Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: Quo vadis Domine on October 01, 2024, 02:04:34 PM
-
Stubborn erroneously claims that the heretic Martin Luther remained a Catholic until his “bitter end”. I’m interested to see if anyone cares to defend this heterodox claim.
-
No one says that. You're twisting his words. You're a bad-willed moron.
-
During the so-called "reformation", it wasn't immediately clear at what point the parties involved ceased to be Catholic. That came later. Trent defined a lot of things.
Excommunication, all by itself, does not cause a person to cease to be a Catholic.
-
Excommunication, all by itself, does not cause a person to cease to be a Catholic.
Exactly.
Also, the saying "Once a catholic, always a catholic" is not meant to be some dogma/doctrine. It's a saying. Like all sayings, there's some truth to it and there's also some things left unsaid.
-
No one says that. You're twisting his words. You're a bad-willed moron.
No, he's not. He said that here:
Question About V2 Popes' Infallibility - page 8 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/question-about-v2-popes'-infallibility/msg954649/#msg954649)
What does Once a Catholic, always a Catholic mean to you? Likely it's heresy to you. In the case of Fr. Luther, he remained a Catholic till his bitter end, excommunicated and and guilty of the public mortal sins of heresy, apostacy and schism, and you can add adultery and whatever other public mortal sins you know of.
-
No one says that. You're twisting his words. You're a bad-willed moron.
Another one of your lies. Please demonstrate how I twisted his words?
-
No, he's not. He said that here:
Question About V2 Popes' Infallibility - page 8 - Crisis in the Church - Catholic Info (cathinfo.com) (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/question-about-v2-popes'-infallibility/msg954649/#msg954649)
What does Once a Catholic, always a Catholic mean to you? Likely it's heresy to you. In the case of Fr. Luther, he remained a Catholic till his bitter end, excommunicated and and guilty of the public mortal sins of heresy, apostacy and schism, and you can add adultery and whatever other public mortal sins you know of.
Thank you Vermont! I’m really sick of this guy’s lies and incessant attacks. I think he can’t handle when I corner him with logic, it’s like using a crucifix with Dracula. :laugh1:
-
Excommunication, all by itself, does not cause a person to cease to be a Catholic.
Very true.
-
Seen from a different point of view, he wouldn't had needed being re-baptized had he repented. The Catholic (Christian) mark stays no matter what.
-
This whole debate is a matter of semantics. Many of you (but not all) refuse to see the other side and just argue. It's childish.
-
Seen from a different point of view, he wouldn't had needed being re-baptized had he repented. The Catholic (Christian) mark stays no matter what.
You’re right. The sacramental character is always there.
-
I guess I'm not understanding what there is even an argument about on this one. Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders are Sacraments that leave an indelible mark on the soul. If one is using the fact of an indelible mark as the only criterion for a person to be labelled "Catholic", then yes, Luther is still a Catholic, even as he agonizes in Hell. But Church teaching, such as Mystici Corporis (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html) paragraph 22, explains that one can separate himself from the Church, rendering the application of the term "Catholic" to someone such as Luther untenable in any practical sense of the word:
22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jєωs or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html
-
I guess I'm not understanding what there is even an argument about on this one. Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders are Sacraments that leave an indelible mark on the soul. If one is using the fact of an indelible mark as the only criterion for a person to be labelled "Catholic", then yes, Luther is still a Catholic, even as he agonizes in Hell. But Church teaching, such as Mystici Corporis (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html) paragraph 22, explains that one can separate himself from the Church, rendering the application of the term "Catholic" to someone such as Luther untenable in any practical sense of the word:
You would think.
-
I guess I'm not understanding what there is even an argument about on this one. Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders are Sacraments that leave an indelible mark on the soul. If one is using the fact of an indelible mark as the only criterion for a person to be labelled "Catholic", then yes, Luther is still a Catholic, even as he agonizes in Hell. But Church teaching, such as Mystici Corporis (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html) paragraph 22, explains that one can separate himself from the Church, rendering the application of the term "Catholic" to someone such as Luther untenable in any practical sense of the word:
Thank you! Some sanity interspersed between Pax’s and Stubborn’s idiocy.
-
I guess I'm not understanding what there is even an argument about on this one. Baptism, Confirmation, and Holy Orders are Sacraments that leave an indelible mark on the soul. If one is using the fact of an indelible mark as the only criterion for a person to be labelled "Catholic", then yes, Luther is still a Catholic, even as he agonizes in Hell. But Church teaching, such as Mystici Corporis (https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi.html) paragraph 22, explains that one can separate himself from the Church, rendering the application of the term "Catholic" to someone such as Luther untenable in any practical sense of the word:
This distinction between indelible mark (sacramental catholic) vs actual catholic in good standing (Faith practicing catholic)....it has been explained about 1,000x on this site. And about 50x just in the last 2 days. I'm glad people finally "get" what we've already said.
It's theory vs practice.
Thank you! Some sanity interspersed between Pax’s and Stubborn’s idiocy.
How is what he said "sanity" when he said the exact same thing as I did, just using different words?
:jester: Just because you didn't understand HOW we explained something, doesn't mean we were wrong.
-
This distinction between indelible mark (sacramental catholic) vs actual catholic in good standing (Faith practicing catholic)....it has been explained about 1,000x on this site. And about 50x just in the last 2 days. I'm glad people finally "get" what we've already said.
It's theory vs practice.
How is what he said "sanity" when he said the exact same thing as I did, just using different words?
:jester: Just because you didn't understand HOW we explained something, doesn't mean we were wrong.
If I told you that Bruce Jenner was a man, just to contradict me, you would insist he was a woman with all the attached pronouns! :laugh2:
-
Theory/technicality vs practice. It's a common distinction. Both are right, from a certain point of view.
Technically - Polar Bears are not white. Their skin is jet black and their fur is translucent, which appears white because it reflects the snow.
Practice - Polar Bears appear white.
Both are true, from a different point of view.
I'm sorry you are incapable of looking at things from multiple perspectives. The problem is not with the facts; the problem is with YOU.
-
Theory/technicality vs practice. It's a common distinction. Both are right, from a certain point of view.
Technically - Polar Bears are not white. Their skin is jet black and their fur is translucent, which appears white because it reflects the snow.
Practice - Polar Bears appear white.
Both are true, from a different point of view.
I'm sorry you are incapable of looking at things from multiple perspectives. The problem is not with the facts; the problem is with YOU.
You mimic Ladislaus’ bitterness, but without the brains. Can I call you Ladlite?
-
This distinction between indelible mark (sacramental catholic) vs actual catholic in good standing (Faith practicing catholic)....it has been explained about 1,000x on this site. And about 50x just in the last 2 days. I'm glad people finally "get" what we've already said.
It's theory vs practice.
How is what he said "sanity" when he said the exact same thing as I did, just using different words?
:jester: Just because you didn't understand HOW we explained something, doesn't mean we were wrong.
Actually, only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. - Pius XII
Please post the link where you and Stubborn explained that a Catholic can be separated from the Church (and therefore no longer be a member/Catholic).
I don't recall any such post.
-
Major - Only Catholics can receive the indelible marks of the sacraments.
Minor - Even heretics and schismatics still retain their indelible marks.
Conclusion - Heretics and schismatics are still catholic (in theory) because they retain their indelible marks and they can become catholic again in a split-second of repentence.
This is the theory/technical answer.
The practical answer is...obviously a heretic/schismatic is not a catholic, because they don't practice the Faith.
Theory vs practice. It's a true and legitimate distinction. You can argue all you want, but the technical definition does not change.
-
Major - Only Catholics can receive the indelible marks of the sacraments.
