Author Topic: "Once Catholic always a Catholic" and the effect of Heresy on membership (Read 13829 times)

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.