"Once Catholic always a Catholic", in its essence, is a thesis professing that:

Membership in the Church coincides with the indelible Mark of Baptism, and essentially the two coincide.

Nothing can rescind this bond, no matter how grave a heresy is embraced, or even if one were to totally apostatise from the Faith.

Obviously, this idea incurs into direct contradictions from numerous doctrinal writings, and has the concept of "Ecclesia", from the common understanding,  mutate to a degree even greater than Vatican II's subsistit in.

Taken to its logical ramifications, it would have the Catholic Church comprised by all validly baptised individual alive in the world, including all heretics and schismatics, and even apostates, provided they were once validly baptised.

So, while the soul/Body erroneous dichotomy posits a visible Body encompassed and contained by a fumous "Soul" extending the bond to someone, outside it...

the OaCAaC or OCAC, has the Body itself contain a smaller entity which is the Actual Visible Church, apparently United via Unity of the Faith.

This is in the purest and simplest of forms. Now Stubborn, who is the one who tried to inject such an idea in another thread, can explain if my understanding is correct or not.

And if he or other proponents instead have a further discriminante, for example the membership being limited to fallen away Catholics, adding another "mark" to the "Indelible Mark of Baptism".

In such a case, would the Church be threefold in Her structure?

A core of practising Catholics proper, members outside the Core, and then all "Christians" validly baptised.

This assuming they not also adhere to the Soul doctrine, thereby having to include yet another extension, including also non baptised people in some kind of connection with the Church, allegedly.


This is very interesting, this kind of ecclesiology could be visualised as a City with various defensive walls.



What are your thoughts on this?

Thanks in advance.

"Once Catholic always a Catholic", in its essence, is a thesis professing that:

Membership in the Church coincides with the indelible Mark of Baptism, and essentially the two coincide.

Nothing can rescind this bond, no matter how grave a heresy is embraced, or even if one were to totally apostatise from the Faith.

Obviously, this idea incurs into direct contradictions from numerous doctrinal writings, and has the concept of "Ecclesia", from the common understanding,  mutate to a degree even greater than Vatican II's subsistit in.

Taken to its logical ramifications, it would have the Catholic Church comprised by all validly baptised individual alive in the world, including all heretics and schismatics, and even apostates, provided they were once validly baptised.

So, while the soul/Body erroneous dichotomy posits a visible Body encompassed and contained by a fumous "Soul" extending the bond to someone, outside it...  

Those who preach this idea whether dead or alive should be considered most dangerous to souls.

And Jesus knowing their thoughts, said to them: Every kingdom divided against itself shall be made desolate: and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. Matt: 12-25

The Conciliar Church which claims to be Catholic contains heretics, apostates, Jєωs....which on the outside claims unity(with their hugs and kisses), but is clearly DIVIDED against itself in issues of faith, morals, etc.... and most definitely will not stand! So this organization can not be the Catholic Church.

A heretic is not Catholic anymore then an apostate is a Catholic anymore then a Jєω is an invisible Catholic any more then a Muslim is a Catholic because they believe Allah (the devil in disguise) is the one true God and a rewarder, because that is what their conscience tells them, any more then Once a Catholic always a Catholic

Historical Synopsis of General Legislation and Commentary
Author: Leo Arnold Jaeger, A.B., J.C.L.
N.O.: Valentinus T. Schaaf, O.F.M., J.C.D.
Imp.: Franciscus J. L. Beckman, S.T.D.
Published: Washington, D.C., The Catholic University of America, 1932.