Minor - Even heretics and schismatics still retain their indelible marks.
Conclusion - Heretics and schismatics are still catholic (in theory) because they retain their indelible marks and they can become catholic again in a split-second of repentence.
This is the theory/technical answer.
The practical answer is...obviously a heretic/schismatic is not a catholic, because they don't practice the Faith.
Theory vs practice. It's a true and legitimate distinction. You can argue all you want, but the technical definition does not change.
“Heretics and schismatics are still catholic (in theory) because they retain their indelible marks and they can become catholic again in a split-second of repentence.
This is rich! The guy can’t even see the contradiction in his own sentence. :facepalm:
-
They are catholic (in theory) but not (practice). Why is this so complicated? A child should be able to understand this.
Again, your refusal (or inability) to recognize distinctions is not a problem with reality (for in reality, these distinctions do exist). It's a problem with YOU.
-
Major - Only Catholics can receive the indelible marks of the sacraments.
Minor - Even heretics and schismatics still retain their indelible marks.
Conclusion - Heretics and schismatics are still catholic (in theory) because they retain their indelible marks and they can become catholic again in a split-second of repentence.
This is the theory/technical answer.
The practical answer is...obviously a heretic/schismatic is not a catholic, because they don't practice the Faith.
Theory vs practice. It's a true and legitimate distinction. You can argue all you want, but the technical definition does not change.
Let me help you out here….
Major - Only Catholics have received the indelible marks of the sacraments.
Minor - Even heretics and schismatics retain their indelible marks.
Conclusion - Heretics and schismatics are not Catholics because they don’t profess the True Faith, but because they retain their indelible mark of baptism they can become Catholic again if they repent and once again profess the True Faith.
-
You just re-wrote what I already have said about 10x. Thanks for finally getting it.
But honestly, you just don't like the theoretical aspect of things. Suit yourself. But it's still true.
Conclusion - Heretics and schismatics are not Catholics because they don’t profess the True Faith, but because they retain their indelible mark of baptism they (are catholics in theory) and can become Catholic again if they repent and once again profess the True Faith.
-
I'll log in for just a second to help out here. I've been having this argument with Stubborn for many years.
Problem here is the equivocal use of the term "Catholic".
That Luther remained Catholic simpliciter, nego. That Luther remained Catholic secundum quid, concedo.
Basically, those who have the indelible mark of Baptism remain Catholic in potentia but not in actu. This remaining Catholic "potentially" does not translate to his having remained Catholic actually.
Finally, what's really at issue isn't his loosely having remained "Catholic" (in some sense not yet defined here in this argument) but about the criteria for membership in the Church. When I argued with Stubborn, I held that no Catholic theologian has ever held that the Baptismal character alone sufficed for membership in the Church. I was mistaken. In his thorough survey regarding the theological history of membership in the Church, Msgr. Fenton pointed out that one theologian held this position, but it pretty much died with him. There are also a small handful that maintained, for instance, that occult heretics lost membership in the Church, but that opinion too was almost universally abandoned.
After Trent and St. Robert, nearly all theologians held that the requirements for membership in the Church included: 1) Baptismal character, 2) profession of the true faith, 3) formal subjection to the Supreme Pontiff, 4) not having been (justly) excommunicated. According to St. Robert, and pretty much everyone after him, those who lack even ONE of these criteria were not members of the Church.
So, remaining a Catholic "in potency" is why (in some cases .. not all) a heretic may approach the Sacrament of Penance. Now, this individual of course would be absolved of the SIN of heresy, especially if the heresy had never been manifest in the external forum (i.e. remained occult). Returning to the Church, depending upon the notoriety of the heresy, might tacitly entail a restoration of professing the faith (see criterion #2 for membership), but in other case (with greater notoriety), a public profession may be required to restore membership in the Church.
So, St. Robert, likening the Baptismal character to a brand (say, on a sheep) states that once the sheep has been separated from the fold, the brand (mark) simply indicates that the sheep USED to belong to the fold, even if it's no longer actually a part of it. Now, the owner, by virtue of this brand, can still claim legal de jure ownership of the sheep, but it doesn't change the fact that it's now de facto no longer actually part of the fold (yet another distinction here). Now, with the discovery of modern science, we can liken the character to DNA. If a part of your body (say, a finger) gets chopped off, it's no longer part of the body, but the DNA indicates that it used to belong to the body and used to be part of the body, but now that it's been separated from the rest of the body, it is no longer in a position to be kept alive by the body's animal soul, and is therefore severed. It can no longer function as part oft he body, while retaining this characteristic that identifies it as having once been part of it.
As for its concrete application to the pope question, we don't really know why Cajetan, for instance, held his deponendus position, i.e. whether he believed that there could be some partial membership in the Church or whether he believed that being Catholic in potentia (in potency) sufficed to retain jurisdiction in the Church.
Now carry on.
Bottom line here is that no one is defining the term "Catholic" being thrown about or making the proper distinctions regarding the term.
Being "Catholic" in some loose sense vs. membership in the Church.
Being Catholic simplicter vs. secundum quid.
Being Catholic in potentia vs. in re.
Being Catholic de jure vs. de facto.
-
You just re-wrote what I already have said about 10x. Thanks for finally getting it.
But honestly, you just don't like the theoretical aspect of things. Suit yourself. But it's still true.
Conclusion - Heretics and schismatics are not Catholics because they don’t profess the True Faith, but because they retain their indelible mark of baptism they (are catholics in theory) and can become Catholic again if they repent and once again profess the True Faith.
By virtue of the Baptismal character, they are Catholics (i.e. members of the Catholic Church) "in potency" even if not "actually". If you actually look at Pius XII's teaching of the matter, he actually makes this very distinction saying that only those are ACTUALLY members of the Church who have not been separated by heresy or schism.
So the question becomes whether being a "potential" member of the Church suffices for someone to continue exercising jurisidction / authority in the Church.
In many cases, if only the proper distinctions are applied, where Quo is arguing from the sense of being a Catholic "actually" (in re or in actu) whereas Stubborn is arguing from being a Catholic in potentia, you'd probably both realize that you're not in all that much disagreement ... except are simply using the term "Catholic" too loosely, without defining it, in other words simpliciter, whereas in fact you're both considering the term from two different aspects or secundum quid considerations.
-
Theory vs practice.
Potentially vs actually.
Same thing I’ve been saying.
QVD has a problem because he hates distinctions and likes everything black n white. Which is why he likes straight Sedevancantism and is opposed to any nuance of the idea (ie sedeprivationism…human/govt papal office vs spiritual papal office). For him, everything is ‘either-or’.
It’s probably the root cause of 50% of the debates on this site. 1) Lack of distinctions and 2) those who vehemently oppose all distinctions.
-
Stubborn erroneously claims that the heretic Martin Luther remained a Catholic until his “bitter end”.
🤦♂️🤦♂️🤦♂️
-
QVD has a problem because he hates distinctions and likes everything black n white.
In this case, though, I see where he's coming from. If you make the statement that Luther remained a Catholic (despite his heresy, excommunication, etc.), that WILL be misinterpreted and could cause scandal, since no one will be thinking of the distinction that he remains somehow potentially or de jure Catholic. That sounds like a categorical statement and you just can't say stuff like that. He's right that, taken at face value, the statement is absurd, extremely erroneous, etc. While I've struggled with getting Quo to understand distinctions at times, Stubborn is utterly impervious to them, and he does more damage to his cause by making ridiculous categorical statements that are at times objectively heretical.
-
QV asked a barrage of questions in that thread just so he could do what he did, i.e. post one quote of mine as if that's all I said. QV, you're a wicked sede you are. Whatever makes you happy I guess.
