Author Topic: "Once Catholic always a Catholic" and the effect of Heresy on membership (Read 13862 times)

Desmond · « **Reply #110 on:** January 20, 2016, 10:05:49 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis

So, Desmond, please explain why believing OCAC is wrong (even though personally, I've qualified and explained my view that saying a heretic is a Catholic is just an informal way to distinguish they once had the Faith). What error does it lead to? How in the world does this lead to heresy?

Why do you even profess to embrace OCAC, if what you mean is actually very different from OCAC itself?

You, for your own pet peeve, want to call those outside the Church "catholic", or "members" (no capital "m").
Whatever, do as you see fit. It has nothing to do with OCAC and you're just wasting time.

What is worrying, is that you do not hesitate to side with others who instead actually embrace OCAC, in stead of asking them to make proper distinctions and qualify their position.

You even degrade yourself with mockery of others, following some sort of pack-mentality like a hyena.

Shame.

Desmond · « **Reply #111 on:** January 20, 2016, 10:10:45 AM »

Quote from: Stubborn

No.
That has already been asked and answered and has zero to do with this subject, all it does is make Desmond more confused.

This thread is primarily focused on the ipso facto excommunicant.

Really, when did you actually answer it before now?

You only said "it has nothing to do with the topic".

Literally 3 posts ago you actually said OCAC's ecclesiology is explained in my OP, where I actually say they are included.

If you were honest, you would have qualified your position, as asked many times before, describing exactly what "flavour of OCAC" you embrace, instead of dodging questions and autistically repeating the same childlike arguments.

Also, your hubris and demeaning stance, which is actually your shtick I reckon, about others "being confused" "in the face of simple Church teachings" is just vile.

So Stubborn, can we finally get what is it you intend by OCAC?

Who is a Catholic? Does it coincide with Baptism or not? (I ask in vain)

Stubborn · « **Reply #112 on:** January 20, 2016, 10:31:12 AM »

Quote from: Desomnd

Really, when did you actually answer it before now?

You only said "it has nothing to do with the topic".

No, I said no and you replied........

Quote from: Desmond Posted Jan 18, 2016, 8:51 pm

Quote from: Stubborn

I don't either but I wish he would start another thread on it. Prots were never Catholic to begin with so they're missing the first part; "once Catholic..."

Shocking.

It is rather simple, since OCAC postulates that membership is acquired with Baptism, and cannot be lost under any circuмstance, then Protestants (if validly baptised) are members of the Church, ergo Catholics.

I said this many times and asked you expressely to comment on it.
Is it correct or not?

Quote from: Desmond

If you were honest, you would have qualified your position, as asked many times before, describing exactly what "flavour of OCAC" you embrace, instead of dodging questions and autistically repeating the same childlike arguments.

Also, your hubris and demeaning stance, which is actually your shtick I reckon, about others "being confused" "in the face of simple Church teachings" is just vile.

So Stubborn, can we finally get what is it you intend by OCAC?

Who is a Catholic? Does it coincide with Baptism or not? (I ask in vain)

Look, contrary to explicit teaching of Trent, you said; "Have you lost it completely? The Sacrament's matter is contrition, confession, satisfaction. There can be no remission of the sin of Heresy without the Penitent recognising it and abjuring it."

So if you refuse to listen to Trent, I do not expect you to listen to anything I have to say, even when I presented Trent to you to prove OCAC.

Trent says in danger of death, no matter what the sin, all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever. You do understand that when one is excommunicated, that means they

But for whatever reason, YOU say that I've lost it, that "there can be to remission of the sin of heresy without the penitent recognizing it and abjuring it" - do you even care what Trent says at all?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #113 on:** January 20, 2016, 11:18:22 AM »

Quote

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.

Ok, so this is the 'error' that you think that OCAC will lead to? I say, who cares? What council/dogma does this 'error' contradict? No one is preaching universal salvation. We're basically arguing about what to call a certain subset of people who have been baptised but never fully accepted the Faith, which would include mainly protestants.

Many church statements say that these people are "outside of the Church". ok. But, receiving baptism also makes them a member of the church. So, these people are former members, but whom the Church still has authority over. It's quite theologically complicated and i have nothing new to add, but I still don't see the problem with people having some leeway in this debate, as it hasn't been defined clearly enough to be black and white. (and how could it be? Protestantism has only been around for 500 yrs. No Church Father had to deal with this problem.)

I feel we need to start a new thread about how this 'error' leads to another 'error' because something is missing.

Stubborn · « **Reply #114 on:** January 20, 2016, 12:10:05 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Stubborn
Quote from: Bellator Dei
Quote from: Stubborn
Trent teaches it has *always* been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be *no reservation* at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins *and censures whatever*

Stubborn,

Is the prot, baptist, lutheran, who was properly baptized but rejects the Catholic Faith, included as a penitent?

No.
That has already been asked and answered and has zero to do with this subject, all it does is make Desmond more confused.

This thread is primarily focused on the ipso facto excommunicant.

I apologize, my friend - I did not know that this was asked and answered.

How can it be that the prot, baptist, lutheran, validly baptized and at one time (even for a moment) Catholic are excluded as a penitent?

They are excluded because they never had the faith. It can get confusing if you let it, and I am sorry for what I said re: Desmond's confusion, I did not mean it like it came out.

I also look to be proven wrong. I am not trying to maintain that I am right because I honestly do not care so much about that, but so far, no one has been able to dispute that since only Catholics can approach the sacrament of penance, in an emergency even one who has been excommunicated can be absolved from their sins in the sacrament of penance - which means that OCAC.

No prot can do that, no jew can do that, no hindu can do that, only Catholics can go to confession, and in an emergency, even one who is excommunicated is taught to do what only a Catholic can do - get to confession.