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015033864250;view=1up;seq=1



Some relevant text from this book...

pp.81-82
Quote

   Resignation has been considered thus far from the aspect of express resignation.  It must be remembered that tacit resignation, which affects all ecclesiastical offices not excluding the episcopacy, may be a cause also of an episcopal see becoming vacant.15  Tacit resignation, or as it is sometimes called, equivalent resignation, is the result of certain explicitly determined facts, which, by a special disposition of law and of themselves,  without the formalities of presentation, acceptance or declaration, produce the same effect as express resignation.16  Canon 188 enumerates taxatively the facts which produce tacit resignation.  The only probable fact which might affect the episcopal office is that of public defection from the faith.17  This crime presupposes not an internal, or even external but occult act, but a public defection from the faith through formal heresy, or apostasy, with or without affiliation with another religious society.  Simple schism without heresy would not suffice to constitute tacit resignation.18  The public character of this crime must be understood in the light of canon 2197 n. I.  Hence, if a bishop were guilty of this violation and the fact were divulged to the greater part of the town or community, the crime would be public19 and the see ipso facto becomes vacant.  The jurisdiction of the vicar-general, furthermore, is immediately lost in this instance.20

    15 De Meester, Compendium, II, n. 788, footnote 3 (p. 228); Cocchi, Commentarium, II, 524; Prummer, Manuale Juris Canonici, p. 173; Klekotka, Diocesan Consultors, p. 161.
    16 Cf. Maroto, op. cit., I, n. 684 (pp. 809-10).
    17 Canon 188 n. 4.
    18 Blat, Commentarium, II, 125; Augustine, Commentary, II, 161; Vermeersch-Creusen, Epitome, I, n. 268 (p. 199); Ayrinhac, General Legislation, pp. 349-50.
    19 Ci. Vermeersch-Creusen, op. cit., III, n. 384 (p. 185); "Quia res facti est, in aestimatione boni viri esse debet."—D'Annibale, Summula Theologiae Moralis, I, n. 242, footnote 49.
    20 Canon 371.

Please people, a reminder:

do not swerve the conversation towards Sedevacantism, as we can all readily see it would just become the usual verbal avalanche of confusion.

Thanks in advance.


The argument is exclusively: Once a Catholic Always a Catholic and Membership of the Church, relating to Anathemas and Heresy (at most).









@Stubborn

Even if your claims above were absolutely correct, and not contaminated by willfull conflation of different stati, it would no more demonstrate OCAC than the 1917 CIC's provision for burial of unbaptised catechumens  demonstrates BOD.

That reply does not answer even one of the questions.

What is it with sede's not answering clear questions anyway? What are you afraid of?

I did attempt to clear some of the confusion you WILLFULLY cast on the topic on the other thread regarding Ipso Facto Excommunications and the Synod of Pistoia/Auctorem Fidei, yet you REFUSE to correctly make the necessary qualifications, relying for you duplicitous ensnaring attempt in confusion regarding terms, canon law vs divine law, provisions vs stati, jurisdiction proper vs supplied and so on.

But I did just answer you. With an hypothetical.

ASSUMING your questions were correctly formulated and you received all your desired answers it would still not prove OCAC.

What it is you like to do often when debating BOD? Quote infallible teachings to silence your opponents who instead rely on convoluted pseudo-proofs for their erroneous thesis.
Now you're doing the same, only you're playing their part.



PS: Your remark, off topic to begin with, about Sedevacantists, is unbecoming.
Please, as I HAD JUST SAID RIGHT IN THE COMMENT YOU WERE RESPONDING TO, do not drag SV into this.

I'm a neutral party in this discussion but here are my answers.  Correct me if I'm off somewhere.

1) One who is ipso facto excommunicated (i.e. not formally, publicly excommunicated) for heresy, schism, apostate etc., is no longer a member of the Catholic Church, therefore not a Catholic.
Yes or No?

I would say they are still members of the Church because it's not a formal, public condemnation but a spiritual one (for lack of a better term).  If they recant their heresy before any formal condemnation, I don't think they have to be re-baptized, so how could they be outside of the Church?

2) Only Catholics are permitted to receive the sacrament of Penance (Confession).
Yes or No?

Yes.

3) Only a Catholic (priest or bishop etc.) in the sacrament of Penance can absolve the penitent.
Yes or No?

Yes.

4) In an emergency, an apostate, heretical, schismatic, ipso facto  excommunicated priest can both absolve and have his sins absolved - and lay people can have their sins absolved from the censured priest in the sacrament of penance.  
Yes or No?