He and 2V selectively quoted/posted what I said:
"What does Once a Catholic, always a Catholic mean to you? Likely it's heresy to you. In the case of Fr. Luther, he remained a Catholic till his bitter end, excommunicated and and guilty of the public mortal sins of heresy, apostacy and schism, and you can add adultery and whatever other public mortal sins you know of."
He did not bother to post what I said first:
"Oh bother, remember, Once a Catholic, always a Catholic. He faced God as a Catholic priest. Did he also face God with the mortal sins of heresy and losing the faith? We don't know, but losing the faith was his own doing, not God's.
The deserter from the army still belongs to the army - as a deserter, the army did not desert him, he still belongs to the army - and when they catch him he will be punished for deserting."
Meaning, like a deserter, the Church still claims jurisdiction over him and demonstrated this via his excommunication = he is still a Catholic. Does the Church excommunicate non-Catholics? (QV will never answer) The primary purpose of excommunications is medicinal, for the Catholic sinner to repent.
If Luther would have decided to repent on his death bed, he could have received the Last Rites on the spot - which ONLY Catholics can receive. And the Church would rejoice!
If he is not a Catholic, how is it that he could receive the Last Rights? (Like always, QV will ignore this question and go right on as if it's not there.)
This above explanation I gave him more than once in that thread altogether eludes him, or befuddles him, or he is blinded to it, or it confuses him - because it is altogether contrary to his sede opinion-turned-doctrine.
The last post in that thread....
I said:
"In one sense, the heretic, as well as you and others, may or may not believe he is a Catholic, that's "in one sense."
In the other sense, if he was ever Catholic then the Church considers him a Catholic in mortal sin, one who needs to confess his sins and amend his life. That's "in the other sense."
I think you know this already, but simply will not accept it, that's what I think."
His reply:
"Well, at least Stubborn makes sense of what you wrote, now you know you’re in trouble." (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/laugh1.gif)
To me, this demonstrates his intentions are strictly malevolent.
-
QV asked a barrage of questions in that thread just so he could do what he did, i.e. post one quote of mine as if that's all I said. QV, you're a wicked sede you are. Whatever makes you happy I guess.
He and 2V selectively quoted/posted what I said:
"What does Once a Catholic, always a Catholic mean to you? Likely it's heresy to you. In the case of Fr. Luther, he remained a Catholic till his bitter end, excommunicated and and guilty of the public mortal sins of heresy, apostacy and schism, and you can add adultery and whatever other public mortal sins you know of."
He did not bother to post what I said first: Meaning, like a deserter, the Church still claims jurisdiction over him and demonstrated this via his excommunication = he is still a Catholic. Does the Church excommunicate non-Catholics? (QV will never answer) The primary purpose of excommunications is medicinal, for the Catholic sinner to repent.
If Luther would have decided to repent on his death bed, he could have received the Last Rites on the spot - which ONLY Catholics can receive. And the Church would rejoice!
If he is not a Catholic, how is it that he could receive the Last Rights? (Like always, QV will ignore this question and go right on as if it's not there.)
This above explanation I gave him more than once in that thread altogether eludes him, or befuddles him, or he is blinded to it, or it confuses him - because it is altogether contrary to his sede opinion-turned-doctrine.
The last post in that thread....
I said:
His reply:To me, this demonstrates his intentions are strictly malevolent.
I'm not interested in arguing with you on this Stubborn. Whether the quote was "selective" or not, it's clear from your other quotes that you believe that Martin Luther was Catholic until his death.
My main purpose in quoting the "selective" quote was only to show that Pax Vobis was wrong to accuse QvD of "twisting your words" with that quote when you said exactly what he said you said.
-
I'm not interested in arguing with you on this Stubborn. Whether the quote was "selective" or not, it's clear from your other quotes that you believe that Martin Luther was Catholic until his death.
My main purpose in quoting the "selective" quote was only to show that Pax Vobis was wrong to accuse QvD of "twisting your words" with that quote when you said exactly what he said you said.
That was a small part of a whole conversation, you took both it and Pax out of context by posting only that quote.
You are never "interested in arguing" because you will not face the challenge, because of the truth of the matter.
Case in point, no arguing here, simply answer the clear question with a clear answer.....
If he is not a Catholic, how is it that he could receive the Last Rights? (Like always, QV will ignore this question and go right on as if it's not there.)
-
Let me help you out here….
Major - Only Catholics have received the indelible marks of the sacraments.
Minor - Even heretics and schismatics retain their indelible marks.
Conclusion - Heretics and schismatics are not Catholics because they don’t profess the True Faith, but because they retain their indelible mark of baptism they can become Catholic again if they repent and once again profess the True Faith.
From what I have gathered, I think the bolded is the key. They lose their membership but can regain their membership. They do not remain Catholic. The question is whether everyone agrees with that.
-
That was a small part of a whole conversation, you took both it and Pax out of context by posting only that quote.
You are never "interested in arguing" because you will not face the challenge, because of the truth of the matter.
Case in point, no arguing here, simply answer the clear question with a clear answer.....
If he is not a Catholic, how is it that he could receive the Last Rights? (Like always, QV will ignore this question and go right on as if it's not there.)
And all this post proves is that you still think he remains Catholic until his death.
No, Stubborn. I like you (and respect that you are one of the few posters here who will try to play above board and apologize when needed..unlike posters like Pax Vobis and Ladislaus), but I no longer argue with you because it is futile to argue with you. That is why my focus in the other thread was to ask you for Church teaching. THAT is what I want to see, not your or anyone else's opinion.
ETA: I just saw you were asking me the question. I'd answer it. But it won't be enough for you. That is why it is futile.
-
From what I have gathered, I think the bolded is the key. They lose their membership but can retain their membership. They do not remain Catholic. The question is whether everyone agrees with that.
No, a Catholic does not forfeit his membership anymore than the army solder who deserts from the army forfeits his.
The repentant heretic on his death bed can receive the sacraments on the spot by any priest precisely because he is a Catholic, and wants to repent - see the quote from Trent in the other thread I posted for you. The same goes for confession, the priest says "I absolve you in the name of the...." The priest does not say: "In case thou art a Catholic I absolve you...." The Church does not administer her sacraments to non-Catholics.
-
There is an excellent explanation of 'reserved sins' in the 1917 CIC available online in a thesis by a Vinson Joseph:
https://folia.unifr.ch/unifr/docuмents/304577
Chapter III deals with reserved sins, Canons 893-900, and the author also compares with the 1983 CIC (and the process in Eastern Churches in the rest of the thesis).
With the 1917 CIC anyone aware of a censure, such as excommunication, cannot have sins forgiven by confession in the ordinary manner before the censure is remitted - except in certain, limited, circuмstances like danger of death. How the censure is removed, and by whom, is also described.
-
And all this post proves is that you still think he remains Catholic until his death.
No, Stubborn. I like you (and respect that you are one of the few posters here who will try to play above board and apologize when needed..unlike posters like Pax Vobis and Ladislaus), but I no longer argue with you because it is futile to argue with you. That is why my focus in the other thread was to ask you for Church teaching. THAT is what I want to see, not your or anyone else's opinion.
ETA: I just saw you were asking me the question. I'd answer it. But it won't be enough for you. That is why it is futile.
Well, I don't want to argue with you either, yet you should answer it, at least to yourself because this is something all sedes should seriously deal with because it's high on the list of things that are in the sede opinion-turned-doctrine.
-
The question is not phrased well. St. Alphonsus says in his History of the Heresies says that Martin Luther died while on the commode, his head ending up at the base of the toilet. Did he have the indelible marks of Baptism, Confirmation and the Priesthood? Yes. So do many other heretic priests. The question is not phrased well, nor are the answers. This is why I answered, "I do no know."
