206

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

presence of that apocryphon in the collection of the cave is another
proof of the interest of the group which owned the library in
apocryphal literature. But its special significance may be rather
in the language itself. We may have in this .Xramaic document a
form of Aramaic which will bring us closer to the vernacular ot
Palestine in the time of Christ. It may hat e some hearing on the
Aramaic substratum of the words of Christ. In this country, the
authenticity of the discovery had been challenged notably by Dr.
Zeitlin in the Jew. Quart. Rev. (1948-46) : ••Commentary on the
Book of Habakkuk : Important discovery or hoax?” (pp- 235-47),
and: “Scholarship and the Hoax of the Recent Discoveries” (p.
337-63). At the meeting of the American Oriental Society at A ale
(April 5-7, 1949), Zeitlin’s scepticism met with some support,
chiefly on the part of Dr. Orlinsky who argued against the antiquity
of the Isaias Scroll by appealing to the circumstances of the dis­
covery, the characteristics of the text and palaeography. His con­
clusion was that the MS. belong to some date after 500 A.D. Dr.
Albright, present at the meeting, maintained the authenticity of the
find. It would seem that at the time of the Yale meeting the
details of the examination of the cave by Dr. de Vaux and Mr.
Harding,—in which Dr. Sellers of the American School also took
part—were not known generally. The thorough examination of
the cave should go a long way towards establishing solidly the
genuineness of the discovery, even if some circumstances still need
clarification. But such a discussion is not in vain, since it will
help to focus attention on doubtful points and in the end, we trust,
to place the facts beyond reasonable doubt. The importance of the
discovery makes necessary à most thorough examination of the
evidence.
Edward P. Arbez
The Catholic University of America
Washington, D. C.

Mission Intention

“Catholic Church work among American Negroes” is the Mission
Intention for March, 1950.

THE STATUS OF ST. ROBERT BELL ARMINES
TEACHING ABOUT THE MEMBERSHIP
OF OCCULT HERETICS IN THE
CATHOLIC CHURCH
St. Robert Bellarmine defended and consolidated, although he
did not by any means originate, the teaching that actual member­
ship in the Church militant depended exclusively upon those fac­
tors which Catholic theologians group together under the head­
ing of the external or bodily bond of unity with Christ and with
His Church. St. Robert held that all and only those who retained
an outward and public Catholic profession of faith, an ecclesiastical
communion in or access to the sacraments, and subjection to the
rule of legitimate ecclesiastical superiors could rightfully and prop­
erly be designated as parts or members of the true Church of
Christ on earth. A man who possessed these characteristics would
remain a member of the Church, albeit an utterly unworthy one,
even though secretly guilty of the sins of heresy or apostasy, and
thus devoid of all supernatural life whatever.1
With varying degrees of emphasis, the text books most fre­
quently employed in American theological seminaries support St.
Robert’s teaching on conditions for membership in the Church
on earth. Billot, Hervé, Tanquerey, and Van Noort are in sub­
stantial agreement on this point.2 Since these manuals are used in
the theological formation of a great many American candidates
for the priesthood, it is only reasonable to conclude, in the absence
of any contrary indication, that a very large proportion of American
priests have been taught, and have made their own, the opinion
which holds that a man who is united to the Church by the external
bonds of unity remains a member of this society, even though he be
an occult heretic.
Thus it is necessarily a matter of interest and of concern to
the priests of the United States to find St. Robert’s opinion about
1 Cf. St. Robert’s De ecclesia militante, c. 2.
2 Ci. Billot, Tractatus de ecclcsia Christi, 5th edition (Rome: Gregorian
University, 1927), I, 296 ff. ; Hervé, Manuale theologiae dogmaticae, 18th
edition (Paris: Berche et Pagis, 1934), T, 455 f. ; Tanquerey, Synopsis theo­
logiae dogmaticae fundamentalis, 24th edition (Paris: Desclée. 1937), p. 671 ;
Van Noort, Tractatus de ecclcsia Christi, 5th edition (Hilversurn, Holland:
Paul Brand, 1932), p. 174.
207

