Author Topic: "Once Catholic always a Catholic" and the effect of Heresy on membership (Read 7358 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.

Desmond · « **Reply #35 on:** January 17, 2016, 04:38:26 PM »

Quote from: McCork

So, tell us what seminary you went to.

Please avoid going Off Topic.
"Father" McCork, please interject and answer this young man's question in my stead.
I beg you to point out any potential error in my comment above also.

Thank you in advance.

McCork · « **Reply #36 on:** January 17, 2016, 04:46:00 PM »

Quote from: Desmond

Quote from: McCork

So, tell us what seminary you went to.

Please avoid going Off Topic.
"Father" McCork, please interject and answer this young man's question in my stead.
I beg you to point out any potential error in my comment above also.

Thank you in advance.

It is tangentially topical. It is an obvious question at this point.

Desmond · « **Reply #37 on:** January 17, 2016, 04:50:19 PM »

Quote from: McCork

Quote from: Desmond
Quote from: McCork

So, tell us what seminary you went to.

Please avoid going Off Topic.
"Father" McCork, please interject and answer this young man's question in my stead.
I beg you to point out any potential error in my comment above also.

Thank you in advance.

It is tangentially topical. It is an obvious question at this point.

I will open a topic about the issue in the "General" section, hoping it will prevent you from derailing the thread, which seems to have still some potential.

McCork · « **Reply #38 on:** January 17, 2016, 04:53:10 PM »

Quote from: Desmond

Quote from: McCork
Quote from: Desmond
Quote from: McCork

So, tell us what seminary you went to.

Please avoid going Off Topic.
"Father" McCork, please interject and answer this young man's question in my stead.
I beg you to point out any potential error in my comment above also.

Thank you in advance.

It is tangentially topical. It is an obvious question at this point.

I will open a topic about the issue in the "General" section, hoping it will prevent you from derailing the thread, which seems to have still some potential.

Fine. I got your number.

Nadir · « **Reply #39 on:** January 17, 2016, 05:33:28 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, as more than one person here has pointed out, re-Baptism is an impossibility. Protestants believe in it, they think they do it but they can't do it either. Excommunication does not undo Baptism, just as apostasy does not undo the priesthood. Both are indelible marks on the soul. Excommunication prevents a soul from partaking of, and benefitting from the Sacraments, but it cannot take away the Sacrament of Baptism. One remains an inactive member of the Church.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #40 on:** January 17, 2016, 07:19:41 PM »

Nadir,
Exactly! You said: "One remains an inactive member of the church!"

I agree, but they are still a member. Compare that to an unbaptised person, who isn't a member in any way, shape or form.

Desmond, I agree with some of what you said but you stated that "baptism is necessary but not sufficient" for membership."

How can that be? Anyone who receives baptism and dies the next instant is part of the Church and goes to heaven immediately. So, baptism = membership.

The question remains...are their different levels of membership? In some way there has to be or else the Church contradicts herself.

Desmond · « **Reply #41 on:** January 17, 2016, 07:55:53 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

Nadir,
Exactly! You said: "One remains an inactive member of the church!"

Ok, if you find it more pleasing, we can call them "inactive", still they are outside the Church and not "active" members. Oh, and damned.

Quote

I agree, but they are still a member. Compare that to an unbaptised person, who isn't a member in any way, shape or form.

Ok, they are "members", but they are not in the Church. Is this acceptable?

Quote

Desmond, I agree with some of what you said but you stated that "baptism is necessary but not sufficient" for membership."

It is though. You enter in the Church via Baptism, you exit if you deviate from the Faith and/or subjection to the Pontiff.

Quote

How can that be? Anyone who receives baptism and dies the next instant is part of the Church and goes to heaven immediately. So, baptism = membership.

No, he wouldn't. If he is a heretic, get baptised, the splitsecond later he ceases to be a "active" member and if he dies goes to Hell.

To exploit that loophole, you'd need his earthly death to coincide exactly with the moment the Sacrament takes effect, so to speak.