-
Theory vs practice.
Potentially vs actually.
Same thing I’ve been saying.
QVD has a problem because he hates distinctions and likes everything black n white. Which is why he likes straight Sedevancantism and is opposed to any nuance of the idea (ie sedeprivationism…human/govt papal office vs spiritual papal office). For him, everything is ‘either-or’.
It’s probably the root cause of 50% of the debates on this site. 1) Lack of distinctions and 2) those who vehemently oppose all distinctions.
This is not true. I have no problem with making distinctions and you even acknowledged that in my post above by saying: “You just re-wrote what I already have said about 10x. Thanks for finally getting it.”
Your problem is that you didn’t recognize that it was Stubborn who used just the word “Catholic” instead of making any distinction between being a member of the Catholic Church and having the baptismal character. You tried to give Stubborn an “out” from adhering to his heterodox beliefs of “once a Catholic always a Catholic” and “Luther remained a Catholic till his bitter end”.
As you can see from his post above to Vermont, he makes it clear that when he says “remains a Catholic” he really means being a member of the Church: “No, a Catholic does not forfeit his membership anymore than the army solder who deserts from the army forfeits his.”
This is undeniable proof that he erroneously believes that Martin Luther was a member of the Catholic Church until the day he died. No true sane Catholic can possibly hold that position without being, at the very least, in the state of sin.
It’s obvious as to why he believes this idiocy. It’s because he knows that once he accepts the true teaching of the Church, that one can lose membership in the Church by heresy, he will have to admit that Bergoglio isn’t a real pope.
Stubborn has a bad habit of spreading dangerous error on this forum and it’s my duty as a Catholic to try and expose it as best as I can.
-
The question is not phrased well. St. Alphonsus says in his History of the Heresies says that Martin Luther died while on the commode, his head ending up at the base of the toilet. Did he have the indelible marks of Baptism, Confirmation and the Priesthood? Yes. So do many other heretic priests. The question is not phrased well, nor are the answers. This is why I answered, "I do no know."
If you read the thread I think you’ll understand it better.
-
If you read the thread I think you’ll understand it better.
If he is not a Catholic, how is it that he could receive the Last Rights? (Like always, QV will ignore this question and go right on as if it's not there.)
-
If he is not a Catholic, how is it that he could receive the Last Rights? (Like always, QV will ignore this question and go right on as if it's not there.)
In danger of death, the penitent who overtly displays repentance, can once again be admitted to the sacraments. If the former Catholic is not cognizant of what is going on, I believe, with people close to him testifying that he showed some overt desire to be reconciled with the Church, the priest can conditionally give the sacraments. There must be some sign of repentance! Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
-
In danger of death, the penitent who overtly displays repentance, can once again be admitted to the sacraments. If the former Catholic is not cognizant of what is going on, I believe, with people close to him testifying that he showed some overt desire to be reconciled with the Church, the priest can conditionally give the sacraments. There must be some sign of repentance! Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
I understand it just fine. You're the one screwed up. Look back a few posts where I said: "The repentant heretic on his death bed can receive the sacraments on the spot by any priest precisely because he is a Catholic..." Suddenly you are agreeing with me - while acting as if I'm the one who doesn't understand. :facepalm:
The Church does not administer sacraments to non-Catholics, yet all of a sudden, when faced with answering a clear question for once, here you are admitting correctly that the Church will indeed administer the sacrament to a heretic, a "former Catholic" - whom you have repeatedly insisted is not a Catholic.
-
I understand it just fine. You're the one screwed up. Look back a few posts where I said: "The repentant heretic on his death bed can receive the sacraments on the spot by any priest precisely because he is a Catholic..." Suddenly you are agreeing with me - while acting as if I'm the one who doesn't understand. :facepalm:
The Church does not administer sacraments to non-Catholics, yet all of a sudden, when faced with answering a clear question for once, here you are admitting correctly that the Church will indeed administer the sacrament to a heretic, a "former Catholic" - whom you have repeatedly insisted is not a Catholic.
This is getting frustrating. It’s done CONDITIONALLY. If the person shows no repentance or hasn’t displayed any sign of repentance before he became incognizant, he CAN’T be given the sacraments. If you are correct, he would be given the sacraments unconditionally, but the Church doesn’t do that. The Church refuses the sacraments to NON-CATHOLICS. At the point when they repent and are in danger of death, because time is of the essence, they are presumably back as members of the Church.
Here is what I wrote and I highlighted the word you conveniently left out:
“In danger of death, the penitent who overtly displays repentance, can once again be admitted to the sacraments. If the former Catholic is not cognizant of what is going on, I believe, with people close to him testifying that he showed some overt desire to be reconciled with the Church, the priest can conditionally give the sacraments. There must be some sign of repentance! Why is this so difficult for you to understand?”
Do you understand what is meant when a sacrament is given conditionally?
-
This is getting frustrating. It’s done CONDITIONALLY. If the person shows no repentance or hasn’t displayed any sign of repentance before he became incognizant, he CAN’T be given the sacraments. If you are correct, he would be given the sacraments unconditionally, but the Church doesn’t do that. The Church refuses the sacraments to NON-CATHOLICS. At the point when they repent and are in danger of death, because time is of the essence, they are presumably back as members of the Church.
Here is what I wrote and I highlighted the word you conveniently left out:
“In danger of death, the penitent who overtly displays repentance, can once again be admitted to the sacraments. If the former Catholic is not cognizant of what is going on, I believe, with people close to him testifying that he showed some overt desire to be reconciled with the Church, the priest can conditionally give the sacraments. There must be some sign of repentance! Why is this so difficult for you to understand?”
Do you understand what is meant when a sacrament is given conditionally?
We are *talking* about a penitent. You highlighted the wrong word, then added your own mixed up criteria to your own mixed up idea.
The fact that the priest administers the sacrament to a heretic at all *should* show you that the heretic is a Catholic.
You even admitted that The Church does not administer her sacraments to those she knows is non-Catholics, not ever. You neglected to add: *not even conditionally.* Period. Apparently you do not believe this, or don't know what to believe - which is what your last few posts demonstrate.
You are the one who does not understand what a conditional sacrament is. For the Last Rites it's: "If thou art still alive" -not- "If thou hast overtly displayed repentance when I wasn't (or was?) looking."
If the penitent heretic can still communicate, obviously the priest would confirm his desire to receive the sacrament, but if he cannot communicate and is still alive, then Per Trent, the priest may administer the sacrament: "all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution."
Further, should the penitent recover and the very next day he goes back to being a heretic, proving that the whole "death bed episode" was insincere, a farce and a lie, then he only adds to his sins. And yet, if a year later he's back on his death bed, all of the above could well be repeated. Why? Because once a Catholic, always a Catholic.
-
We are *talking* about a penitent. You highlighted the wrong word, then added your own mixed up criteria to your own mixed up idea.
The fact that the priest administers the sacrament to a heretic at all *should* show you that the heretic is a Catholic.
You even admitted that The Church does not administer her sacraments to those she knows is non-Catholics, not ever. You neglected to add: *not even conditionally.* Period. Apparently you do not believe this, or don't know what to believe - which is what your last few posts demonstrate.
You are the one who does not understand what a conditional sacrament is. For the Last Rites it's: "If thou art still alive" -not- "If thou hast overtly displayed repentance when I wasn't (or was?) looking."
If the penitent heretic can still communicate, obviously the priest would confirm his desire to receive the sacrament, but if he cannot communicate and is still alive, then Per Trent, the priest may administer the sacrament: "all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution."
