, quae sunt fornicatio, immunditia; et inter cetera postmodum subdit, dissensiones, sectae, quae sunt idem quod haereses. Ergo haeresis non est infidelitatis species.

Further, since unbelief is in the understanding, it would seem not to pertain to the flesh. Now heresy belongs to the works of the flesh, for the Apostle says (Gal. 5:19): "The works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness," and among the others, he adds, "dissensions, sects," which are the same as heresies. Therefore heresy is not a species of unbelief.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod falsitas veritati opponitur. Sed haereticus est qui falsas vel novas opiniones vel gignit vel sequitur. Ergo opponitur veritati, cui fides innititur. Ergo sub infidelitate continetur.

On the contrary, Falsehood is contrary to truth. Now a heretic is one who devises or follows false or new opinions. Therefore heresy is opposed to the truth, on which faith is founded; and consequently it is a species of unbelief.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod nomen haeresis, sicut dictum est, electionem importat. Electio autem, ut supra dictum est, est eorum quae sunt ad finem, praesupposito fine. In credendis autem voluntas assentit alicui vero tanquam proprio bono, ut ex supradictis patet. Unde quod est principale verum habet rationem finis ultimi, quae autem secundaria sunt habent rationem eorum quae sunt ad finem. Quia vero quicumque credit alicuius dicto assentit, principale videtur esse, et quasi finis, in unaquaque credulitate ille cuius dicto assentitur, quasi autem secundaria sunt ea quae quis tenendo vult alicui assentire. Sic igitur qui recte fidem Christianam habet sua voluntate assentit Christo in his quae vere ad eius doctrinam pertinent. A rectitudine igitur fidei Christianae dupliciter aliquis potest deviare. Uno modo, quia ipsi Christo non vult assentire, et hic habet quasi malam voluntatem circa ipsum finem. Et hoc pertinet ad speciem infidelitatis Paganorum et Iudaeorum. Alio modo, per hoc quod intendit quidem Christo assentire, sed deficit in eligendo ea quibus Christo assentiat, quia non eligit ea quae sunt vere a Christo tradita, sed ea quae sibi propria mens suggerit. Et ideo haeresis est infidelitatis species pertinens ad eos qui fidem Christi profitentur, sed eius dogmata corrumpunt.

I answer that, The word heresy as stated in the first objection denotes a choosing. Now choice as stated above (I-II, Q. 13, A. 3) is about things directed to the end, the end being presupposed. Now, in matters of faith, the will assents to some truth, as to its proper good, as was shown above (Q. 4, A. 3): wherefore that which is the chief truth, has the character of last end, while those which are secondary truths, have the character of being directed to the end.

Now, whoever believes, assents to someone's words; so that, in every form of unbelief, the person to whose words assent is given seems to hold the chief place and to be the end as it were; while the things by holding which one assents to that person hold a secondary place. Consequently he that holds the Christian faith aright, assents, by his will, to Christ, in those things which truly belong to His doctrine.

Accordingly there are two ways in which a man may deviate from the rectitude of the Christian faith. First, because he is unwilling to assent to Christ: and such a man has an evil will, so to say, in respect of the very end. This belongs to the species of unbelief in pagans and Jews. Secondly, because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind.

Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod hoc modo electio pertinet ad infidelitatem sicut et voluntas ad fidem, ut supra dictum est.

Choice regards unbelief in the same way as the will regards faith, as stated above.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod vitia habent speciem ex fine proximo, sed ex fine remoto habent genus et causam. Sicut cum aliquis moechatur ut furetur, est ibi quidem species moechiae ex proprio fine et obiecto, sed ex fine ultimo ostenditur quod moechia ex furto oritur, et sub eo continetur sicut effectus sub causa vel sicut species sub genere, ut patet ex his quae supra de actibus dicta sunt in communi. Unde et similiter in proposito finis proximus haeresis est adhaerere falsae sententiae propriae, et ex hoc speciem habet. Sed ex fine remoto ostenditur causa eius, scilicet quod oritur ex superbia vel cupiditate.

