Salvation outside the church

[mgrfin]

I would like to clear this matter up for you.

The law of the Catholic Church recognizes anyone as Catholic who was baptized into the Catholic Church (Canon 11). Once a Catholic by baptism, or by reception later on into the Church, remains a Catholic forever. Even those who have joined another religion, have become atheists or agnostics, or have been excommunicated remain Catholics.

Excommunicates lose rights, such as the right to receive the sacraments, but they are still bound to the obligations of the laws of the Church (“The Code”). Their rights are restored when they are reconciled to the Church through the remission of the penalty.

By virtue of baptism, even those who deny now that they are Catholic, they still are, by virtue of baptism or reception into the Church.

The limitation of canonical obligations to Catholics is one of the most important innovations of the new Code of Canon Law in 1983. Canon 12 of the 1917 Code had bound all the baptized to the ecclesiastical laws of the Catholic Church. The implication of this revision coming from Vatican II is that non-Catholic Christians have an ecclesiastical reality of their own, and are bound to the laws of their own church, or ecclesiastical community.

Again, the terms heresy, apostacy, and schism are no longer used of those born and baptised outside of the visible communion of the Catholic Church. I do not believe that the terms ‘material heresy’, or ‘formal heresy’ are any longer used, although they may be found in the older moral theology manuales.

I know this explanation will raise a few hackles, but that is the way of modern Catholicism.

Hopefully this clears up the matter.

peace

 

[SFD]

I would like to clear this matter up for you.

The law of the Catholic Church recognizes anyone as Catholic who was baptized into the Catholic Church (Canon 11).

Here is Can.11:
CIC 1983:

Can. 11 Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age.

This states that “merely ecclesiatical laws” (human laws) “bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it”…these laws are distinct from divine laws.

Divine law binds ALL.

Do you agree?

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

Here is Can.11:

This states that “merely ecclesiatical laws” (human laws) “bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it”…these laws are distinct from divine laws.

Divine law binds ALL.

Do you agree?

SFD

The laws referred to by Canon 11 are those that impose obligations, laws that command or forbid, those to which subjects of the law are bound (tenentur), not laws that confer rights or divine laws that bind everybody.

All three conditions of this canon must be met for ecclesiastical laws to bind. The person must (1) be a Catholic, (2) possess sufficient reason; and (3) be at least 7 years of age, unless something else is specified in the ius.

Peace

 

[SFD]

mgrfin:

The limitation of canonical obligations to Catholics is one of the most important innovations of the new Code of Canon Law in 1983. Canon 12 of the 1917 Code had bound all the baptized to the ecclesiastical laws of the Catholic Church. The implication of this revision coming from Vatican II is that non-Catholic Christians have an ecclesiastical reality of their own, and are bound to the laws of their own church, or ecclesiastical community.

mgrfin,

You still make no distinction between human and divine law. Heretics and schismatics are excluded by their own actions; excommunicates are excluded by the Church’s judgment, in punishment of crimes committed.

But…now please explain to us how this “innovation” can be reconciled with the following definitions of the Church:

Here is the famous definition of the Church by St. Robert Bellarmine:

“Coetu
hominum eiusdem Christianae fidei professione, et eorundem Sacramentorum communione colligatum, sub regimine legitimorum pastorum, ac praecipue unius Christi in terris Vicarii Romani Pontificis.”

“The assembly of men bound together by the profession of the Christian faith, and by the communion of the same Sacraments, under the government of their legitimate shepherds, and especially that of the one Vicar of Christ on earth, the Roman Pontiff.” (De Ecclesia militante [On the Church Militant], bk. 3, ch. 2, par. 9) (Pragae, 1721, II, p. 65a)

In addition, Bellarmine’s doctrine on the membership of the Church is the basis for the presentation in Pope Pius XII’s Mystici Corporis. There, four requirements for membership are given: those who are baptized, who profess the Faith integrally, who submit to the lawful authority of the Pope and hierarchy in communion with him, and who have not been excluded from the Church by excommunication. Thus, heretics, schismatics, infidels, and excommunicates are excluded from the Church, even though they are baptized. Heretics and excommunicates are two different categories. In the case of the former (and schismatics as well), they are excluded by their own actions; in the case of excommunicates, they are excluded by the Church’s judgment, in punishment of crimes committed.
Mystici Corporis Christi:

1. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” [17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. [18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered – so the Lord commands – as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those 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.