208

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

requisites for membership in the Church subjected to a sharp and
radical criticism by a competent theologian. Very recently Fr.
Francis X. Lawlor, S.J., has written in Theological Studies and
has "endeavored to show that according to the teaching of the
encyclical [Mystici corporis\, occult heresy is incompatible with
membership in the visible Church of Christ.” :: if Fr. Lawlor
has been successful in his effort, and has actuali}· brought forward
valid evidence that St. Robert’s teaching on this matter is even
by implication opposed to the doctrine of the Mystici corporis,
then it is manifestly the business of every priest who has hitherto
followed St. Robert to reconsider his judgment on this particular
point. At any event, it is now imperative to re-examine the ques­
tion and to look at St. Robert's teaching against its own back­
ground, and ultimately to see what the encyclical Mystici corporis
has actually taught about the point at issue.
The world of scholastic theology did not give any very detailed
treatment of the question about requisites for membership in the
Church until well into the fourteenth century. St. Robert and his
contemporaries never thought of appealing to any scholastic author­
ities prior to Cardinal John de Turrecremata and Thomas Netter
of Walden. The latter was one of the first proponents of the teaching later popularized by St. Robert himself. The former, although
sometimes quoted in opposition to St. Robert and his followers,
limited his explicit teaching on this particular point to the general
statement that the faithful were within the Church and that here­
tics were not.
By the latter part of the sixteenth century, however, theo­
logians had come to recognize two distinct sections of the teaching
about requirements for membership in the Church militant. There
were certain questions to which the Church itself had given definitive replies, questions to which certain Catholic dogmas were the
only possible responses. Thus all of the Catholic theologians of
their time and since have unanimously taught that a man may be a
member of the Church militant if he is in the state of mortal sin,
even of extraordinarily grave mortal sin, and that he may be a
member even though he is not predestined to enjoy the beatific
vision.
3 The article is entitled “Occult Heresy and Membership in the Church.”
The citation is from Theological Studies, X, 4 (Dec. 1949), 553.

(

i

j

I

’

Other questions with reference to membership in the Church
were open to free discussion. Our sixteenth and seventeenth cen­
tury theologians took full advantage of that freedom. They offered
theories which differed very sharply from one another, but which
may be classified with some degree of adequacy under four general
headings.
First there were those who, with the great Dominican Thomas
de Vio Cardinal Cajetan and with the eminent Spanish Fran­
ciscan controversialist Alphonsus a Castro, made no effective
distinction between membership in the church and subjection to
it, and who thus classified all baptized persons, indiscriminately, as
parts or members of the true Church.4 They held that the baptismal
character constituted even a public apostate or heretic a genuine
member of the Church.
St. Robert is by far the best known representative of the second
group. Taking cognizance of the existence of two distinct sets
of factors, the inward or spiritual and the outward or bodily bonds
of unity, both of which tended to attach a man to Christ, St. Robert
insisted upon and, as a matter of fact built his book De ecclesia
militante around, the thesis that it is the outward bond alone, to
the entire exclusion of the inward, which constitutes a man as a
part or a member of the Church militant.5 In supporting this
thesis, he followed the lead of Thomas Netter of Walden, of John
Driedo, of Peter a Soto, and of Melchior Cano. Netter interprets
St. Augustine in favor of his thesis that one who has destroyed
within himself “the most true and most established faith of the
Church, remains a son of the Church as long as he is not cast
out from the communion of the sacraments.” 6 Although he makes
no express reference to occult heretics, Driedo insists that “all of
those who are held as visibly attached to the Church by the sacra­
ment of faith, in a kind of peaceful way consorting bodily with the
Christian people, are said to be within the Church until they are
4Cf. Cajetan, De comparatione auctoritatis papae et concilii, c. 22, in Cajetan’s Scripta theologica, edited by Fr. Pollet (Rome: Angelico, 1936), I, 142
f.: Alphonsus a Castro, De iusta haereticorum punitione, I.ib. III, c. 24, in
the Opera Alphonsi a Castro (Paris, 1571), column 1392.
5 Cf. De ecclesia militante, loc. cit.
8Antiquitatum fidei catholicae ecclesiae doctrinale, Lib. II, a. 2, in the
Blanciotti edition (Venice, 1758), I, 292.