Vices take their species from their proximate end, while, from their remote end, they take their genus and cause. Thus in the case of adultery committed for the sake of theft, there is the species of adultery taken from its proper end and object; but the ultimate end shows that the act of adultery is both the result of the theft, and is included under it, as an effect under its cause, or a species under its genus, as appears from what we have said about acts in general (I-II, Q. 18, A. 7). Wherefore, as to the case in point also, the proximate end of heresy is adherence to one's own false opinion, and from this it derives its species, while its remote end reveals its cause, viz. that it arises from pride or covetousness.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut haeresis dicitur ab eligendo, ita secta a sectando, sicut Isidorus dicit, in libro Etymol., et ideo haeresis et secta idem sunt. Et utrumque pertinet ad opera carnis, non quidem quantum ad ipsum actum infidelitatis respectu proximi obiecti, sed ratione causae, quae est vel appetitus finis indebiti, secundum quod oritur ex superbia vel cupiditate, ut dictum est; vel etiam aliqua phantastica illusio, quae est errandi principium, ut etiam philosophus dicit, in IV Metaphys. Phantasia autem quodammodo ad carnem pertinet, inquantum actus eius est cum organo corporali.

Just as heresy is so called from its being a choosing [From the Greek hairein, to cut off], so does sect derive its name from its being a cutting off (secando), as Isidore states (Etym. viii, 3). Wherefore heresy and sect are the same thing, and each belongs to the works of the flesh, not indeed by reason of the act itself of unbelief in respect of its proximate object, but by reason of its cause, which is either the desire of an undue end in which way it arises from pride or covetousness, as stated in the second objection, or some illusion of the imagination (which gives rise to error, as the Philosopher states in Metaph. iv; Ed. Did. iii, 5), for this faculty has a certain connection with the flesh, in as much as its act is independent on a bodily organ.

Articulus II

Whether Heresy Is Properly About Matters of Faith?

Arg. 1 Objection 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.

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.

Arg. 2 Objection 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.

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." [St. Thomas quotes this saying elsewhere, in Sent. iv, D, 13, and III, Q. 16, A. 8, but it is not to be found in St. Jerome's works.] Therefore heresy is not properly about the matter of faith.

Arg. 3 Objection 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.

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.

Sed contra On the contrary

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.

On the contrary, Augustine says against the Manichees [Cf. De Civ. Dei xviii, 51]: "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" (Rom. 1:17). Therefore heresy is about matters of faith, as about its proper matter.

Respondeo I answer that

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.

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 (I, Q. 32, A. 4; I-II, Q. 1, A. 6, ad 1; I-II, Q. 2, A. 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.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 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.

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.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 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.

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 (Q. 3, A. 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."

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 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.

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 [Decret. xxiv, qu. 1, can. Quoties]: "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 [Among the supposititious works of St. Jerome]): "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 III

Whether Heretics Ought to Be Tolerated?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod haeretici sint tolerandi. Dicit enim apostolus, II ad Tim. II, servum Dei oportet mansuetum esse, cum modestia corripientem eos qui resistunt veritati, ne quando det illis poenitentiam Deus ad cognoscendam veritatem, et resipiscant a laqueis Diaboli. Sed si haeretici non tolerantur, sed morti traduntur, aufertur eis facultas poenitendi. Ergo hoc videtur esse contra praeceptum apostoli.

It seems that heretics ought to be tolerated. For the Apostle says (2 Tim. 2:24, 25): "The servant of the Lord must not wrangle . . . with modesty admonishing them that resist the truth, if peradventure God may give them repentance to know the truth, and they may recover themselves from the snares of the devil." Now if heretics are not tolerated but put to death, they lose the opportunity of repentance. Therefore it seems contrary to the Apostle's command.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, illud quod est necessarium in Ecclesia est tolerandum. Sed haereses sunt necessariae in Ecclesia, dicit enim apostolus, I ad Cor. XI, oportet haereses esse, ut et qui probati sunt manifesti fiant in vobis. Ergo videtur quod haeretici sunt tolerandi.

Further, whatever is necessary in the Church should be tolerated. Now heresies are necessary in the Church, since the Apostle says (1 Cor. 11:19): "There must be . . . heresies, that they . . . who are reproved, may be manifest among you." Therefore it seems that heretics should be tolerated.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, dominus mandavit, Matth. XIII, servis suis ut zizania permitterent crescere usque ad messem, quae est finis saeculi, ut ibidem exponitur. Sed per zizania significantur haeretici, secundum expositionem sanctorum. Ergo haeretici sunt tolerandi.

