Well then why will you NOT answer the questions?
Because they are wrongly formulated, oversimplified, and designed on purpose to be confusing (as in.. confuse the issues) as Pax Vobis' answers show.
You are demonstrating what I have been saying for a while now, ie since the time Nado popped up here on the scene a year or so ago, now reincarnated as McCork, that whatever religion it is that he preaches, it is not Catholic.
Not at all, also I just realised you wrongly formulated (I mean, rightly, but wrongly in the pov of attempting to prove OCAC!) #4.
You should have said (even) a formally censored/excommunicated priest, that according to Can.1335/1983CIC can indeed validly administer Sacraments if asked by a lay person in danger of death
As of how they are formulated now, they amount to nothing, as leave open the possibility of formal sentences being necessary yet sufficient to "sever membership".
Is this not what you adhere to? That no matter what membership cannot be revoked? I am now confused.
The questions were not aimed directly at OCAC, perhaps they were indirectly, but it is expedient to start with and maintain what the teaching of the Church is in this regard so as to never contradict those teachings. It is because of these fundamental teachings that I remain OCAC, but, as I said, I am willing to admit I am wrong, while I don't like being wrong too much, for me it is not really that big of a deal to admit I am wrong, but right now, there is a glaring contradiction if the excom is no longer Catholic.
Initially, I wanted to address Auctorem Fidei's, "ipso facto" excommunication, which, as you said, it does indeed excommunicate a person without a formal declaration - we agree because Auctorem Fedei says so. Has that teaching ever been abrogated? - I highly doubt it, but who knows?
Then I was hoping to get that all cleared up before moving onto the case of a formal declaration of excommunication by the person's superior for a specific heresy or heresies. No matter how we look at it, the two excoms are not the same, yet even then the same rules apply
in an emergency that an excom priest and an excom layman can administer / receive the sacraments without any formal abjuration - which is something non-Catholics are not even permitted to ever approach, danger of death or not.
In the case of ipso facto excom, (ie an excommunication *without* a formal declaration of excommunication), I fail to see how a public abjuration could possibly ever be a requirement - I do not say this as fact, I am just saying that *I* fail to see how it could possibly ever be required. It seems obvious to me that this excom can be absolved by any priest in the confessional, emergency situation or not - that is imo. I will keep this belief unless it can be proven otherwise.
As such, until proven otherwise, I will maintain that the ipso facto excommunication does not automatically mean the person or the priest is no longer a member of the Church therefore no longer Catholic - again, because of the fact that in an emergency, it is a teaching of the Church that an excom priest and an excom layman can administer / receive the sacraments - which is something non-Catholics are not even permitted to ever approach.
I think we must distinguish what membership means. Baptism is formal entry into the church; you are spiritually reborn. Now, we know that cant be undone, which is why its called an indelible mark.
I think we need to establish what excommunication means. It is always medicinal, as such, it's primary purpose or goal is to prompt the sinner to abandon their heresies and return to the communion of the faithful.
I do not accept that it always means the person is no longer Catholic because of the above mentioned fundamental Catholic teachings - and in light of those teachings, IMO, it is contradictory to say an excom is no longer Catholic.
Topic: "Once Catholic always a Catholic" and the effect of Heresy on membership (Read 13868 times)