Further, should the penitent recover and the very next day he goes back to being a heretic, proving that the whole "death bed episode" was insincere, a farce and a lie, then he only adds to his sins. And yet, if a year later he's back on his death bed, all of the above could well be repeated. Why? Because once a Catholic, always a Catholic.
Your thoughts are so convoluted.
When the penitent demonstrates that he wants to be reconciled with the Church, he makes his confession and is given absolution. It seems he becomes a member of the Church at the point he desires to become a Catholic. Extreme Unction is then given AFTERWARDS! He is given Extreme Unction conditionally ONLY if there are signs of repentance prior to him being incognizant.
-
1917 Code of Canon Law:
731.2. it is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church."
-
Your thoughts are so convoluted.
When the penitent demonstrates that he wants to be reconciled with the Church, he makes his confession and is given absolution. It seems he becomes a member of the Church at the point he desires to become a Catholic. Extreme Unction is then given AFTERWARDS! He is given Extreme Unction conditionally ONLY if there are signs of repentance prior to him being incognizant.
What do you think a penitent is? Someone who does not want to be reconciled with the Church?
No, it does not "seem" that he, on account of having a change of heart and desiring it, becomes a member of the Church - where do you get this stuff?
-
What do you think a penitent is? Someone who does not want to be reconciled with the Church?
No, it does not "seem" that he, on account of having a change of heart and desiring it, becomes a member of the Church - where do you get this stuff?
The reason I used the words “it seems” is because I’m not 100% sure exactly when it happens as I’m not a theologian and haven’t studied the subject in depth.
Now, look at you. You pontificate in direct contradiction to every theologian and canonist who teach that heresy separates one from being a member of the Church.
Have some introspection man. You’re the only one on this forum who thinks that Martin Luther was a member of the Catholic Church until “his bitter end”. That is plainly heterodox and just plain sick.
-
1917 Code of Canon Law:
731.2. it is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church."
Thank you!
-
The reason I used the words “it seems” is because I’m not 100% sure exactly when it happens as I’m not a theologian and haven’t studied the subject in depth.
Well you keep looking and you will find "it happened" when he first became a Catholic.
-
1917 Code of Canon Law:
731.2. it is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics, even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are reconciled with the Church."
This is an important point, on the practical level....which is all that matters.
-
This is an important point, on the practical level....which is all that matters.
Everyone agrees with this, the disagreement at hand has not changed. At the moment, QV cannot figure out at what point the penitent heretic becomes a Catholic again. At least he's made it that far.
-
Everyone agrees with this, the disagreement at hand has not changed. At the moment, QV cannot figure out at what point the penitent heretic becomes a Catholic again. At least he's made it that far.
The Good Lord knows I’ve tried to help you and correct your heterodoxy on many issues and for many years. Fiat Voluntas Tua!
-
Both of you keep talking past one another. I'm not sure if it's a comedy or a tragedy.
-
Both of you keep talking past one another. I'm not sure if it's a comedy or a tragedy.
You must have missed my post to you:
Quote from: Pax Vobis on October 01, 2024, 06:46:14 PM (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/did-martin-luther-remain-a-catholic-till-his-bitter-end/msg954724/#msg954724)
Theory vs practice.
Potentially vs actually.
Same thing I’ve been saying.
QVD has a problem because he hates distinctions and likes everything black n white. Which is why he likes straight Sedevancantism and is opposed to any nuance of the idea (ie sedeprivationism…human/govt papal office vs spiritual papal office). For him, everything is ‘either-or’.
It’s probably the root cause of 50% of the debates on this site. 1) Lack of distinctions and 2) those who vehemently oppose all distinctions.
Quote from QVD:
“This is not true. I have no problem with making distinctions and you even acknowledged that in my post above by saying: “You just re-wrote what I already have said about 10x. Thanks for finally getting it.”
Your problem is that you didn’t recognize that it was Stubborn who used just the word “Catholic” instead of making any distinction between being a member of the Catholic Church and having the baptismal character. You tried to give Stubborn an “out” from adhering to his heterodox beliefs of “once a Catholic always a Catholic” and “Luther remained a Catholic till his bitter end”.
As you can see from his post above to Vermont, he makes it clear that when he says “remains a Catholic” he really means being a member of the Church: “No, a Catholic does not forfeit his membership anymore than the army solder who deserts from the army forfeits his.”
This is undeniable proof that he erroneously believes that Martin Luther was a member of the Catholic Church until the day he died. No true sane Catholic can possibly hold that position without being, at the very least, in the state of sin.
It’s obvious as to why he believes this idiocy. It’s because he knows that once he accepts the true teaching of the Church, that one can lose membership in the Church by heresy, he will have to admit that Bergoglio isn’t a real pope.
Stubborn has a bad habit of spreading dangerous error on this forum and it’s my duty as a Catholic to try and expose it as best as I can.”
-
And on the practical side of things, to what ends will this conversation keep going.
We have Pope Francis sitting in the seat of Peter, so does this mean that anyone who leaves the Church since V2 has no way of coming back because 1) Pope Franis is not Catholic and 2) the Bishops who are acting from emergency jurisdiction did not get permission for said people to come back, which can lead some people into a blackhole of hopelessness.
All this talk is interesting from a theological perspective in regards to Martin Luther, but maybe it is causing some to be scared that the are not actually Catholic in the first place (like myself) who was baptized in the 70s joined the Methodist church in the 90s and came back to the Novus ordo in the 2000 and then became a traditional Catholic.
I am pretty sure I have done my due diligence, but I posted just in case others are feeling the same way.
Thoughts?
Ignore me if this a total derailment of the conversation.
-
QVD, you are just as "stubborn" as Stubborn, except the completely opposite. You refuse to admit the truth in potential/in theory, while he continues to refuse to admit the truth in actual/in practical terms.
So, yes, both of you keep talking past one another. Both of you refuse to make distinctions.
I'd say it's more of a tragedy than a comedy at this point.
-
Stubborn erroneously claims that the heretic Martin Luther remained a Catholic until his “bitter end”. I’m interested to see if anyone cares to defend this heterodox claim.
.
No. The Church can expel someone from her membership through excommunication. Once someone is excommunicated, he ceases to be a member of the Church. In the 1917 code this only happens if the excommunication is "vitandus", which is rare.
A person can lose membership in the Church either by his own choice or against his will. The former happens through heresy, schism or apostasy. The latter happens through being excommunicated, but only if he is excommunicated "vitandus".
All of this is pretty standard information that can be found in any pre-Vatican 2 reference work on Catholic theology.
Martin Luther was excommunicated "vitandus", and therefore ceased to be a member of the Church.
-
.
No. The Church can expel someone from her membership through excommunication. Once someone is excommunicated, he ceases to be a member of the Church. In the 1917 code this only happens if the excommunication is "vitandus", which is rare.
A person can lose membership in the Church either by his own choice or against his will. The former happens through heresy, schism or apostasy. The latter happens through being excommunicated, but only if he is excommunicated "vitandus".
All of this is pretty standard information that can be found in any pre-Vatican 2 reference work on Catholic theology.
Martin Luther was excommunicated "vitandus", and therefore ceased to be a member of the Church.
Good post, but it seems to me that his membership in the Church ceased when he became a manifest heretic. I believe that the Church confirmed what most learned Catholics knew when She declared that he was excommunicated and was to be avoided.
-
QVD, you are just as "stubborn" as Stubborn, except the completely opposite. You refuse to admit the truth in potential/in theory, while he continues to refuse to admit the truth in actual/in practical terms.
So, yes, both of you keep talking past one another. Both of you refuse to make distinctions.
I'd say it's more of a tragedy than a comedy at this point.