SFD

 

[SFD]

The laws referred to by Canon 11 are those that impose obligations, laws that command or forbid, those to which subjects of the law are bound (tenentur), not laws that confer rights or divine laws that bind everybody.

Peace

Based on the above then, Divine law binds ALL.

Right?

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

Based on the above then, Divine law binds ALL.

Right?

SFD

Yes, insofar as someone is not invincibly ignorant of these divine laws. For example, someone might not be aware of the Ten Commandments.

peace

 

[Dauphin]

Yes, insofar as someone is not invincibly ignorant of these divine laws. For example, someone might not be aware of the Ten Commandments.

peace

It’s impossible to be invincibly ignorant of most of the ten commandments (Sabbath observance being only exception I can think of). God can be known with certainty through natural reason, and most of the sins listed are intrinsically and gravely evil.

 

[SFD]

It’s impossible to be invincibly ignorant of most of the ten commandments (Sabbath observance being only exception I can think of). God can be known with certainty through natural reason, and most of the sins listed are intrinsically and gravely evil.

Exactly, Dauphin. I’ve hear this many times before…that there can be invincible ignorance of divine law…such as the decalogue. It is a good illustration of the lack of knowledge of basic catechism and a complete failure to make any distinction between human and divine law.

It is also a result of trying to justify the ridiculous false ecumenism and ecclesiological errors of the conciliar church.

SFD

 

[mgrfin]

Exactly, Dauphin. I’ve hear this many times before…that there can be invincible ignorance of divine law…such as the decalogue. It is a good illustration of the lack of knowledge of basic catechism and a complete failure to make any distinction between human and divine law.

It is also a result of trying to justify the ridiculous false ecumenism and ecclesiological errors of the conciliar church.

SFD

SFD

Well, I am glad, for once, that you are flying your true colors.

“Ecllesiological errors of the conciliar church”. Really?

You mean that the Church founded by Jesus Christ, and guided by the Holy Spirit is in error?

I think not!

St Thomas makes it clear that God gave us the Divine Law because human reason is insufficient to arrive at the whole truth.

“It was fitting that the Divine law should come to man’s assistance not only in those things for which reason is insufficient, but also in those things in which human reason may happen to be impeded.” (Part i of 2nd Part, Ques 99, Obj 2)

Errors of the Conciliar Church? Really! And, it is you who believes that certain of our popes were herfetical. Make up your mind.

peace

 

[GerardP]

And what would you say my agenda is, GerardP?

I don’t know and I don’t care. But I do know that you are confused and spreading confusion.

The correct question is rather…did he teach an error here?

If he thought true and natural water was not necessary, then yes he stated an error as a personal theologian and not as the Bishop of Rome binding the Church.

He did not.

Says who? You? Why? “Because He’s Pius XII.”

Was he defining baptism of desire? No, of course not.

Yet you’ll take it as a magisterial proof of Baptism of Desire when it is not.

Address to Midwives is an allocution…it is not an infallible definition.

St. Alphonsus gave “Baptism of Desire” the note “de fide”.

That was his opinion. He’s not the Pope.

Others

at least call it “proximate to the faith”.

So they are not all in agreement about it’s theological note?

It is a mortal sin to deny it.

Bull. Show me the anathema.

Do you think we need only submit our intellects to infallible definitions?

No. That is another big mistake you are making.

That is the very error spoken of by Cardinal Manning and addressed by Pope Piux IX in Tuas Libenter.

Well, it’s not relevant.

Pius IX said, “it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church…”

Re: Subordinating infallible definitions to fallible explanations:

You wrote:

I’m not.

You most certainly are.

The infallibility of the Church is what tells us that things “theologically certain” are true Catholic doctrines.

