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.
Yes, but the category of "excommunicated" is larger than that of FORMAL heretics. While material heretics are not ipso facto excommunicated at all.
That is why you shouldn't equate the two.
As I said, it's not the excommunication that severs them, as excommunication doesn't mean that, you're just using a false equivalence to prop up your erroneous attempt at demonstration.
It means that because the EO wrongfully do what Catholics do, we cannot use schismatics to prove Catholicity.
Ok now I get it. Is this fact? Or just a convenient excuse?
And it's not the same as using what we know about them to infer theology.
In fact, "Catholicity" is what you're personally perceive it, as it is not a fact in the context of this discussion which is in fact... aimed at discerning "Catholicity" itself.
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.
Right, but, this needs to be qualified.
But if excommunication means one is no longer a member, then that's what it means whether anyone knows it or not.
But.. you and only you are saying this. The definition of excommunication doesn't deal with membership.
For instance, as I said maaany times, someone under latae sententiae excommunication for a relatively minor crime, is not at all severed from membership.
You keep adding provisos of "per se" and "at large" etc., which do nothing but add ambiguity.
I am obliged to do so in the face of your refusal to consider them.
Ambiguity, if anything, is in the Codex of canon law itself, as it does not directly enumerate and distinguish between various types of excommunications comprehensively and leaves at times provisions vague.
Have you let looked at the Eastern Catholic CICs?
OCAC is not ambiguous
Yes because it's an oversimplification!
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.
This is fallacious, because it equates licitness for undifferentiated "EXCOMUNICATI" with divine ontological status.
If serious, you should at least compare many Canon Codes from different times, and Latin with other Rites, to see if that is an universal practice, if they all permit the same, or if at one time/place it is deal with in a more explicit manner. At the very least.
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.
This is evasion, please think of the answer. If OCAC is true, then it still would not make sense, therefore the principle behind the licitness of some extraordinary case must be another one, not "certified Catholicity". Might be one of those I hypothesised or something else.
Topic: "Once Catholic always a Catholic" and the effect of Heresy on membership (Read 13824 times)