I’m not quite sure if you didn’t read my post or you’re just assuming that I don’t accept the potentiality of a former member of the Catholic Church to once again join Her Mystical Body. It seems that you try to find any fault (many times nonexistent ones, as in this case) just to argue with me.
Of course I believe in the potential ability of a heretic to regain his membership in the Church. I’ve stated this numerous times, why do you keep insisting that I don’t believe that or don’t see the distinction? What I absolutely don’t accept is that the heretic be considered a “Catholic” or a member of the Church before his repentance. BTW: Using the word “theory” is very imprecise. Fortunately, Ladislaus corrected that for you.
Stubborn erroneously believes that the heretic has never left the Church and is still a member of Her Mystical Body. This is not only false but it’s also possibly blasphemous.
-
Stubborn erroneously believes that the heretic has never left the Church and is still a member of Her Mystical Body. This is not only false but it’s also possibly blasphemous.
It's been explained to you (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/question-about-v2-popes'-infallibility/msg954681/#msg954681) but you have what is apparently an impenetrable wall that guards your error. Your means of escaping is to make it into some sort of joke.
"In one sense, the heretic, as well as you and others, may or may not believe he is a Catholic, that's "in one sense."
In the other sense, if he was ever Catholic then the Church considers him a Catholic in mortal sin, one who needs to confess his sins and amend his life. That's "in the other sense."
Your Reply:
Well, at least Stubborn makes sense of what you wrote, now you know you’re in trouble. (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/laugh1.gif)
A member of the Catholic Church is one of the Church Militant. Like the army deserter, when he deserts his post via heresy, schism, apostacy, he severed himself from the army, the Mystical Body. Yet the army, the Mystical Body still owns that member, that deserter, he is still one of theirs - and because he is still one of theirs, they are both after that deserter to get him to return - by force if necessary for the army, by guilty conscience for the Mystical Body.
Should the deserter ever return to the army, he will be punished for his crimes. Should he ever return to the Mystical Body, he will be a rejoined member with the Mystical Body, no longer severed, he will be forgiven for his sins through the sacrament of penance, then he again has access to all the benefits exclusive to all members.
in both cases, the deserter, run tho he may, could not escape the fact that he still belonged to the army / still belonged to the Mystical Body, which is why a penitent heretic on his deathbed, unlike non-Catholics, can still receive the sacrament same as every other member of the Mystical Body.
You probably consider this blasphemous.
-
It's been explained to you (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/question-about-v2-popes'-infallibility/msg954681/#msg954681) but you have what is apparently an impenetrable wall that guards your error. Your means of escaping is to make it into some sort of joke.A member of the Catholic Church is one of the Church Militant. Like the army deserter, when he deserts his post via heresy, schism, apostacy, he severed himself from the army, the Mystical Body. Yet the army, the Mystical Body still owns that member, that deserter, he is still one of theirs - and because he is still one of theirs, they are both after that deserter to get him to return - by force if necessary for the army, by guilty conscience for the Mystical Body.
Should the deserter ever return to the army, he will be punished for his crimes. Should he ever return to the Mystical Body, he will be a rejoined member with the Mystical Body, no longer severed, he will be forgiven for his sins through the sacrament of penance, then he again has access to all the benefits exclusive to all members.
in both cases, the deserter, run tho he may, could not escape the fact that he still belonged to the army / still belonged to the Mystical Body, which is why a penitent heretic on his deathbed, unlike non-Catholics, can still receive the sacrament same as every other member of the Mystical Body.
You probably consider this blasphemous.
Is your so called “deserter” an “actual” member of the Catholic Church for the crime of heresy or is he just “potentially” a member (a former member who only has the potential to rejoin the Mystical Body)?
-
It's been explained to you (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/question-about-v2-popes'-infallibility/msg954681/#msg954681) but you have what is apparently an impenetrable wall that guards your error. Your means of escaping is to make it into some sort of joke.A member of the Catholic Church is one of the Church Militant. Like the army deserter, when he deserts his post via heresy, schism, apostacy, he severed himself from the army, the Mystical Body. Yet the army, the Mystical Body still owns that member, that deserter, he is still one of theirs - and because he is still one of theirs, they are both after that deserter to get him to return - by force if necessary for the army, by guilty conscience for the Mystical Body.
Should the deserter ever return to the army, he will be punished for his crimes. Should he ever return to the Mystical Body, he will be a rejoined member with the Mystical Body, no longer severed, he will be forgiven for his sins through the sacrament of penance, then he again has access to all the benefits exclusive to all members.
in both cases, the deserter, run tho he may, could not escape the fact that he still belonged to the army / still belonged to the Mystical Body, which is why a penitent heretic on his deathbed, unlike non-Catholics, can still receive the sacrament same as every other member of the Mystical Body.
You probably consider this blasphemous.
I agree with your stance, but could you explain the difference between a baptized heretic, and, say, a protestant, when it comes to confession/penance and readmittance to the sacraments? That still isn't clear to me. By the definition of those, such as QvD, who believe that a baptized Catholic turned heretic is no longer Catholic, if they are no longer Catholic, that should put them on the same footing as any other non-Catholic, such as a protestant, muslim, hindu or whatever.
And yet a baptized Catholic can be reconciled with the Church, while the other non-Catholics (protestant, hindu, muslim, etc.) cannot be reconciled. Can you explain the distinction? Thanks! (Perhaps you have explained it already and I missed it).
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/question-about-v2-popes'-infallibility/msg954681/#msg954681)
It's been explained to you (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/question-about-v2-popes'-infallibility/msg954681/#msg954681) but you have what is apparently an impenetrable wall that guards your error.
:facepalm: Stubborn, all you are doing is arguing for one-side of the coin. You are hyper focused on getting everyone to agree that side A is "heads", while you completely ignore the opposite side of the coin. At this point, you are either insane or you are trolling or you are so self-absorbed that you don't care what anyone else says.
Your point is correct, but it's not 100% correct.
-
I agree with your stance, but could you explain the difference between a baptized heretic, and, say, a protestant, when it comes to confession/penance and readmittance to the sacraments? That still isn't clear to me. By the definition of those, such as QvD, who believe that a baptized Catholic turned heretic is no longer Catholic, if they are no longer Catholic, that should put them on the same footing as any other non-Catholic, such as a protestant, muslim, hindu or whatever.
And yet a baptized Catholic can be reconciled with the Church, while the other non-Catholics (protestant, hindu, muslim, etc.) cannot be reconciled. Can you explain the distinction? Thanks! (Perhaps you have explained it already and I missed it).
It all has to do with the faith, specifically, whether or not one has ever had the Catholic faith but no longer does, if so, then he was "once a Catholic."
St. Thomas says that baptism without the faith is of no value, this is why we must both, be baptized and have the faith in order to receive the sacraments because the Church only administers her sacrament to Catholics, in this discussion all those who have never had the Catholic faith are excluded.
To be reconciled, one must necessarily have previously been "conciled," this leaves all those who've never had the Catholic faith out.
I used the army soldier for an example, because "once in the army, always in the army," at least until they discharge him from the army. The difference is the Church never discharges anyone. She is always there nurturing her children and waiting for sinners to repent.
While it is certainly true that we are free to "sever" all ties with our mother, and hate her and become heretical idiots against her, unlike prots, that does not mean that she is not or never was our mother. She was our mother when we had the Catholic faith, she will remain our mother no matter what.
PPXII says:
"22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.....It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit."
The underlined tells us what a Catholic is. Whoever has been baptized and professed the true faith is a Catholic, always will be even if they "separate themselves from the unity of the Body," they will not separate themselves from the Body, they will still be a Catholic *to the Church,* maybe not to you and I, but to the Church they will, even if they do not want to be, even if they convert to Hinduism and tell everyone they are no longer Catholic.....because should they ever choose to repent, the sacrament of penance is there waiting for them.