By your logic, you don’t ever attain an understanding of an infallible declaration of the Church. You need a fallible interpreter with a credential to place above the definitions of the Magisterium because your modernist influenced mind is riddled with Pyrrhonism.

You must submit your intellect to these teachings. That is what Pius IX is telling us in Tuas Libenter (Dz. 1684).

Simply put. You don’t know what your talking about. You didn’t even know what Pius IX was talking about in the previous paragraph of the same letter that you quoted. You actually asked me to source it. You should have recognized it.

Read it again, Gerard.

No problem. How about if you read it once instead of cutting and pasting from some liberal apologist that wants to water down Catholic truth?

The Church’s own theologians disagree with you…why do you think you are infallible as an individual reading Trent?

Not all of the Church’s theologians disagree. And also, opinions about what the Church’s theologians actually meant are up for debate. So, don’t play the game that this is “settled” by any means.

So we can even move the discussion a step back by pointing out the contradictory or multiple positions held by Doctors of the Church.

You have NO weight whatsoever…St. Alphonsus does have weight…Herve has weight…Bellarmine has weight…YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY WEIGHT.

Weight means nothing when a fact is self-evident. If the Pope says 2+2=5. You seem to think that that is not madness but since he’s the Pope, you’ll accept. That’s not submission of intellect. That’s stupidity.

All you can do is quote Trent and say they are all wrong.

And how does that make me wrong? You appeal to fallible theologians. I appeal to infallible Magisterial definitions of the Church. I don’t take a quote about justification and apply it to salvation. I don’t add “normative necessity” when the word says necessary. I don’t make “true and natural” water into a metaphor and pretend that I’m not doing it.

How are you any different than a Protestant with his Bible?

I know that there is an authority and that human reason can recognize it. I believe that reality can be known by human reason. And divine truths can be understood and not contradicted by human reason as Pius X taught. I know that there are magisterial levels. I know that Popes are not always infallible and I also know that the Faith can be known by someone without WEIGHT, just as truly as anyone can know 2+2=4.

Now I turn the question on you.

How are you no different in kind than the Protestant?

You’ve made fallible theologians the final authority on infallible definitions. You’ve supplanted the teaching authority of the Church.

Just as the Protestant has to leave out inconvenient passages or even whole books from the Bible to rationalize his errors, You have to rely on additions to infallible declarations to rationalize your errors.

You are undermining the teaching authority of the Church:

1800 [The true progress of knowledge, both natural and revealed] .For, the doctrine of faith which God revealed has not been handed down as a philosophic invention to the human mind to be perfected, but has been entrusted as a divine deposit to the Spouse of Christ, to be faithfully guarded and infallibly interpreted. Hence, also, that understanding of its sacred dogmas must be perpetually retained, which Holy Mother Church has once declared; and there must never be recession from that meaning under the specious name of a deeper understanding [can. 3]. "Therefore . . . let the understanding, the knowledge, and wisdom of individuals as of all, of one man as of the whole Church, grow and progress strongly with the passage of the ages and the centuries; but let it be solely in its own genus, namely in the same dogma, with the same sense and the same understanding.’’ *

 

[GerardP]

So St. Alphonsus and St. Robert Bellarmine are “pinhead theologians”…really?

No. Scheeben is. You know, the guy that tells you that he’s a theologian and is infallible and then he tells you what the theologians say that fit his particular agenda.

You rely on people that misread theologians, misread papal documents and conciliar definitions.

"If they are not infallible. They are fallible." This is such a ridiculous statement…no one ever claimed individual infallibility for the theologians.

They don’t have to. You’ll agree with whatever they say anyway. No matter how much it contradicts the final word on the matter. (namely the Magisterium)

When they teach in moral unanimity that cannot be wrong.

You’re still a little foggy on the numbers as to when “moral unanimity” vs. “a majority” is reached.

Pope Pius IX instructs thus; "it is not sufficient for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.

This is another of your grand errors. You seem to think that this binds me to believe theologians can add to a magisterial definition and change it’s meaning.