210

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

cut off by the Church’s judgment or until they leave it of their
own accord, despising and persecuting the Church.” 7
Peter a Soto believed and taught that “neither grace, nor cer­
tainly any interior hidden virtue was required in members" of the
Church, and that, as a matter of fact, nothing was requisite apart
from “the public and legitimate profession of faith and the voca­
tion.” 8 Cano insisted that “catechumens arc not part of this
Church, and that all of those who have the baptismal character are
parts, unless they have been cut off by the public judgment of the
Church after external heresy.” 9 Cano differed from Soto and from
St. Robert in insisting upon the necessity of the baptismal character
in a member of the Church. All of them, however, believed that a
man is constituted as a member of the Church through the posses­
sion of the outward bond, and that true inward faith is neither
requisite nor sufficient to establish a man as a member.
Francis Suarez is almost alone in his defence of the third opinion.
Where St. Robert had taught that the outward bund of unity
alone constituted a man as a member of the Church, Suarez taught,
on the contrary that faith, the basic element of the inward bond,
was the only absolute requisite. In perfect consistency with this
position, he held that while a secret sin which destroys the virtue
of faith puts a man out of the Church, a catechumen who has the
virtue of faith should be counted as a member.10
Speaking of the thesis that both faith and some external bond
are necessary to constitute a man a member of the Church, Suarez
says that : modus hic loquendi, de quo forte est tota quaestio magis
quam de re, mihi non satis probatur.11 He describes his teaching
on the membership in the Church of catechumens endowed with
7 De ecclesiasticis scripturis et dogmatibus, Lib. IV, c. 2, part 2 (Louvain,
1533), p. 517.
8 Assertio catholicae fidei circa articulos confessionis nomine illustrissimi
Ducis Wirtenbergensis oblatae fier legatos eius Concilio Tridentino, c. De
ecclesia. Neither the pages nor the sections of this edition (Cologne, 1555)
are numbered.
9 De locis theologicis, Lib. IV, c. 2, in the Opera theologica (Rome, 1900).
I, 201.
10 Cf. Opus de triplici virtute theologica (Lyons, 1621), De fide, disp. 9,
sect. 1, pp. 160 f. Suarez, incidentally, insists that a catechumen who has
the faith but who has never manifested it in any way remains a member of the
Church.
11 Ibid., p. 159.

i

j
|

)

>

)

1#^
ST. ROBERT BELLARMINE'S TEACHING

211

the virtue of divine faith as something· which mihi tamen magis
placet.12 Thus, since he merely states that lus own position was
more pleasing to him, that he did not consider the arguments
against it conclusive, and that the whole dispute might well be a
matter of terminology rather titan of real import, it is easy to see
that Suarez’ denial of the necessity of the external bond of unity
in a member of the Church was proposed onl)· as a tenuous opinion.
The fourth opinion was given its adequate form by l'rancis
Sylvius. It held that no man could be a member of the Catholic
Church unless he possessed the outward bonds of unity, the bap­
tismal profession of faith, the communion of the sacraments, and
subjection to legitimate ecclesiastical authority, but taught, at the
same time, that true internal faith was also required.13 The men
who held this opinion differed from Suarez in denying membership
in the Church to catechumens. They opposed St. Robert in teach­
ing that occult heresy was incompatible with real membership in
the Church. Sylvius added that no man could be a real part or
member of the Church unless he had a certain amor fraternitatis,
an affection for the Church and for its membership separable from
and inferior to the theological virtue of charity.14 He believed that
this amor fraternitatis constituted, along with faith itself, the basic
inward bond of unity requisite for membership in the Church.
Both St. Robert and Suarez listed Turrecremata as an authority
denying that occult heretics could be members of the true Church.
St. Robert, however, very properly insisted that the section of
Turrecremata’s Summa de ecclesia which was generally supposed
to refer to this question might possibly have nothing at all to do with
it.15 Again St. Robert, and Suarez after him, list the Cardinal
Hosius as teaching that occult heretics can be members of the
Church. Here both were manifestly mistaken.
12 Ibid., p. 160.
13 Cf. De praecipuis fidei nostrae orthodoxae controversiis cum nostris
haereticis, Lib. Ill, q. 1, articles 2, 3, and 7, in Sylvius' Opera Omnia
(Antwerp, 1698), V, 236 ff.
14 Cf. St. Robert, op. cit., c. 10, column 134. The older theologians be­
lieved that what Turrecremata had said in his Summa de ecclesia (Venice,
1561), Lib. IV, part 2, c. 20, p. 393v, could be applied to this question.
i«Cf. op. cit., a. 2, p. 237.