Yes, for lay people, since the Church will supply jurisdiction to the excommunicated priest because salvation is the ultimate end of the Church.  As far as the excommunicated cleric receiving absolution, I don't know, but I would say 'yes', as, following the same logic, the Church wills all men to be saved and will allow absolution, in case of death.

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

Yes.

I assume your logic is that if a non-public, non-formal excommunication DOES remit membership in the Church, then the Church's canon laws mentioning such excommunicated clerics, and their association with confession, do not makes sense.  Ergo, non-formal excommunication DOES NOT remit Church membership.  I agree.

Also, if membership was remitted, wouldn't Baptism have to be re-administered to excommunicants?  I've never heard that it has been.  Or maybe their desire for re-admittance is like BOD?  (ha ha, sorry, I couldn't resist).

Would ACTUAL, public excommunication remit membership?  Would such a cleric be able to provide confession to a layperson in an emergency?  I'd like to know this.

I'm a neutral party in this discussion but here are my answers.  Correct me if I'm off somewhere.

Quote

1) One who is ipso facto excommunicated (i.e. not formally, publicly excommunicated) for heresy, schism, apostate etc., is no longer a member of the Catholic Church, therefore not a Catholic.
Yes or No?

I would say they are still members of the Church because it's not a formal, public condemnation but a spiritual one (for lack of a better term).  If they recant their heresy before any formal condemnation, I don't think they have to be re-baptized, so how could they be outside of the Church?

Quote

2) Only Catholics are permitted to receive the sacrament of Penance (Confession).
Yes or No?

Yes.

Quote

3) Only a Catholic (priest or bishop etc.) in the sacrament of Penance can absolve the penitent.
Yes or No?

Yes.

Quote

4) In an emergency, an apostate, heretical, schismatic, ipso facto  excommunicated priest can both absolve and have his sins absolved - and lay people can have their sins absolved from the censured priest in the sacrament of penance.  
Yes or No?

Yes, for lay people, since the Church will supply jurisdiction to the excommunicated priest because salvation is the ultimate end of the Church.  As far as the excommunicated cleric receiving absolution, I don't know, but I would say 'yes', as, following the same logic, the Church wills all men to be saved and will allow absolution, in case of death.

Quote

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

Yes.

I assume your logic is that if a non-public, non-formal excommunication DOES remit membership in the Church, then the Church's canon laws mentioning such excommunicated clerics, and their association with confession, do not makes sense.  Ergo, non-formal excommunication DOES NOT remit Church membership.  I agree.

Thank you for answering with clear answers to the clear questions and according to the teaching of the Catholic Church, which of course means that you answered all the questions correctly.

Also, if membership was remitted, wouldn't Baptism have to be re-administered to excommunicants?  I've never heard that it has been.  Or maybe their desire for re-admittance is like BOD?  (ha ha, sorry, I couldn't resist).

Would ACTUAL, public excommunication remit membership?  Would such a cleric be able to provide confession to a layperson in an emergency?  I'd like to know this.

Remember, I underlined that the scenario was in an emergency, that is what this is scenario is all about. The Church teaches that things work a bit differently in an emergency than they do under "normal" circuмstances. So yes, even a formally excommunicated priest or bishop can validly absolve sins in an emergency.  

In normal circuмstances, it depends on the offense. If the person (priest or lay man) had been formally declared as excommunicated, then no, they can never be re-baptized, but like any baptized non-Catholic entering the Church, I think they are supposed to publicly (before a priest, bishop or etc.) abjure their heresies, then go to confession.

"Once Catholic always a Catholic", in its essence, is a thesis professing that:

Membership in the Church coincides with the indelible Mark of Baptism, and essentially the two coincide.

I know you are still learning Catholicism, but the mark of baptism only means that a heretic remains under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, but it isn't even a controversy that heretics, such as the Lutherans, are outside the Church nevertheless. This is a fundamental.