CathInfo.com

The questions were not aimed directly at OCAC, perhaps they were indirectly, but it is expedient to start with and maintain what the teaching of the Church is in this regard so as to never contradict those teachings. It is because of these fundamental teachings that I remain OCAC, but, as I said, I am willing to admit I am wrong, while I don't like being wrong too much, for me it is not really that big of a deal to admit I am wrong, but right now, there is a glaring contradiction if the excom is no longer Catholic.

Because "excommunication" per se does not mean one is no longer Catholic.
And, canonical provisions, in the 20th century and Latin Rite, cannot be used to
determine supernatural status.
That an excom is no longer catholic is your claim only, you then use to infer that ALL excoms are still Catholic by means of (apparent) canonical contradictions.

Have you consulted the Eastern Catholic Codices of Canon Law?

Initially, I wanted to address Auctorem Fidei's, "ipso facto" excommunication,  which, as you said, it does indeed excommunicate a person without a formal declaration - we agree because Auctorem Fedei says so. Has that teaching ever been abrogated? - I highly doubt it, but who knows?

It cannot be abrogated, it regards Divine Law. Even the newest modernist CIC recognises and affirms that those article stemming from Divine Principles cannot be in any way reformed/abrogated.

Then I was hoping to get that all cleared up before moving onto the case of a formal declaration of excommunication by the person's superior for a specific heresy or heresies. No matter how we look at it, the two excoms are not the same, yet even then the same rules apply in an emergency that an excom priest and an excom layman can administer / receive the sacraments without any formal abjuration - which is something non-Catholics are not even permitted to ever approach, danger of death or not.

Good, they are not the same. But the CIC makes no huge distinction (it does between latae sententiae and formal on some things) in regards on what it is considered LICIT under some circuмstances.
Validity, stemming directly from divine law apparently (institute of the priesthood), is common to anyone validly ordained.

In the case of ipso facto excom, (ie an excommunication *without* a formal declaration of excommunication), I fail to see how a public abjuration could possibly ever be a requirement - I do not say this as fact, I am just saying that *I* fail to see how it could possibly ever be required. It seems obvious to me that this excom can be absolved by any priest in the confessional, emergency situation or not - that is imo. I will keep this belief unless it can be proven otherwise.  

I don't know exactly what this relates to.
The abjuration as a canonical provision? I read it can be "implicit or explicit", depending on some circuмstances.

As such, until proven otherwise, I will maintain that the ipso facto excommunication does not automatically mean the person or the priest is no longer a member of the Church therefore no longer Catholic - again, because of the fact that in an emergency, it is a teaching of the Church that an excom priest and an excom layman can administer / receive the sacraments - which is something non-Catholics are not even permitted to ever approach.

But do you know if they are not permitted to do so for actual divine reasons, such as it could not possibly be licit, even under false pretenses?
Or, if the principle behind such, possibly accidental, norms is maybe the endangering on one's soul, by exposing oneself to false creeds? (this is an hypothesis)
Or, it may simply be a lacuna normativa, or "loophole", per which it is not distinguished between actual non members, and merely censored=excommunicated prelates, for potentially different reasons.

For instance, it is unknowable to the senses and the competent authority, if, at all times, one is or isn't, and essentially it wouldn't matter, as the working principle being the Salvation of Souls, the Church SUPERNATURALLY would supply jurisdiction anyway.

This predicament can be tracked down to another, bigger and immensely complex one, if not unknowable even, that is:

"Do Divine acts stem from Ecclesial Acts, via Apostolic Authority via Scriptural "whatsoever you bind and loose"?

or is Church/Apostolic authority DELIMITED by Divine Principles, insofar as Apostolic prerogatives can only conform to Divine praecepts? Ergo only potentially valid in some areas and circuмstances (when conforming to Divine Law).

And how does this all fit in regards to humans actually being able to perceive all this? Are there two orders of realities, per which what appears on Earth (or, in the "Church-Militant") is not necessarily what is ontologically so, per Divine law?

Examples:

Can the Church by Her own power, make one a non member... or is the Church, when it can/see fit merely recognise an ontologically and chronologically higher/earlier condition?

Can the Church, by Her own power, WRONGLY, expel someone, or simply THINKING she has, while per Divine Law the person is actually still a member and even in good standing with God(!!!)?


These are just examples. A new thread would be needed to even peripherally touch upon some of the issues,

I do not accept that it always means the person is no longer Catholic because of the above mentioned fundamental Catholic teachings - and in light of those teachings, IMO, it is contradictory to say an excom is no longer Catholic.

Yet, nobody else ever said that. You did, to set up your erroneous argument.

This is what we know, and I said:

1)A.F. says Ipso Facto have validity/effect even without a declaration.(to be held)

2)Heretics, Schismatics, Apostates are non members. (de fide)


Therefore you should say:

A person, whether formally or latae sententiae Excommunicatus, for the sole crimes of Heresy, Apostasy,Schism is a non member.

This can be reconciled with some Excommunicati being members, whether formal or not (which is another issue).

5) Non-Catholics are not permitted to even approach or administer any of the sacraments, including the sacrament of penance?
Yes or No?
 

Yes.  Which is why scandal occurs so frequently over this in the N.O., with Protestants approaching HC, casually, and with the presiding priest often knowing about it yet doing nothing.

That's separate, of course, from all the likely sacrilegious receptions occurring on the part of baptized Catholics every Sunday.

O/T, I know, but the lack of action about it I find appalling.