F

212

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

Hosius had encountered Brentius' contention that an occult
heretic could not really belong to the true Church, but could only
appear to belong. The Cardinal believed that he was answering
this contention when he insisted that “Nothing prevents us from
holding, for a true member of the Church, him in whom we ac­
knowledge a public and legitimate profession of faith and voca­
tion, even though he be not a true member in the eyes of God.”1B
Sylvius appeals to Hosius, and to Bannez and Lens as well, as
authorities in support of his own thesis that “heretics and schis­
matics, however occult they may be, are not in the Church truly and
absolutely, but only after a fashion (secundum quid), that is, ac­
cording to outward appearance and according to the external
reception of the sacraments.” 17
James Latomus had contented himself with an out and out
denial of membership to all heretics, occult or otherwise.13 Later
theologians, however, seemed somewhat embarrassed by the prob­
lem of the two different bonds of unity. All of the important writers
except Suarez were ready to deny that a man could be a member
of the Church if he possessed faith, that is, the basic element in the
inward or spiritual bond of unity, without possessing the out­
ward or bodily bond. Those who w’ould not acknowledge, as St.
Robert did, that a man who possessed the outward bond without
any trace of the inward was actually a member of the Church,
were driven to strain their vocabularies in an attempt to explain
that such a person was still at least legitimately considered an
apparent member. Stapleton insisted that the occult heretic be­
longed to the Church secundum quid, at least by reason of the
sacramental character.19 Wiggers, choosing between the opinion
of St. Robert and that ascribed to Turrecremata, states flatly that
St. Robert’s theory is more common and that it seems more con­
sonant with the writings of the ancients.20 He holds that occult
16 Confuiatio prolegomenon Brentii (Lyons, 1564), c. 5, p. 455. Cf. Bernacki, La doctrine de l’église chez le Cardinal Hosius ( Paris : Gabalda,
1936), p. 35.
17 Op. cit., a. 7, p. 242.
18 Cf. De ecclesia et humanae legis obligatione, c. 2, in the Opera (Lou­
vain, 1579), p. 94r.
19 Cf. Principiorum fidei doctrinalium relectio scholastica et compendiaria
(Antwerp, 1596), Controversia I, q. 2, a. 3, pp. 15 f.
20 Cf. Commentaria de virtutibus theologicis (Louvain, 1689), tractatus de
ecclesia, ad q. 1, a. 10, p. 111.

ST. ROBERT BEU .ARM INE'S TEACHING

213

heretics seem to be parts and members, of the Church only in an
imperfect way and, as it were, by way of analogy.21 Gregory of
Valentia, somewhat hesitantly, and z\dam Tanner, quite vigorously,
also denied membership in the Church to these hidden heretics.-2
Sylvius gave explicit utterance to the principle that guided all
these men when he taught that “by reason of the inward [bond
of union] a man is a member of the Church simpliciter et absolute.
but by reason of the outward [bond] only secundum quid et
improprie.” 23
It must be recalled, however, that serious theological opposi­
tion to St. Robert’s thesis on the status of occult heretics followed
the line of the opinion elaborated by Sylvius rather than that of
the one presented by Suarez. Despite Suarez’ tremendous and
well-deserved influence in the world of sacred theology, his opinion
about conditions for membership in the Church was destined,
for all intents and purposes, to die with him. No future theologian
of any moment was to be found to teach that internal faith was
the one actual requisite for membership in the true Church, and
thus to hold that catechumens who possessed the faith were mem­
bers of the Church and that occult heretics were not.
In the same way, the first of the opinions once current among
Catholic scholars that were supported by Cajetan and by Alphonsus
a Castro, did not survive the Counter-Reformation period. Thus
only two of the four theories regarding membership in the Church
have come down to our own time. The two surviving opinions
are the one which was taught by St. Robert and that which was
presented by Sylvius.
Both of these two opinions have been upheld continuously by com­
petent theologians since the early part of the seventeenth century,
when Adam Tanner declared his own teaching to be more widely
received and John Wiggers wrote, on the contrary, that St.
Robert’s theory was more commonly held.24 Strangely enough,
Tanner seems to have been the last important theologian to have
judged the teaching that denies membership in the Church to
21 Cf. ibid., p. 112.
22Cf. Valentia, Commentaria theologica (Ingolstadt, 160.3), III, column
166; Tanner, Theologia scholastica (Ingolstadt, 1627), III, column 136.
23 Op. cit., a. 7, p. 242.
24Cf. Tanner, loc. cit.; Wiggers, op. cit., p. 111.

