Author Topic: "Once Catholic always a Catholic" and the effect of Heresy on membership (Read 13804 times)

Desmond · « **Reply #115 on:** January 20, 2016, 03:27:56 PM »

So Stubborn, you did not read the OP?
If you did, we could have saved ourself 20 pages of futile discussion.

What you call OCAC is very different from what I called the same in the OP.

So, just to be clear, you do not hold that membership coincides with the indelible mark of Baptism?

Do you agree that it can be lost under some circuмstances?

If you clarify this, we may make progress, as we just did.

Desmond · « **Reply #116 on:** January 20, 2016, 03:31:06 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

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?

So let's again be frank.

You take that passage from Trent as to mean the Priest, if there is danger of death, can remove sins, and particularly the sin of heresy, without the Peninent being... penitent and contriving for his sins?

Ergo, independently from the will and disposition/collaboration of the person?

Is this what you mean?

Stubborn · « **Reply #117 on:** January 20, 2016, 04:41:57 PM »

Quote from: Bellator Dei

Quote from: Bellator Dei
Quote from: Stubborn

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.

What is the difference between a prot who was validly baptized (and then rejects the Catholic Faith), and a heretic?

The heretic had the faith, the prot never had it. There are other differences, but in a nutshell, I think that covers it.

Quote from: Desmond

So, just to be clear, you do not hold that membership coincides with the indelible mark of Baptism?

Do you agree that it can be lost under some circuмstances?

If you clarify this, we may make progress, as we just did.

It coincides with the sacrament certainly, because one cannot be Catholic without baptism, but I do not see how baptism in and of itself makes one (an adult) a Catholic. You must have both, baptism and the Catholic faith. Even in the Creed, confessing one baptism for the remission of sins is only one of the things we Catholics must believe.

If we fall into heresy or apostasy or etc. then we commit mortal sin, if we die in that state then we go to hell, Catholic or not, it makes no difference - well, if there is a difference, we should expect that our suffering will be greater than non-Catholics.

But *for Catholics*, no matter what their sin, in an emergency it does not matter what offense we're guilty of, we can still be absolved in the sacrament of penance - which is something only Catholics can do.

So when the issue confuses, remember the fundamental teaching that no matter what our heresy, excom, mortal sin, etc., when in danger of death, we always can still go to confession, something non-Catholics cannot do. One reason that many heretics, schismatics, etc. do not take advantage of this, is likely because as they lived, so they shall die - in their sins.

If I am wrong, please tell me where I erred.

Stubborn · « **Reply #118 on:** January 20, 2016, 04:46:09 PM »

Quote from: Desmond

Quote from: Stubborn

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?

So let's again be frank.

You take that passage from Trent as to mean the Priest, if there is danger of death, can remove sins, and particularly the sin of heresy, without the Peninent being... penitent and contriving for his sins?

Ergo, independently from the will and disposition/collaboration of the person?

Is this what you mean?

As far as I am concerned, as far as the Church is concerned, every time anyone walks into the confessional, they are a sincere penitent, seeking forgiveness for their sins - or they commit additional sin of sacrilege.

If you choose to think that sinners go to confession for some other reason than to get their sins forgiven, then I do not know how to answer that other than to say, that is not Catholic thinking.

McCork · « **Reply #119 on:** January 20, 2016, 06:32:02 PM »

Quote from: Stubborn

The heretic had the faith, the prot never had it. There are other differences, but in a nutshell, I think that covers it.

That is a DIRECT contradiction. The term "heretic" means as person does NOT have the faith!