Author Topic: "Once Catholic always a Catholic" and the effect of Heresy on membership (Read 13831 times)

Desmond · « **Reply #30 on:** January 17, 2016, 01:29:41 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

If excommunication does not mean one is no longer Catholic, then you agree with me that OCAC.

I just said that. And no I do not.
Excommunication indicates a canonical status/provision.
You're attempting to use it being a somewhat vague term to identify it with membership.

Quote

No, I have not looked at the non-schismatic Eastern Law or the schismatic EO because I do not see any connection.

The connection would be that maybe what is in the Latin Rite CIC about the issue is simply a transeunte purely jurisprudential set of rules, more than reflections of divine mandatory precepts.
Look for instance at the minor/major excommunication distinctions in the Eastern CATHOLIC Codexes.

Quote

I will say that we cannot rightly use the schismatic EO or other schismatics whose ordinations / sacraments are valid but illicit, this is because the Church teaches they are in schism, so the validity of their orders is to be compared to the Catholic, not the Catholic to the schismatic.

What does "rightly" mean? That is:
-impossible
-forbidden
-discouraged
?

Quote

No, you have never said it, when I speak of it, it is because it has been said repeatedly by sedes here on CI. It goes like this: the pope is a heretic, therefore he is ipso facto excommunicated, therefore he is not Catholic, ergo; a non-Catholic cannot be pope.

Right, ok I see now. But in that case, it would not be the "excommunication" per se, or in general, to cause it, but his severing the membership by means of heresy/apostasy/schism. Which coincides/is covered by "excommunication".

Quote

Go to your #2 - non members via heresy, schism or apostasy, are permitted to administer the sacraments in an emergency. THIS IS A TEACHING OF THE CHURCH.

NO!
Excommunicati, who might also be non members, in some case even unknowably to us or themselves or the Church herself, in case of necessity, are permitted to.

Quote

If OCAC is wrong, then the Church teaches that a non-Catholic (priest?) is the administer of sacraments and that a non-Catholic excom/heretic/apostate/etc. can be absolved in the sacrament of penance.

NO!
The Churches does not teach that, it allows/permits the possibility by means of
Her own current Codex of law. In the case of excommunicati (at large)

It teaches, that WHOSOEVER has valid ordination, can VALIDLY administer the Sacraments (provided they use correct formulae).

Also, you haven't answered my hypothetical question about Schismatic Orthodox.

Desmond · « **Reply #31 on:** January 17, 2016, 01:43:40 PM »

Now that I think of it, if OCAC is right, then by what means are you going to exclude all the validly baptised from membership of the Church?

Baptism is an indelible mark.

Heresy/Apostasy/Schism do not rescind membership.

The Eastern Schismatics have valid Ordination and can validly administer the Sacraments.

THEREFORE:

Why isn't it licit for them to administer and for us to seek them?

They are in exactly the same position than a undeclared/latae sententiae/ipso facto excommunicated for HERESY/SCHISM.

So, both should be licit, as they are both Catholic, the "ex" Catholic priest and the Schismatic orthodox "catholic" priest.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #32 on:** January 17, 2016, 04:08:51 PM »

So if membership in the church can only be had by baptism, then why isn't baptism required AGAIN, if one is formally declared a heretic or excommunicated? It only makes sense if there are different meanings to membership.

Example: We get baptised, we all learn we're now "children of God". OK, but if we commit mortal sin, the catechism also says we are now "cut off from God." Does being in mortal sin mean you aren't a child of God anymore? Of course not.

Point is, being "outside of the church" means different things. For a pagan, it means they aren't in union with the church, and never were. For a heretic/excommunicated person, it means they are "cut off" from the Church, temporarily (in theory), just like mortal sin. I just don't see how it means membership is revoked; else re-baptism would have to happen.

Desmond · « **Reply #33 on:** January 17, 2016, 04:28:51 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

So if membership in the church can only be had by baptism, then why isn't baptism required AGAIN, if one is formally declared a heretic or excommunicated? It only makes sense if there are different meanings to membership.

Example: We get baptised, we all learn we're now "children of God". OK, but if we commit mortal sin, the catechism also says we are now "cut off from God." Does being in mortal sin mean you aren't a child of God anymore? Of course not.

Point is, being "outside of the church" means different things. For a pagan, it means they aren't in union with the church, and never were. For a heretic/excommunicated person, it means they are "cut off" from the Church, temporarily (in theory), just like mortal sin. I just don't see how it means membership is revoked; else re-baptism would have to happen.

Pax, the Sacrament of Baptism is the gateway to the Church and leaves and indelible mark. It is necessary but not sufficient for membership.

For instance, someone born into a Protestant sect, if validly baptised during infancy, will be a member and subject of the Roman Pontiff, until, coming of Age, he will embrace some heresy (becoming a heretic), for instance his parents', or maybe turn away from the faith and disbelieving (apostate). Possibly, he will also reject the Pontiff, therefore becoming a schismatic.

One of the Marks of the Church is that is One and consequently she has Unity of Faith.

Formal Heresy rescinds this bond, by falling away even from only one article of Faith, it is as if you lose the whole.

The fact Heresy, Schism and Apostasy sever one from the Church is declared many times in magisterial docuмents, such as:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” in Mystici Corporis Christi.

Likewise that heretics are NOT part of the Church is (relatively) frequent when dealing with the topic.

Both heretics, apostates and schismatics are non members, just like a Hindu for instance, only they have some sort of relation with Church by means of Baptism.
I heard it referred as "members in potentia" (all baptised people) vs "members in actu" (members of the Church=Catholics proper).

But we know the Church is a Body, and United in Faith, therefore they are outside.

McCork · « **Reply #34 on:** January 17, 2016, 04:34:05 PM »

Quote from: Desmond

Quote from: Pax Vobis
So if membership in the church can only be had by baptism, then why isn't baptism required AGAIN, if one is formally declared a heretic or excommunicated? It only makes sense if there are different meanings to membership.

Example: We get baptised, we all learn we're now "children of God". OK, but if we commit mortal sin, the catechism also says we are now "cut off from God." Does being in mortal sin mean you aren't a child of God anymore? Of course not.

Point is, being "outside of the church" means different things. For a pagan, it means they aren't in union with the church, and never were. For a heretic/excommunicated person, it means they are "cut off" from the Church, temporarily (in theory), just like mortal sin. I just don't see how it means membership is revoked; else re-baptism would have to happen.

Pax, the Sacrament of Baptism is the gateway to the Church and leaves and indelible mark. It is necessary but not sufficient for membership.

For instance, someone born into a Protestant sect, if validly baptised during infancy, will be a member and subject of the Roman Pontiff, until, coming of Age, he will embrace some heresy (becoming a heretic), for instance his parents', or maybe turn away from the faith and disbelieving (apostate). Possibly, he will also reject the Pontiff, therefore becoming a schismatic.

One of the Marks of the Church is that is One and consequently she has Unity of Faith.

Formal Heresy rescinds this bond, by falling away even from only one article of Faith, it is as if you lose the whole.

The fact Heresy, Schism and Apostasy sever one from the Church is declared many times in magisterial docuмents, such as:
“For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.” in Mystici Corporis Christi.

Likewise that heretics are NOT part of the Church is (relatively) frequent when dealing with the topic.

Both heretics, apostates and schismatics are non members, just like a Hindu for instance, only they have some sort of relation with Church by means of Baptism.
I heard it referred as "members in potentia" (all baptised people) vs "members in actu" (members of the Church=Catholics proper).

But we know the Church is a Body, and United in Faith, therefore they are outside.

So, tell us what seminary you went to.