214

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

occult heretics as more common than its opposite. The number
of subsequent theologians who adopted the teaching set forth uy
Peter a Soto and by St. Robert was markedly greater than that
of the men who preferred the teaching ot Turmer and of Sylvius
on this point, although the latter opmam never kicked strong sup­
port from very able ecclesiologists.
Thus, during the eighteenth century, St. Robert's teaching could
claim the support of such eminent writers a.- Ί ournely, and
Regnier,25 while Sylvius’ opinion was upheld by the tremendously
influential Billuart.26 During the nineteenth century such theo­
logical giants as Perrone, Cardinal Alazzella, Palmieri, and Cer­
cia27 agreed with St. Robert that occult heretics were members of
the Church. In the most complete treatment given to this ques­
tion in all the manuals of theology' during the nineteenth century,
however, Murray concludes by rejecting this teaching which, at
the same time he admits is longe communior.2* Tepe and Hurter
followed Franzelin in declaring that the occult heretic is not prop­
erly and truly a member of the Church, but belongs to it only in
appearance.29 They thereby renewed in the nineteenth century a
teaching which Hosius had proposed in the the sixteenth. Franzelin,
incidentally, popularized the process of distinguishing between
formal and material heresy in treating of conditions for membership
25 Cf. Tournely, Praelectiones theologicae de ecclesia Christi (Paris, 1765),
I, 299; Regnier, De ecclesia Christi, in Migne’s Theologiae cursus completus,
IV, columns 1095 ff.
26 Cf. Summa Sancti Thomae hodiernis acadcmiarum moribus accommo­
data sive cursus theologiae juxta mentem Divi Thomae, de regulis fidei diss.
3, a. 2, in the edition of Paris, 1904, V, 97 f.
27 Cf. Perrone, Praelectiones theologicae (Rome, 1835), I, 298; Mazzella,
De religione et ecclesia, 6th edition (Prato, 1905), pp. 470 ff. ; Palmieri
Tractatus de Romano Pontifice cum prolegomena de ecclesia, 2nd edition
(Prato, 1891), pp. 47 ff. ; Cercia, Demonstratio catholica, 5th edition (Paris,
1878), I, 72 ff. It must be admitted that the teaching of many of these men
was considerably weakened by their use of a now discarded theory of the
body and the soul of the Church.
28 Cf. De ecclesia Christi (Dublin, 1860), I, 193 ff,
28 Cf. Franzelin, Theses de ecclesia Christi (Rome, 1887), pp. 407 f.; Tepe,
Institutiones theologicae in usum scholarum (Paris, 1894), I, 369 f. ; Hurter,
Theologiae dogmaticae compendium, 2nd edition (Innsbruck, 1878), I, 206 f.

*4»

ST. ROBERT BELLAR MINE’S TEACHING

215

in the Church. He thereby did a delinite disservice to the cause of
theology.30
It is interesting to note that only one serious effort was made
to advance the explanation of this teaching during the period
intervening between the seventeenth and the twentieth centuries.
This tentative was made by Peter Dens, who held that occult
heresy excluded a man from membership in the Church when it
was outwardly expressed, but not when it was merely internal.3’
By far the greater number of theological text books which deal
with the question and which have been written or have been in use
during the first half of our own century strongly favor the opinion
of St. Robert. D’Herbigny, bigger, \ an Noort, Herrmann, and
Saiz Ruiz speak of it as a more common teaching.3233Blanch holds
that it is more probable and more common, while Archbishop
Mazzella follows his illustrious namesake in designating the thesis
as longe communior.Tanquerey and De Guibert insist that St.
Robert’s opinion is taught commonly, and Pesch, Hervé, and Manzoni declare that it is taught more commonly.3435Vellico believes
that hardly any modern theologian holds with Suarez in denying
that occult heretics are actually members of the Catholic Church.
Billot, Dieckmann, Zubizarreta, Bainvel, Vives, Felder, Schultes,
Paris, Lercher, Crosta, and Casanova are among the other modern
30 For a discussion of this point see Fenton, “Membership in the Church,”
in AER, CXII, 4 (April, 1945), 297 f.
31 Cf. Theologia ad usum seminariorum et sacrae theologiae alumnorum,
10th edition (Malines, 1880), Π, 361.
32Cf. D’Herbigny, Theologica de ecclesia, 3rd edition (Paris: Beauchesne,
1928), Π, 268 f. ; Egger, Enchiridion theologiae dogmaticae generalis, 6th
edition (Brescia, 1932), 423 f. ; Van Noort, loc. cit., Hermann, Institutiones
theologiae dogmaticae, 7th edition (Lyons, Vitte, 1937), I, 346; Saiz Ruiz,
Synthesis sive notae theologiae fundamentalis (Burgos, 1906), p. 334.
33Cf. Blanch, Theologia generalis (Barcelona, 1901), pp. 294 ff. ; Horatius
Mazzella, Praelectiones scholastico-dogmaticae, 6th edition (Turin, 1944),
I, 415 ff.
34Cf. Tanquerey, loc. cit.: De Guibert, De Christi ecclesia, 2nd edition
(Rome: Gregorian, 1928), p. 148; Pesch, Praelectiones dogmaticae, 6th edi­
tion (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1924), I, 229; Hervé, loc. cit.; Manzoni, Compendium theologiae dogmaticae, 4th edition (Turin, 1928), I, 201.
35Cf. De ecclesia Christi (Rome: Arnodo, 1940), p. 543.