As I’ve posted before from Pius IX

“The very definition of a dogma must be held to be by itself a sufficient demonstration, very sure and adapted to all the faithful. Moreover, this is why such dogmatic definitions have always been and are necessarily an unchangeable rule of faith.” (Inter Gravissimas, 1870)

Do you know what a theological note is?

Yes. And if you did, you would know that I do.

Do you know what a theological censure is?

Yes. But when did Baptism with water as being necessary receive a theological censure?

Tell us.

No. I’m not interested in jumping through hoops for you. You don’t seem to want to engage in the facts of this. You just cite fallible authorities over infallible definitions.

This is the root of the lunacy that the sedevacantists imbibe in.
Bellarmine topples Popes instead of just presenting ideas that have yet to be magisterially ruled on.

I don’t think you even know what these things are…you’ve never heard of them…have you? SFD

Should I play your game and act like a 15 year old? Do you know what Pyrrhonism is? Do you know what the Magisterium is?

I suggest you grow up and start dealing with the realities and the facts and the grievous errors you engage in. I’ve pointed them out already.

How about answering this? How do you know that something is true like 2+2=4?

 

[Mickey_Jackson]

**Mark 9:38-41: John said to him, “Teacher, we saw someone driving out demons in your name, and we tried to prevent him because he does not follow us.”
Jesus replied, "Do not prevent him. There is no one who performs a mighty deed in my name who can at the same time speak ill of me.
For whoever is not against us is for us.
Anyone who gives you a cup of water to drink because you belong to Christ, amen, I say to you, will surely not lose his reward. **

This passage is the key to understanding what the Church means when She teaches that there is no salvation outside of the Church. First of all, this doctrine has to be true, as it has been defined dogmatically by several Popes and Councils. However, as Bl. Pius IX stated so eloquently, it is difficult to fathom a God who would punish people for sincerely trying to do His Will, following the eternal natural law. These two statements, one seemingly restrictive and one seemingly permissive, are reconciled by this statement of Christ: “Whoever is not against us is for us.”

In other words, those Orthodox, Protestants, and even non-Christians who sincerely do not know that the Catholic Church holds the One True Faith, but respect the Church and do not impede Her from carrying out Her mission, are not outside of the Church. Rather, they are joined to Her by what Ven. Pius XII called a “mystical communion.”

The best example I can think of is the Rev. Dr. Billy Graham, a Protestant evangelist. Many Evangelical Christians express disdain for the Church and try to convince Catholics to be “born again.” But Dr. Graham has rejected this viewpoint, demonstrating publicly (and thereby subjecting himself to great criticism from fellow Protestants) his respect for Catholics and for the Church. When Pope John Paul II died, Dr. Graham called him one of the greatest men of the 20th century. Clearly, then, he is the kind of man of whom Christ speaks, who is with us by the sole virtue of not being against us.

Now, this is not to say that we shouldn’t evangelize. But we should do it not out of the conviction that those to whom we evangelize are certainly damned, but rather because Christ Himself commanded that we spread the True Faith. Like the proverbial light under a bushel, Truth cannot be hidden; by its very nature, it must be joyfully shouted from the rooftops. As for those who hear the Truth and do not accept it, we can only remember that God alone judges the hearts of men, that God alone knows whether they acted in good faith, and that God is merciful beyond our wildest comprehension.

So yes, it is true, and we should not be afraid to say it: outside of the Church there is no salvation. But it is important that we know what this truly means.

For more information, see this excellent article: ewtn.org/library/SCRIPTUR/OUTSID.TXT

 

[Miles_Mariae]

We certainly have some learned posters here, and certainly I am not about to jump into this. I wonder if someone could elucidate on theological note, theological censure, and how exactly one might know that theologians are in “moral unanimity”, for those of us who are not as well read. It seems that if we are to believe in something as a source of doctrine, it should at least be well defined. Thank you.

 

[SFD]

GerardP:

Pope Pius IX instructs thus; "it is not sufficient

for learned Catholics to accept and revere the aforesaid dogmas of the Church, but that it is also necessary to subject themselves to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.

This is another of your grand errors. You seem to think that this binds me to believe theologians can add to a magisterial definition and change it’s meaning.