Baptised infants are saved because they are not accountable, since they cannot use Reason, and choose, they are innocent.

Obviously, Divine Providence takes care of things, not random chance.

It's not a matter of agreeing with me, that heretics et similia are not in the Church is de fide.

And think of what you are saying, if anyone baptised is member (inside) the Church, then the Catholic Church first of all isn't One, and secondly all Protestants, Mormons, Eastern "orthodox", Copts, Jehovah's Witnesses are members of the Church, just "lapsed" Catholics.

Quote

The question remains...are their different levels of membership? In some way there has to be or else the Church contradicts herself.

There's the Catholic Church, there's baptised people who are not part of the Church (heretics, schismatics, apostates) and then there's heathens.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #42 on:** January 17, 2016, 08:24:01 PM »

Desmond,

"No, he wouldn't. If he is a heretic, get baptised, the splitsecond later he ceases to be a "active" member and if he dies goes to Hell."

A heretic, by definition, has already been baptised, so my example wouldn't apply to them, only to an unbaptised person. Any person who receives baptism (for the first time) and dies goes straight to heaven. Catholicism 101.

I agree with you that heretics, schismatics, etc are "outside of the Church". The question is: Does "outside of the church" mean they "lose membership". I say no.

I don't know enough to further discuss this, but i still say OCAC is correct.

Desmond · « **Reply #43 on:** January 17, 2016, 08:55:30 PM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

A heretic, by definition, has already been baptised, so my example wouldn't apply to them, only to an unbaptised person. Any person who receives baptism (for the first time) and dies goes straight to heaven. Catholicism 101.

Right. Obviously before the baptismal rite he would be not a heretic, in a technical sense, but an "adherent to a heresy" such as it is common in some Protestant sects, to delay baptism until adulthood.

The person therefore, before Baptism itself, is already "adhering to heresies", but not a technical heretic.

So, then, after this person is baptised, he will immediately thereafter become an heretic, and be outside the Church.

Quote

I agree with you that heretics, schismatics, etc are "outside of the Church". The question is: Does "outside of the church" mean they "lose membership". I say no.

Right, so, you are saying that members of the Body can be outside the Body.

This makes even less sense than NeoChurch's ecclesiology, for which members are only inside the Body (Church), but those outside are united via some other bond.

May I ask, do you believe those outside the Church can be saved?

Quote

I don't know enough to further discuss this, but i still say OCAC is correct.

OCAC is not even a "thing", it's just some error. It was never formalised, and it's just used to debunk Sedevacantism.
Because obviously, if members are for life, no matter what you do, even if one were to make a public, solemn, profession of rejection of God and His Church.. he would still be a member, and therefore retain jurisdiction.

A notorious proponent (and the only one I know actually) of this theory held that the (anti)Pope at the time was actually the antichrist and a communist, yet a valid Pope.

Stubborn · « **Reply #44 on:** January 18, 2016, 04:35:59 AM »

Quote from: Desmond

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.

One who is a heretic, is either ipso facto or formally excommunicated. The canonical status of a heretic is one of excommunication. This is clear, not vague.

Quote from: Desmond

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
?

It means that because the EO wrongfully do what Catholics do, we cannot use schismatics to prove Catholicity.

Quote from: Desmond

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".

No formal declaration of excommunication upon a pope is possible, therefore the pope is said to be excommunicated ipso facto on account of his heresies.

Quote from: Desmond

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.

But if excommunication means one is no longer a member, then that's what it means whether anyone knows it or not.

Quote from: Desmond

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).

You keep adding provisos of "per se" and "at large" etc., which do nothing but add ambiguity. OCAC is not ambiguous, either the excom remains a Catholic and *on that account* can go to confession like all Catholics can, or the excom is not Catholic and *on that account* is not permitted to approach the sacrament, even when danger of death is imminent.

Quote from: Desmond

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

I thought I did in the second from the top reply..........because the EO wrongfully do what Catholics do, we cannot use schismatics to prove Catholicity.