216

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

theologians who support this teaching.36 The most important
writers in opposition have been MacGuinness, Michelitsch, and
Fraghi, the latter the author of a valuable dissertation De membris
ecclesiae published a few years ago at the Angelico in Rome.37
Fr. Lawlor’s recent article has strongly bolstered this still un­
subdued opposition to St. Robert's thesis. J le contends that
“though the question of occult heresy is not formally treated [in
the Mystici corporis], there is nevertheless solid evidence that the
encyclical demands such [internal] faith as an essential requirement
for real membership in the visible Church.’' 38
Even though they may not agree with Fr. Lawlor, American
theologians have every reason to be grateful to him for his state­
ment on this question. Not only has he brought up a hitherto
unheard of objection against the commonly received teaching about
membership in the Church, but he has also stated, as clearly as
they can be set forth, the older foundations of opposition to St.
Robert’s theory. His article should, and most probably will, prove
to be an important contribution towards a settlement of the prob­
lem with which it deals.
In some future paper it may be possible to review the arguments
which the classical theologians have employed to defend St. Rob­
ert’s opinion on this point, as well as the arguments which have
been used against it. At this time, however, it is our intention
merely to look into the effect produced by the Holy Father’s encyc36 Cf. Billot, loc. cit.; Dieckmann, De ecclesia tractatus historico-dogmatici (Freiburg in Breisgau: Herder, 1925), II, 255 f. ; Zubizarreta, Theologia
dogmatico-scholastica, 3rd edition (Bilbao, 1937), I, 444 ff. ; Bainvel, De
ecclesia Christi (Paris: Beauchesne, 1925), pp. 109 f. ; Vives, Compendium
theologiae dogmaticae, 4th edition (Rome: Pustet, 1905), p. 83; Felder,
Apologetica sive theologia fundamentalis, 2nd edition (Paderborn : Schoeningh,
1923), II, 45; Schultes, De ecclesia catholica (Paris: Lethielleux, 1931), p.
94; Paris, Tractatus de ecclesia Christi (Turin, 1929), p. 42; Lercher, Insti­
tutiones thologiae dogmaticae, 2nd edition (Innsbruck: Rauch, 1934), I, 427
ff. ; Crosta, Theologia dogmatica, 3rd edition (Gallarate, 1932), I, 202 fl.;
Casanova, Theologia fundamentalis (Rome, 1899), pp. 2b8 f.
37 Cf. MacGuinness, Commentarii theologici, 3rd edition (Paris: Lethiel­
leux, 1930), I, 227 ff. ; Michelitsch, Elementa apologeticae sive theologiae
fundamentalis, 3rd edition (Graz, 1925), pp. 329 ff. ; Fraghi, De membris
ecclesiae (Rome, 1937), pp. 90 ff. MacGuinness admits that St. Robert's
teaching is “longe communior.”
38 Op. cit., p. 547.