No Gerard, it is not sufficient to accept and revere the dogmas of the Church…you must also subject yourself to the decisions pertaining to doctrine which are issued by the Pontifical Congregations, and also to those forms of doctrine which are held by the common and constant consent of Catholics as theological truths and conclusions, so certain that opinions opposed to these same forms of doctrine, although they cannot be called heretical, nevertheless deserve some theological censure.

Are you the only one who can’t see what this says? … the language is very clear.

To those following this thread:

GerardP is apparently a Feeneyite and therefore denies that he must believe anything but revealed truths guaranteed by the Church - that is, dogmas, or truths of the Faith. He accepts that some truths have not been solemnly defined but are nevertheless taught infallibly by the ordinary universal magisterium, but he denies that he must believe other truths besides those directly revealed or guaranteed by infallible authority. He is quite wrong on both counts.

There are three distinctions that need to be made here:

1. The objects of infallibility are twofold in nature, because of the purpose for which infallibility was granted to the Church. The infallibility of the Church exists to guarantee the truths revealed by God. Primarily, this means that the Church is infallible in proposing for our belief those revealed truths. Secondarily, this means that the Church is infallible in proposing for our acceptance those truths which are necessary for the security of the revealed truths. In this latter category are dogmatic facts, solemn condemnations of error, etc. When a theologian mentions the phrase, “pertains to Faith” it is to these secondary objects of infallibility that he refers. They are not "of Faith (de fide) but rather they “relate to matters of Faith” - they pertain to what is of Faith per se. The theology manuals all cover this material in detail and should be consulted by anybody who wishes to understand the point.
2. The mode according to which we believe something varies also, because of what has been written above concerning the objects of the magisterium. Not everything taught by the Church must be believed under pain of loss of Faith and membership in the Church. In other words, not all sins against the submission due to the teaching authority of the Church are heresies. Some are mortal sins of a different nature. But they are still mortal sins. Thus it would be a mortal sin to doubt or deny the doctrines taught by the theologians as “certain”, but one would not thereby be a heretic. GerardP seems not to have noticed this truth, and in any case he cannot admit it while retaining his Feeneyite convictions.
3. The teaching office of the Church demands our submission on two counts - because it cannot err, and because it speaks with the authority of Christ. In other words, we must accept the authoritative teaching of the Church (the “authentic” magisterium) even when it does not teach infallibly. The nature of our submission will differ according to the case. If Holy Church speaks infallibly (either via her solemn or ordinary universal magisterium) then we may give the assent of supernatural Faith or of ecclesiastical faith. But if the Church teaches non-infallibly, then we give the assent of a sincere internal conviction which is of a lower order than either kind of faith, but which, being a species of certitude, excludes the possibility of doubt. In the latter case we submit because we know that the chance of error is virtually zero but also because we bend our intellects to the authority of Christ, because that is the authority of the magisterium. “He who hears you, hears Me.”

SFD

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Interesting, I hope to make time to research this more in depth. What is your view on someone who suspends his judgment on matters that have not been defined as necessary de fide? For example, suppose I do not know who to believe right now, and do not want to make a choice that might jeopardize my soul. If I do not make a judgment nor voice an opinion, am I free from the possibility of mortal sin that you mention?

As an aside, is that what theological censure means? Mortal sin although not heresy?

 

[mgrfin]

SFD

quote:
There are three distinctions that need to be made here:

1. The objects of infallibility are twofold in nature, because of the purpose for which infallibility was granted to the Church. The infallibility of the Church exists to guarantee the truths revealed by God. Primarily, this means that the Church is infallible in proposing for our belief those revealed truths. Secondarily, this means that the Church is infallible in proposing for our acceptance those truths which are necessary for the security of the revealed truths. In this latter category are dogmatic facts, solemn condemnations of error, etc. When a theologian mentions the phrase, “pertains to Faith” it is to these secondary objects of infallibility that he refers. They are not "of Faith (de fide) but rather they “relate to matters of Faith” - they pertain to what is of Faith per se. The theology manuals all cover this material in detail and should be consulted by anybody who wishes to understand the point.
2. The mode according to which we believe something varies also, because of what has been written above concerning the objects of the magisterium. Not everything taught by the Church must be believed under pain of loss of Faith and membership in the Church. In other words, not all sins against the submission due to the teaching authority of the Church are heresies. Some are mortal sins of a different nature. But they are still mortal sins. Thus it would be a mortal sin to doubt or deny the doctrines taught by the theologians as “certain”, but one would not thereby be a heretic. GerardP seems not to have noticed this truth, and in any case he cannot admit it while retaining his Feeneyite convictions.
3. The teaching office of the Church demands our submission on two counts - because it cannot err, and because it speaks with the authority of Christ. In other words, we must accept the authoritative teaching of the Church (the “authentic” magisterium) even when it does not teach infallibly. The nature of our submission will differ according to the case. If Holy Church speaks infallibly (either via her solemn or ordinary universal magisterium) then we may give the assent of supernatural Faith or of ecclesiastical faith. But if the Church teaches non-infallibly, then we give the assent of a sincere internal conviction which is of a lower order than either kind of faith, but which, being a species of certitude, excludes the possibility of doubt. In the latter case we submit because we know that the chance of error is virtually zero but also because we bend our intellects to the authority of Christ, because that is the authority of the magisterium. “He who hears you, hears Me.”
   Unquote
   SFD

SFD

Okay, first, please give the reference for these paragraphs. It is obvious that you have lifted them from somewhere.

Secondly, you refer to Gerard as a Feenyite. You are some sort of Traditionalist, and refuse to accept the ‘digressions’ of Vatican I and Vatican II.

So you are some old fashioned Traditionist. You also like to defend Sedevacantism. What you should be called, I don’t know. You and I don’t believe in the same Catholicism.

Thirdly, in a previous post you claimed that all ‘dogmas’ were ‘de fide’. That’s wrong, and I went through a whole list of dogmas, which are not ‘de fide’.

“The Church teaches infallibily when it defines, through the Pope alone, as the teacher of all Christians, or through the Pope and its bishops, a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by all the faithful”. Baltimore Catechism, No. 3 Q 164.

A doctrine of faith or morals is a truth revealed by God dealing with what we must believe or what we must do in order to be saved. If it does not relate to salvation, then it is another matter.

Some things that are not defined infallibily by the Church may not have to believed if I have serious questions about them. Some times we must accept these non-infallibly defined truths not on faith, but on obedience to the authority of the Pope and in respect for his wisdom.

I would like the source of your post, please.

peace

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Could I get some opinions on this, please?

strobertbellarmine.net/theolnotes.htm

SFD graciously messaged me the link in response to my question.

Thanks.

 

[knightbvm]

SFD ID LOVE TOSET YOU STRAIGHT ONE ON ONE–why dont u e-mail me and ill call u on my dime and we can discuss these issues–i believe I cna totally show you why you are wrong—catholictruth1@yahoo.com

 

[mgrfin]

Could I get some opinions on this, please?

strobertbellarmine.net/theolnotes.htm

SFD graciously messaged me the link in response to my question.

Thanks.

That was gracious of him. But, we are not able to get him to understand that references to denial of belief defined in the Old Code of 1917 under Crimes, Penalties, Censures, etc., have been substantially changed.

Please keep that in mind that many penalties in the new Code are not ‘latae sententiae’, that is, automatic. Many must be levied by ecclesiatical authority, which is rarely done nowadays.

Also, these penalties and such can only apply to Catholics, not to non-Catholics. Only Catholics can be guilty of heresy, apostacy, and schism, therefore only those can earn penalites attached.

peace

 

[Miles_Mariae]

Please keep that in mind that many penalties in the new Code are not ‘latae sententiae’, that is, automatic. Many must be levied by ecclesiatical authority, which is rarely done nowadays.

peace

This is very reassuring. I am not in the habit of reading theology manuals, and was actually quite worried at the idea of incurring mortal sin for disagreeing with a position that I did not know to be required belief (in other words, that the Church had not formally declared).