Further, the Master commanded his servants (Matt. 13:30) to suffer the cockle "to grow until the harvest," i.e. the end of the world, as a gloss explains it. Now holy men explain that the cockle denotes heretics. Therefore heretics should be tolerated.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod apostolus dicit, ad Tit. III, haereticum hominem, post primam et secundam correptionem, devita, sciens quia subversus est qui eiusmodi est.

On the contrary, The Apostle says (Titus 3:10, 11): "A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition, avoid: knowing that he, that is such an one, is subverted."

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod circa haereticos duo sunt consideranda, unum quidem ex parte ipsorum; aliud ex parte Ecclesiae. Ex parte quidem ipsorum est peccatum per quod meruerunt non solum ab Ecclesia per excommunicationem separari, sed etiam per mortem a mundo excludi. Multo enim gravius est corrumpere fidem, per quam est animae vita, quam falsare pecuniam, per quam temporali vitae subvenitur. Unde si falsarii pecuniae, vel alii malefactores, statim per saeculares principes iuste morti traduntur; multo magis haeretici, statim cum de haeresi convincuntur, possent non solum excommunicari, sed et iuste occidi. Ex parte autem Ecclesiae est misericordia, ad errantium conversionem. Et ideo non statim condemnat, sed post primam et secundam correctionem, ut apostolus docet. Postmodum vero, si adhuc pertinax inveniatur, Ecclesia, de eius conversione non sperans, aliorum saluti providet, eum ab Ecclesia separando per excommunicationis sententiam; et ulterius relinquit eum iudicio saeculari a mundo exterminandum per mortem. Dicit enim Hieronymus, et habetur XXIV, qu. III, resecandae sunt putridae carnes, et scabiosa ovis a caulis repellenda, ne tota domus, massa, corpus et pecora, ardeat, corrumpatur, putrescat, intereat. Arius in Alexandria una scintilla fuit, sed quoniam non statim oppressus est, totum orbem eius flamma populata est.

I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.

On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Gal. 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ad modestiam illam pertinet ut primo et secundo corripiatur. Quod si redire noluerit, iam pro subverso habetur, ut patet in auctoritate apostoli inducta.

This very modesty demands that the heretic should be admonished a first and second time: and if he be unwilling to retract, he must be reckoned as already "subverted," as we may gather from the words of the Apostle quoted above.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod utilitas quae ex haeresibus provenit est praeter haereticorum intentionem, dum scilicet constantia fidelium comprobatur, ut apostolus dicit; et ut excutiamus pigritiam, divinas Scripturas sollicitius intuentes, sicut Augustinus dicit. Sed ex intentione eorum est corrumpere fidem, quod est maximi nocumenti. Et ideo magis respiciendum est ad id quod est per se de eorum intentione, ut excludantur; quam ad hoc quod est praeter eorum intentionem, ut sustineantur.

The profit that ensues from heresy is beside the intention of heretics, for it consists in the constancy of the faithful being put to the test, and "makes us shake off our sluggishness, and search the Scriptures more carefully," as Augustine states (De Gen. cont. Manich. i, 1). What they really intend is the corruption of the faith, which is to inflict very great harm indeed. Consequently we should consider what they directly intend, and expel them, rather than what is beside their intention, and so, tolerate them.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod, sicut habetur in decretis, XXIV, qu. III, aliud est excommunicatio, et aliud eradicatio. Excommunicatur enim ad hoc aliquis, ut ait apostolus, ut spiritus eius salvus fiat in die domini. Si tamen totaliter eradicentur per mortem haeretici, non est etiam contra mandatum domini, quod est in eo casu intelligendum quando non possunt extirpari zizania sine extirpatione tritici, ut supra dictum est, cum de infidelibus in communi ageretur.

According to Decret. (xxiv, qu. iii, can. Notandum), "to be excommunicated is not to be uprooted." A man is excommunicated, as the Apostle says (1 Cor. 5:5) that his "spirit may be saved in the day of Our Lord." Yet if heretics be altogether uprooted by death, this is not contrary to Our Lord's command, which is to be understood as referring to the case when the cockle cannot be plucked up without plucking up the wheat, as we explained above (Q. 10, A. 8, ad 1), when treating of unbelievers in general.

Articulus IV

Whether the Church Should Receive Those Who Return from Heresy?

