CathInfo.com

I think you may have some issue with plain English. What is your first language?

You appear to actually admit "It is licit in cases of emergency", yet even though you said it, you don't believe it, or so it seems.

I wonder, is this the Dunning-Kruger effect in action, or just malicious hubris?

Licit derives from the latin liceo.

It is a juridical term, used in a specific way in Canon Law.

Have you ever studied any rudimentary of law, in general, or looked up the definition, to understand what licit actually means ?

Why it is licit is because the Church teaches it, in other words, it is licit because the Church says it's licit. Not sure why you insist on bringing up licit -  if anything should be clear, it should be that it is licit.  

It is licit in cases of emergency, due to:
'Necessity makes licit what is illicit.' and 'The highest law is the salvation of Souls'
principles.


The problem is you aprioristically (and I have to say, maliciously) insist on it being licit for the reason that all excommunicati are "Catholic".

I attempted to identify some other possible reasons, even in the context of your own understanding of licitness, but you disregarded those.

Do not mention various degrees of excom, the catechism did not mention any  various degrees so leave it at that. As such, we have to say that all excommunicati are non members and cut off from the Church.

Right, but you do not agree with the teaching of the Church.
Mine was a bona fide attempt at reconciling your willful error with orthodoxy.
I do not have a steak in this mess.

Infidels have never been Catholic. - check
Heretics and schismatics belong to her only as deserters. - check
Exoms are not members and are cut off from the Church. - check

Simple question, not a trick question........

What religion is the excom penitent who, in an emergency, can enter the confessional and get their sins absolved

I already answered this many posts ago. And you ignored it because, it seems, you fallback plan is playing on the meaning of the word "religion".
What religion is a Donatist? A Modernist? An Arian?

Now, you refuse to entertain the notion that it depends on the excommunicatus holding an heresy or not, as you shun any attempt at qualifying the issue.
So I will say, it's unimportant.

- and if they died right after absolution, would be counted among the faithful departed?

No they do not. Unless the excommunication is lifted by the priest.
Otherwise they die outside the Church.
And/or, unless they abandon their heresy, which by itself severs from the Church/Faith.

I thought you were the paladin of "Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus"?

All I can say is  

I asked a simple question which SHOULD generate a one word answer.

Sometimes you cannot answer a question with a one word answer.

Even worse, you cannot if there are distinctions to be made.

No they do not?
Did you forget that the priest lifts communications as part of the absolution formula?

The priest can lift only some excom. We've been over this many times.

Why do you suppose the dying penitent when to confession with the intention of clinging to their heresy?

Because it could happen, and can.

Hence why you cannot rashly make universal statements about the matter as you do.

Or are you NOW saying that they are saved only (and I guess re-become Catholic), only AFTER and IF, they respectively: get confession/are absolved and ABJURE their errors/heresies?
Because this is obvious, and nobody said otherwise. Also, would make OCAC meaningless.

Did you forget that whoever the priests binds or loose on earth is bound or loosed in heaven?  

So what you are saying, is the priest could make the heresies, and potential crimes punished/able by latae sententiae disappear by his Apostolic authority?
Even if the person clings to them?

By all appearances, you are in desperation mode with your evading the simple question along with comparing schismatics and prots to Catholics as if the Catholics are the ones in the wrong.

Am I?
I outlined the same argument, since the very OP, many times before.
You always refuse to comment on it, even though it is an inescapable consequence of OCAC.
But I guess, if it makes you feel better...

I can see this will never get anywhere so I will answer the question for you........

I know your answer, and it is wrong. Might as well have saved some bytes.

Answer: Catholic.

Why couldn't he be a heretic? Does "being of the Catholic religion" as you intend it, equate with:

-professing the True Faith, whole and inviolate
-being a member of the Church

?

See, was that so difficult? No, of course it wasn't. And that's the way it *always* is when you take what the Church teaches as is without adding provisos and exceptions to suit your own opinion.

It is very easy to err. It is easy as taking a breath.




Please Stubborn, given you know what the Church teaches can you finally explain to us OCAC's ecclesiology, in the context of the very OP.

Also, how your understanding (or, rather, what you are letting surface for now, about it) relates to the Catechism of Trent teaching above?

It would only be proper..