lical Mystici corporis upon the controversy about the possibility
that an occult heretic can be a member of the true Church.
It must be admitted that Fr. Lawlor’s judgment on this point
is quite forceful. He speaks of “a dissociation, at least partial,
between the visible Church and the Mystical J Jody of Christ” as
a “consequence” following upon the defence of St. Robert’s posi­
tion.39 He concludes his article with the remark that “When the
question [of occult heresy and membership in the Church] is so
proposed that it involves not merely a matter of suitable nomen­
clature but rather a partial dissociation between the visible Church
and the Mystical Body of Christ, then it seems clear that in the
light of the recent encyclical it is no longer safe doctrine.” 40 In the
light of what he had previously declared to be a consequence of St.
Robert’s teaching, it is difficult to interpret this last statement by
Fr. Lawlor other than as at least an oblique charge that St. Robert’s
teaching has been rendered unacceptable among Catholics by the
Mystici corporis.
In this connection it is interesting to note that three important
theological manuals which have been published since the appear­
ance of the Mystici corporis all teach w’ith St. Robert that an
occult heretic can be a member of the true Church. It would be
astonishing to discover, at this comparatively late date, that Msgr.
Parente and Fathers Yelle and Calcagno41 had all taught a doctrine
incompatible with the teaching of a highly important papal docu­
ment which had appeared prior to the publication of their works.
It would be more than astonishing to find that these estimable
theologians were engaged in teaching what is no longer safe doc­
trine.
In the only part of the Mystici corporis dealing directly with
the question of membership, the Holy Father teaches that “Actu­
ally only those are to be included as members of the Church who
have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have
™Ibid., p. 542.
p. 554.
41 All three follow St. Robert’s teaching on this point. Cf. Parente, Theo­
logiae fundamentalis (Rome: Marietti, 1946), p. 171 ; Yelle, De ecclesia et de
locis theologicis (Montreal: Grand Seminary, 1945), pp. 50 f. ; Calcagno,
Theologia fundamentalis (Naples: D’Auria, 1948), p. 207. Parente teaches
this doctrine as more probable, Calcagno as more common, and Yelle pre­
sents it without qualification.

218

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity
of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave
faults committed.” 42 This statement is incompatible with the indi­
vidual position of Francis Suarez, who held that catechumens
could be members of the Church, but it is quite compatible with
the positions of both St. Robert and Francis Sdvius. Both of
these theologians held that only people who conformed to the
description which the Holy Father incorporated into his encyclical
should be considered as real members of the Church. Sylvius and
his associates, however, were convinced that these were not the
only characteristics requisite for constituting a man as a member
of the true Church of Jesus Christ on earth. The theory cham­
pioned by St. Robert, on the other hand, held and holds that only
these factors are necessary.
Strangely enough, Fr. Lawlor believes that the very paragraph
of the encyclical within which the statement about membership is
found contains evidence that “its teaching on the minimal require­
ments of real membership differs essentially from that of Bellarmine.” 43 He bases this claim upon the fact that the Holy Father
cites in this paragraph two scriptural passages “which are taken
from a context wherein are found exhortations to unity grounded
on the truth that we are one Body vivified by one Spirit,”44 and
upon the Holy Father’s assertion that “those who are divided in
faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body,
nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.” 43
The fact that the Vicar of Christ speaks of one Spirit and one
faith in the Christian community has, of course, nothing what­
ever to do with the question about the possibility of membership
in the Church on the part of an occult heretic. All that the Holy
Father teaches is that the members, who have at least the qualifi­
cations he has indicated in the first sentence of this paragraph,
dwell within a community in which “there is only one Body, one
Spirit, one Lord, one Baptism,” and in which, consequently,
“there can be only one faith.” He makes no effort whatsoever to
42 From the NCÏVC translation, n. 22. The original text is to be found
in A AS, XXXV (July 20, 1943), 202 .
43 Op. cit., p. 547.
44 Ibid., p. 548.
43 Ibid.

ST. ROBERT BELLAR-MIXE'S TEACHING

219

state or to imply that absolutely every member of tire Church ac­
tually possesses true faith.
Even less verisimilitude appears in the claim that the Mystici,
corporis is incompatible with St. Robert’s teaching by virtue of tiie
fact that it denies that people who arc divided from one another in
faith and government can be Iking in one Body or this sort or
can be living by its one Divine Spirit. The statement to the effect
that a person completely divided from the Body cannot be living
by the Spirit in no way involves the assertion or the implication
that every one of those who lives in the Body, that is in the C hurch
itself, actually lives the supernatural life in any degree whatever.
In the encyclical, the Holy Father speaks of schism, heresy, and
apostasy, as sins which, of their very nature, separate a man from
the Body of the Church. He thereby follows the traditional proce­
dure adopted by St. Robert himself in his De ecclesia niililanlc.
The great Doctor of the Church devoted the fourth chapter of his
book to a proof that heretics and apostates arc not members of the
Church. The tenth chapter of the same work is nothing more or
less than a demonstration of the fact that occult infidels or here­
tics are really members. Thus, in utilizing the very procedure of
St. Robert, the Holy Father can certainly not be considered as
contradicting his special conclusion. In writing what St. Robert
included in his fourth chapter, the Holy Father must not be consid­
ered as denying what the same great Doctor of the Church
taught in the tenth chapter of the same book.
Furthermore, there is no objectively acceptable reason for inter­
preting the Holy Father’s pronouncements about the presence of
sinners in the Church, and about the fact that many sins which
drive divine charity from the soul do not destroy Christian faith,
as meaning that every person who is actually a member of the
Church possesses true and inward divine faith. Nor is there any
justification for the process of interpreting the places in the
Mystici corporis in which Our Lord or the Holy Ghost are repre­
sented as communicating life to the singula mcnibra of the Church,
as declarations that no man can be a member of the Church
unless he possesses at least the true and inward divine faith. Un­
fortunately the English translations sometimes speak of this ex­
pression as meaning “each of the members.” Such an interpreta­
tion is, however, quite incorrect. There is no place in the Mystici

