Indeed, and which distinction Aquinas is not spelling out, but is is making a a distinction btwn being a heretic or not. And which, and the meaning of "pertinacity" (canonists vs. moralists) and to whom it is applied, is matter that sees interpretative contentions.
Obviously RC posters here either do not see as binding the church teaching which Aquinas refers to, or subsequently, which forbids RCs to communicate with heretics who have forsaken the faith they once received, or they do not see those like myself, former weekly RCs, as guilty of the heresy which excludes such from religious engagement with, and presently damned.
They may believe that I am only a material heretic, one who believes something to be true church doctrine which in fact is not, thus one who ignorantly errs in his facts, but instead it is substantiated teaching that I reprove, and arguments for them by the grace of God, while also contending for beliefs and values officially held by Rome,
Nor is my contention is due to personal hurt or resentment toward that church, but it is due to the contrast with Scripture, and a burden for souls and the Truth and glory of God. Having become born again while being a weekly Mass-going RC, and remaining therein for 6 years and seeking from fellowship of the Spirit, I know of the contrast btwn dead religion, Cath or Prot, and and those of church of the living God. And the more i learn then the more i have appreciated certain aspects of Catholic development, why such arose, while also seeing its errors more clearly.
Thus i must be considered a e formal heretic, one who knows what the Church teaches and chooses to believe something else, that being what is substantiated by Scripture, including that being the supreme infallible standard for faith and morals. Of course, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, (Mt. 23:2) who were the historical instruments and stewards of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God." (Rm. 3:2) And instead they followed a itinerant Preacher and preachers whom the magisterium rejected, but whom they reproved as souls well familiar with their errors, thus being as formal heretics in the sight of the magisterial powers, and established their Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
On the other hand, seeing as my reproofs often go unanswered, it seems many RCs are heeding the admonition of Isaias Boner of Krakow, “Do not converse with heretics even for the sake of defending the faith, for fear lest their words instill their poison in your mind
Send us the giant(s).
Let's just get it over with, and not have to keep arguing with those sources of RC-centric & supporting apologetic, somewhat second-hand (and over and over again).
They be cowards.
They know we are here, and would clean their clocks, if they don't have home field [control] advantage, and virtually own the referees...
This is one of the only forums I know of which is not under ownership/control of one 'side' of the wider discussion (as for points of theology and historical/scriptural basis for that same which differs between official and semi-official Roman Catholicism, and significant portions of much of the rest of Christianity, even 'Orthodox' included for some portions...)
If I understand your tortured prose, you're saying Aquinas makes no distinction between formal and material heresy, correct?
That's not true.
Accordingly, in the first way the Church does not forbid the faithful to communicate with unbelievers, who have not in any way received the Christian faith, viz. with pagans and Jews, because she has not the right to exercise spiritual judgment over them, but only temporal judgment, in the case when, while dwelling among Christians they are guilty of some misdemeanor, and are condemned by the faithful to some temporal punishment. On the other hand, in this way, i.e. as a punishment, the Church forbids the faithful to communicate with those unbelievers who have forsaken the faith they once received, either by corrupting the faith, as heretics, or by entirely renouncing the faith, as apostates, because the Church pronounces sentence of excommunication on both.
"Forsaking the faith once received" is formal heresy. In fact, most discussions of heresy in the pre-Reformation Church relate to formal heresy.
Obviously RC posters here either do not see as binding the church teaching which Aquinas refers to, or subsequently, which forbids RCs to communicate with heretics who have forsaken the faith they once received, or they do not see those like myself, former weekly RCs, as guilty of the heresy which excludes such from religious engagement with, and presently damned.
Or they may be unaware of Aquinas' writing on the matter or they may be unaware that the person with whom they are conversing is a formal heretic. Or they may consider that "punishment" of the heretic (one of Aquinas' two reasons for proscribing communication) may result in further alienation rather than reconciliation, which I'm sure Aquinas would agree, is undesirable.
It's worth noting those two conditions of Aquinas:
I answer that, Communication with a particular person is forbidden to the faithful, in two ways: first, as a punishment of the person with whom they are forbidden to communicate; secondly, for the safety of those who are forbidden to communicate with others.
In the case of this forum, the second condition is largely not applicable. As Aquinas himself goes on to say:
With regard to the second way, it seems that one ought to distinguish according to the various conditions of persons, circumstances and time. For some are firm in the faith; and so it is to be hoped that their communicating with unbelievers will lead to the conversion of the latter rather than to the aversion of the faithful from the faith.
I think it's in this spirit that communication occurs.