Arg. 1 Objection 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod revertentes ab haeresi sint omnino ab Ecclesia recipiendi. Dicitur enim Ierem. III, ex persona domini, fornicata es cum amatoribus multis, tamen revertere ad me, dicit dominus. Sed Ecclesiae iudicium est iudicium Dei, secundum illud Deut. I, ita parvum audietis ut magnum, neque accipietis cuiusquam personam, quia Dei iudicium est. Ergo si aliqui fornicati fuerint per infidelitatem, quae est spiritualis fornicatio, nihilominus sunt recipiendi.

It would seem that the Church ought in all cases to receive those who return from heresy. For it is written (Jer. 3:1) in the person of the Lord: "Thou hast prostituted thyself to many lovers; nevertheless return to Me saith the Lord." Now the sentence of the Church is God's sentence, according to Deut. 1:17: "You shall hear the little as well as the great: neither shall you respect any man's person, because it is the judgment of God." Therefore even those who are guilty of the prostitution of unbelief which is spiritual prostitution, should be received all the same.

Arg. 2 Objection 2

Praeterea, dominus, Matth. XVIII, Petro mandat ut fratri peccanti dimittat non solum septies, sed usque septuagies septies, per quod intelligitur, secundum expositionem Hieronymi, quod quotiescumque aliquis peccaverit, est ei dimittendum. Ergo quotiescumque aliquis peccaverit in haeresim relapsus, erit ab Ecclesia suscipiendus.

Further, Our Lord commanded Peter (Matt. 18:22) to forgive his offending brother "not" only "till seven times, but till seventy times seven times," which Jerome expounds as meaning that "a man should be forgiven, as often as he has sinned." Therefore he ought to be received by the Church as often as he has sinned by falling back into heresy.

Arg. 3 Objection 3

Praeterea, haeresis est quaedam infidelitas. Sed alii infideles volentes converti ab Ecclesia recipiuntur. Ergo etiam haeretici sunt recipiendi.

Further, heresy is a kind of unbelief. Now other unbelievers who wish to be converted are received by the Church. Therefore heretics also should be received.

Sed contra On the contrary

Sed contra est quod decretalis dicit, quod si aliqui, post abiurationem erroris, deprehensi fuerint in abiuratam haeresim recidisse, saeculari iudicio sunt relinquendi. Non ergo ab Ecclesia sunt recipiendi.

On the contrary, The Decretal Ad abolendam (De Haereticis, cap. ix) says that "those who are found to have relapsed into the error which they had already abjured, must be left to the secular tribunal." Therefore they should not be received by the Church.

Respondeo I answer that

Respondeo dicendum quod Ecclesia, secundum domini institutionem, caritatem suam extendit ad omnes, non solum amicos, verum etiam inimicos et persequentes, secundum illud Matth. V, diligite inimicos vestros, benefacite his qui oderunt vos. Pertinet autem ad caritatem ut aliquis bonum proximi et velit et operetur. Est autem duplex bonum. Unum quidem spirituale, scilicet salus animae, quod principaliter respicit caritas, hoc enim quilibet ex caritate debet alii velle. Unde quantum ad hoc, haeretici revertentes, quotiescumque relapsi fuerint, ab Ecclesia recipiuntur ad poenitentiam, per quam impenditur eis via salutis. Aliud autem est bonum quod secundario respicit caritas, scilicet bonum temporale, sicuti est vita corporalis, possessio mundana, bona fama, et dignitas ecclesiastica sive saecularis. Hoc enim non tenemur ex caritate aliis velle nisi in ordine ad salutem aeternam et eorum et aliorum. Unde si aliquid de huiusmodi bonis existens in uno impedire possit aeternam salutem in multis, non oportet quod ex caritate huiusmodi bonum ei velimus, sed potius quod velimus eum illo carere, tum quia salus aeterna praeferenda est bono temporali; tum quia bonum multorum praefertur bono unius. Si autem haeretici revertentes semper reciperentur ut conservarentur in vita et aliis temporalibus bonis, posset in praeiudicium salutis aliorum hoc esse, tum quia, si relaberentur alios inficerent; tum etiam quia, si sine poena evaderent, alii securius in haeresim relaberentur; dicitur enim Eccle. VIII, ex eo quod non cito profertur contra malos sententia, absque timore ullo filii hominum perpetrant mala. Et ideo Ecclesia quidem primo revertentes ab haeresi non solum recipit ad poenitentiam, sed etiam conservat eos in vita; et interdum restituit eos dispensative ad ecclesiasticas dignitates quas prius habebant, si videantur vere conversi. Et hoc pro bono pacis frequenter legitur esse factum. Sed quando recepti iterum relabuntur, videtur esse signum inconstantiae eorum circa fidem. Et ideo ulterius redeuntes recipiuntur quidem ad poenitentiam, non tamen ut liberentur a sententia mortis.