The rest of PPXII quote tells us that through sin that we can separate ourselves from the unity of the body, not from the Mystical Body - from the *unity* of the Mystical Body. Which is of course what happens when one loses the faith and/or preaches heresies. PPXII goes on to include those excluded from that same unity of the Mystical Body by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/question-about-v2-popes'-infallibility/msg954681/#msg954681):facepalm: Stubborn, all you are doing is arguing for one-side of the coin. You are hyper focused on getting everyone to agree that side A is "heads", while you completely ignore the opposite side of the coin. At this point, you are either insane or you are trolling or you are so self-absorbed that you don't care what anyone else says.
Your point is correct, but it's not 100% correct.
:facepalm: Pax, there is nothing so complicated about this that only those with your high intelligence level are able to comprehend it.
-
:facepalm: Pax, there is nothing so complicated about this that only those with your high intelligence level are able to comprehend it.
Then answer this question that I posted above:
Is your so called “deserter” an “actual” member of the Catholic Church for the crime of heresy or is he just “potentially” a member (a former member who only has the potential to rejoin the Mystical Body)?
-
Then answer this question that I posted above:
Is your so called “deserter” an “actual” member of the Catholic Church for the crime of heresy or is he just “potentially” a member (a former member who only has the potential to rejoin the Mystical Body)?
I'll do more than you do and answer the question, with a question for you to answer.
Is the deserter actually an army man for the crime of desertion or is he just “potentially” an army man (a former army man who only has the potential to rejoin the army)?
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif) Pax, there is nothing so complicated about this that only those with your high intelligence level are able to comprehend it.
There's a fair bit of the sin of uncharitableness when a person refuses to see another's point of view.
-
There's a fair bit of the sin of uncharitableness when a person refuses to see another's point of view.
It's one thing to see it, which I do, it's another thing to agree with it, which I don't.
-
It all has to do with the faith, specifically, whether or not one has ever had the Catholic faith but no longer does, if so, then he was "once a Catholic."
St. Thomas says that baptism without the faith is of no value, this is why we must both, be baptized and have the faith in order to receive the sacraments because the Church only administers her sacrament to Catholics, in this discussion all those who have never had the Catholic faith are excluded.
To be reconciled, one must necessarily have previously been "conciled," this leaves all those who've never had the Catholic faith out.
I used the army soldier for an example, because "once in the army, always in the army," at least until they discharge him from the army. The difference is the Church never discharges anyone. She is always there nurturing her children and waiting for sinners to repent.
While it is certainly true that we are free to "sever" all ties with our mother, and hate her and become heretical idiots against her, unlike prots, that does not mean that she is not or never was our mother. She was our mother when we had the Catholic faith, she will remain our mother no matter what.
PPXII says:
"22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.....It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit."
The underlined tells us what a Catholic is. Whoever has been baptized and professed (NO! The word is “profess”. Present tense NOT past tense “professed” :facepalm:) the true faith is a Catholic, always will be even if they "separate themselves from the unity of the Body," they will not separate themselves from the Body, they will still be a Catholic *to the Church,* maybe not to you and I, but to the Church they will, even if they do not want to be, even if they convert to Hinduism and tell everyone they are no longer Catholic.....because should they ever choose to repent, the sacrament of penance is there waiting for them.
(What total garbage! You now try to twist the pope’s words by saying that he means one can: “separate themselves from the unity of the Body, they will not separate themselves from the body”. You try to make a distinction when there isn’t one which is demonstrated in the pope’s next paragraph. :facepalm:)
The rest of PPXII quote tells us that through sin that we can separate ourselves from the unity of the body, not from the Mystical Body - from the *unity* of the Mystical Body. Which is of course what happens when one loses the faith and/or preaches heresies. PPXII goes on to include those excluded from that same unity of the Mystical Body by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
That is NOT what the pope is saying! Here is the paragraph you conveniently left out:
“Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. It is owing to the Savior's infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet.[20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.
He contradicts your HETERODOX garbage right in the next paragraph! :facepalm:
My comments above are in red.
-
I'll do more than you do and answer the question, with a question for you to answer.
Is the deserter actually an army man for the crime of desertion or is he just “potentially” an army man (a former army man who only has the potential to rejoin the army)?
I have no idea, it’s your analogy not mine, I just used your term “deserter”.
I know why you won’t answer the question, because you are trapped. :laugh1: But you’ll just obfuscate like you always do.
-
PPXII goes on to include those excluded from that same unity of the Mystical Body by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
.
And isn't this exactly what happened to Martin Luther when he was excommunicated? So he became excluded from the unity of the Mystical Body.
-
(NO! The word is “profess”. Present tense NOT past tense “professed” (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif))
Reading comprehension is another one of your weaknesses, I see. I was referring to what he said in the past tense as it would apply to your loss of faith then repentance.
(What total garbage! You now try to twist the pope’s words by saying that he means one can: “separate themselves from the unity of the Body, they will not separate themselves from the body”. You try to make a distinction when there isn’t one which is demonstrated in the pope’s next paragraph. (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif))
I quoted his words, I did not twist them. There is a distinction between the body and the unity of that body whether you choose to accept it or not.
That is NOT what the pope is saying! Here is the paragraph you conveniently left out:
“Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. It is owing to the Savior's infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet.[20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.
He contradicts your HETERODOX garbage right in the next paragraph! (https://www.cathinfo.com/Smileys/classic/facepalm.gif)
Now here he says "the body," here he does not say the "unity of the body" - wow, you are really sharp.:facepalm:
And yet, severed from the body of the Church, the penitent heretic, unlike non-Catholics, can still receive the Last Sacraments, and/or the sacrament of penance, then the other sacraments. Question: How is this possible if separated from the Body? Answer: See the army man example. Again.
My comments above are in red.
IMO, a very good definition for "excommunication" is "to separate from the unity of the Body." One can separate themselves by grave sin, or by the legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
-
Reading comprehension is another one of your weaknesses, I see. I was referring to what he said in the past tense as it would apply to your loss of faith then repentance.
I quoted his words, I did not twist them. There is a distinction between the body and the unity of that body whether you choose to accept it or not.
Now here he says "the body," here he does not say the "unity of the body" - wow, you are really sharp.:facepalm:
And yet, severed from the body of the Church, the penitent heretic, unlike non-Catholics, can still receive the Last Sacraments, and/or the sacrament of penance, then the other sacraments. Question: How is this possible if separated from the Body? Answer: See the army man example. Again. IMO, a very good definition for "excommunication" is "to separate from the unity of the Body." One can separate themselves by grave sin, or by the legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
More obfuscation. How about answering this question:
Is your heretic an “actual” member of the Catholic Church for the crime of heresy or is he just “potentially” a member (a former member who only has the potential to rejoin the Mystical Body)?
-
From 1996, listen to the attached.
-
And yet, severed from the body of the Church, the penitent heretic, unlike non-Catholics, can still receive the Last Sacraments, and/or the sacrament of penance, then the other sacraments.
.
A Catholic who gives his name to a heretical sect cannot just go to confession. He must first make a public abjuration of error and receive an absolution from the censures he incurred. I believe this can only take place with the consent of the local bishop. This is definitely not a matter of an apostate Catholic simply repenting and going to confession like with any other sin.
-
It all has to do with the faith, specifically, whether or not one has ever had the Catholic faith but no longer does, if so, then he was "once a Catholic."