220

THE AMERICAN ECCLESIASTICAL REVIEW

corporis in which there is either a clear statement er a genuine
implication that each and every member of the true Church must
be in possession of true and inward faith, and that consequently
an occult heretic cannot be considered as a true member of the
Church.
Certainly the Mystici corporis did not incorporate the teaching
of St. Robert about the membership of occult heretics into the
Church into the body of pontifical doctrine. Hut, by the same
token, neither did it in any way deny or discourage St. Robert’s
opinion on this point. Any advance towards a solution of the
problem itself will have to be made, since the publication of the
encyclical itself has made no direct contribution, along the line>
of the evidence which has been under consideration by the classical
theologians since the seventeenth century.
Γη this connection, however, it is well to remember that we have
been limiting our discussion to St. Robert’s teaching about the pos­
sibility that occult heretics might be real members of the Catholic
Church. It is our contention that the Mystici corporis in no way
either implied or involved a rejection of this particular section of
St. Robert’s doctrine. What we have said in no way applies to St.
Robert’s teaching on the conditions for membership in the Church
when this teaching is considered altogether, as a unit.

St. Robert was perfectly in line with a then existent theological
tradition in holding that a man could be a true member of the
Catholic Church when he possessed the outward bond of unity
with the Church, apart altogether from the inward bond. He be­
lieved that a man was a real member of the Church when he had this
outward bond of union, even though he had no true and inward
Christian faith whatsoever.
He differed, however, from other ecclesiologists of his time in his
concept of the outward bond itself. He held literally and consistently
that these factors which were capable of making a man a member of
the true Church and sufficient to constitute him such were the pro­
fession of the Christian faith and the communion or reception of the
sacraments, under the direction of legitimate ecclesiastical pastor»,
and ultimately, under the leadership of the Roman Pontiff. He defi­
nitely did not teach that the baptismal character was necessary for
real membership in the Church.

.
ST. ROBERT BELLARM INE'S TEACHING

21

He definitely taught that those “w ho have not given their names
to Christ through baptism, but who follow other religions,”4G are
not members of the Church. lie also denied that catechumens, those
who were preparing for the reception of baptism, and thus for en­
trance into the true Church of Christ, were members of the kingdom
of God on earth. But, in the light of what he has set down towards
the end of the tenth chapter in his De ccclcsia militante, it is obvious
that he considered an unbaptized man a true member of the Church
when that man lived in society as a Catholic and was accepted as
such, either by reason of a mistake about his status, or because the
man cold-bloodedly falsified his position, claiming to have been bap­
tized when he knew well that he had never received the sacrament.
It is manifest that this particular aspect of St. Robert’s teaching
is unacceptable in the light of the Mystici corporis, ft must be re­
membered, however, that St. Robert’s faulty description of the
Church’s outward bond of unity in no way militates against his
teaching about the possibility that occult heretics can be members
of the true Church, and in no way invalidates the arguments he em­
ployed in favor of that contention.
The opinion that a man devoid of faith can be a real member of
the Catholic Church is recognized, even by those who do not accept
it, as being more commonly held than its opposite. As a doctrina
communior it has a sort of privileged status in the field of Catholic
theology. A man should be armed with a particularly strong set of
reasons in order to attempt legitimately to destroy it.
It is, of course, the privilege of any theologian to prefer the argu­
ments advanced for Sylvius’ thesis to those which tend to show that
occult heretics can be members of the Catholic Church. In the
present status of dogmatic theology, however, it is somewhat pre­
sumptuous to assert that any arguments which have hitherto been
employed on the other side have rendered St. Robert’s position
untenable.
Joseph Clifford Fenton

The Catholic University oj America,
Washington, D. C.
46 Cf. De ecclesia militante, c. 10.

.J