I answer that, In obedience to Our Lord's institution, the Church extends her charity to all, not only to friends, but also to foes who persecute her, according to Matt. 5:44: "Love your enemies; do good to them that hate you." Now it is part of charity that we should both wish and work our neighbor's good. Again, good is twofold: one is spiritual, namely the health of the soul, which good is chiefly the object of charity, since it is this chiefly that we should wish for one another. Consequently, from this point of view, heretics who return after falling no matter how often, are admitted by the Church to Penance whereby the way of salvation is opened to them.

The other good is that which charity considers secondarily, viz. temporal good, such as life of the body, worldly possessions, good repute, ecclesiastical or secular dignity, for we are not bound by charity to wish others this good, except in relation to the eternal salvation of them and of others. Hence if the presence of one of these goods in one individual might be an obstacle to eternal salvation in many, we are not bound out of charity to wish such a good to that person, rather should we desire him to be without it, both because eternal salvation takes precedence of temporal good, and because the good of the many is to be preferred to the good of one. Now if heretics were always received on their return, in order to save their lives and other temporal goods, this might be prejudicial to the salvation of others, both because they would infect others if they relapsed again, and because, if they escaped without punishment, others would feel more assured in lapsing into heresy. For it is written (Eccles. 8:11): "For because sentence is not speedily pronounced against the evil, the children of men commit evils without any fear."

For this reason the Church not only admits to Penance those who return from heresy for the first time, but also safeguards their lives, and sometimes by dispensation, restores them to the ecclesiastical dignities which they may have had before, should their conversion appear to be sincere: we read of this as having frequently been done for the good of peace. But when they fall again, after having been received, this seems to prove them to be inconstant in faith, wherefore when they return again, they are admitted to Penance, but are not delivered from the pain of death.

Ad 1 Reply to Objection 1

Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in iudicio Dei semper recipiuntur redeuntes, quia Deus scrutator est cordium, et vere redeuntes cognoscit. Sed hoc Ecclesia imitari non potest. Praesumit autem eos non vere reverti qui, cum recepti fuissent, iterum sunt relapsi. Et ideo eis viam salutis non denegat, sed a periculo mortis eos non tuetur.

In God's tribunal, those who return are always received, because God is a searcher of hearts, and knows those who return in sincerity. But the Church cannot imitate God in this, for she presumes that those who relapse after being once received, are not sincere in their return; hence she does not debar them from the way of salvation, but neither does she protect them from the sentence of death.

Ad 2 Reply to Objection 2

Ad secundum dicendum quod dominus loquitur Petro de peccato in eum commisso, quod est semper dimittendum, ut fratri redeunti parcatur. Non autem intelligitur de peccato in proximum vel in Deum commisso, quod non est nostri arbitrii dimittere, ut Hieronymus dicit; sed in hoc est lege modus statutus, secundum quod congruit honori Dei et utilitati proximorum.

Our Lord was speaking to Peter of sins committed against oneself, for one should always forgive such offenses and spare our brother when he repents. These words are not to be applied to sins committed against one's neighbor or against God, for it is not left to our discretion to forgive such offenses, as Jerome says on Matt. 18:15, "If thy brother shall offend against thee." Yet even in this matter the law prescribes limits according as God's honor or our neighbor's good demands.

Ad 3 Reply to Objection 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod alii infideles, qui nunquam fidem acceperant, conversi ad fidem nondum ostendunt aliquod signum inconstantiae circa fidem, sicut haeretici relapsi. Et ideo non est similis ratio de utrisque.

When other unbelievers, who have never received the faith are converted, they do not as yet show signs of inconstancy in faith, as relapsed heretics do; hence the comparison fails.

Showing Thomas's answers only.