St. Thomas says that baptism without the faith is of no value, this is why we must both, be baptized and have the faith in order to receive the sacraments because the Church only administers her sacrament to Catholics, in this discussion all those who have never had the Catholic faith are excluded.
To be reconciled, one must necessarily have previously been "conciled," this leaves all those who've never had the Catholic faith out.
I used the army soldier for an example, because "once in the army, always in the army," at least until they discharge him from the army. The difference is the Church never discharges anyone. She is always there nurturing her children and waiting for sinners to repent.
While it is certainly true that we are free to "sever" all ties with our mother, and hate her and become heretical idiots against her, unlike prots, that does not mean that she is not or never was our mother. She was our mother when we had the Catholic faith, she will remain our mother no matter what.
PPXII says:
"22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.....It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit."
The underlined tells us what a Catholic is. Whoever has been baptized and professed the true faith is a Catholic, always will be even if they "separate themselves from the unity of the Body," they will not separate themselves from the Body, they will still be a Catholic *to the Church,* maybe not to you and I, but to the Church they will, even if they do not want to be, even if they convert to Hinduism and tell everyone they are no longer Catholic.....because should they ever choose to repent, the sacrament of penance is there waiting for them.
The rest of PPXII quote tells us that through sin that we can separate ourselves from the unity of the body, not from the Mystical Body - from the *unity* of the Mystical Body. Which is of course what happens when one loses the faith and/or preaches heresies. PPXII goes on to include those excluded from that same unity of the Mystical Body by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
That makes sense. Thanks.
To the Church, a Catholic will always be a Catholic, even if they separate themselves from the unity of the Church, which is why, as you say, should they ever choose to repent, the sacrament of penance is available to them. It's not available to prots, hindus, muslims, jews, etc.
When Archbishop Lefebvre was unjustly excommunicated, even his enemies didn't say that he wasn't Catholic anymore. They certainly didn't want him around to cause trouble for their Modernist revolution.
-
.
A Catholic who gives his name to a heretical sect cannot just go to confession. He must first make a public abjuration of error and receive an absolution from the censures he incurred. I believe this can only take place with the consent of the local bishop. This is definitely not a matter of an apostate Catholic simply repenting and going to confession like with any other sin.
No, I thought the same thing for a long time, but if you look it up in canon law, you will find NORMALLY, a public abjuration of heresy is only required for new converts prior to their baptism, or if the bishop or confessor makes it a requirement. Obviously it depends on the authority, the heretic and the censure that is attached to the sin, if it is reserved to the Holy See or bishop or whatever other requirements are attached to that censure. But public abjuration is not always required in every case.
Other than that, NORMALLY, joe the penitent heretic can walk right into the confessional same as you and I and he himself did before becoming a heretic.
In the confessional, the priest would question him and make sure he is sincere in his repentance before administering the sacrament, wherein the censure is removed then the sins are forgiven.
-
That makes sense. Thanks.
To the Church, a Catholic will always be a Catholic, even if they separate themselves from the unity of the Church, which is why, as you say, should they ever choose to repent, the sacrament of penance is available to them. It's not available to prots, hindus, muslims, jews, etc.
When Archbishop Lefebvre was unjustly excommunicated, even his enemies didn't say that he wasn't Catholic anymore. They certainly didn't want him around to cause trouble for their Modernist revolution.
Yes, well said!
-
From 1996, listen to the attached.
Obfuscation once again. You won’t answer because you are in a catch 22. :laugh1:
Frankly, you’d have been better off following Michael Dimond, after he realized his error about sedevacantism, instead of following your own caprice.
-
A distinction must be made about dispensing the sacraments sub conditione: Consider that a Novus Ordo priest approached a traditional bishop seeking ordination, sub conditione. If the priest's theology is so whacky that to ordain him would be a detriment to souls, then the bishop might sin by imprudently ordaining him. The priest's intention might be good, but he does not automatically get to become a traditional priest just because his intentions are good. Besides, he might not even be validly confirmed, etc. There are several issues involved.
The same could be said about a couple who was invalidly married in NO and sought to validate their marriage in the Trad environment. What if the priest thought that they were dangerous for each other and refused to the validate the marriage? Becoming a traditional Catholic does not guarantee that one receives the other sacraments sub conditione.
-
Obfuscation once again. You won’t answer because you are in a catch 22. :laugh1:
Frankly, you’d have been better off following Michael Dimond, after he realized his error about sedevacantism, instead of following your own caprice.
See, you won't ever get it because what Fred says in that snip is what Catholics believe and have always believed. You say that it's his error, but that's not "his error," his error was in finding it necessary to start disbelieving it as a means to justify his opinion-turned-de fide doctrine - and getting others to do the same, that's his error.
Remember, sedevacantism is a novel idea, it's a new idea that became a doctrine, a de fide doctrine for many, and it has had to eliminate other Catholic teachings and principles to survive, whereas "Once a Catholic always a Catholic" has always been a Catholic principle. It's part of that "seamless cloth woven from the top so that there are no seams."
-
No, I thought the same thing for a long time, but if you look it up in canon law, you will find NORMALLY, a public abjuration of heresy is only required for new converts prior to their baptism, or if the bishop or confessor makes it a requirement. Obviously it depends on the authority, the heretic and the censure that is attached to the sin, if it is reserved to the Holy See or bishop or whatever other requirements are attached to that censure. But public abjuration is not always required in every case.
:facepalm: You're just talking in circles. Because the CENSURE/excommunication penalties for one who leaves the Faith (either by apostasy towards atheism, or to protestantism/muslimism, etc) = an abjuration of heresy.
Because those who leave the faith "sever themselves from the Mystical Body" and this is one of the worst sins one can commit.
If a person who leaves catholicism for another faith (the definition of heresy) isn't required to "abjure their heresy", then no one is. Your logic makes no sense.
----
A soldier who goes AWOL is not automatically restored to the army if he is caught, or turns himself in. He would go to jail first, then have a trial. He would have to admit guilt (abjure his heresies) before being forgiven and allowed to re-join. He can't just show up at the base and act like nothing happened.
-
No, I thought the same thing for a long time, but if you look it up in canon law, you will find NORMALLY, a public abjuration of heresy is only required for new converts prior to their baptism, or if the bishop or confessor makes it a requirement. Obviously it depends on the authority, the heretic and the censure that is attached to the sin, if it is reserved to the Holy See or bishop or whatever other requirements are attached to that censure. But public abjuration is not always required in every case.
Other than that, NORMALLY, joe the penitent heretic can walk right into the confessional same as you and I and he himself did before becoming a heretic.
In the confessional, the priest would question him and make sure he is sincere in his repentance before administering the sacrament, wherein the censure is removed then the sins are forgiven.
.
Even supposing all this is true, someone who has been excommunicated does not come under any of this anyway. An ordinary priest cannot absolve someone from an excommunication, and normally it would have to go through the bishop. The typical priest before Vatican 2 did not have faculties to absolve someone from an excommunication, especially one that was "vitandus".
I don't see what the relevance of any of this is, anyway. Whether a person is a member of the Church or not is not determined by how he can go to confession or what is required of him if he wants to repent. Pius Pius XII gave the criteria that determine if someone is a member of the Church or not in the quote you provided.
-
.
Even supposing all this is true, someone who has been excommunicated does not come under any of this anyway. An ordinary priest cannot absolve someone from an excommunication, and normally it would have to go through the bishop. The typical priest before Vatican 2 did not have faculties to absolve someone from an excommunication, especially one that was "vitandus".
...In the traditional formula, the words of absolution of the priest:
"May our Lord Jesus Christ absolve you: and I, by His authority, absolve you from every bond of excommunication, (suspension), and interdict, in so far as I am able and you are needful. Next, I absolve you from your sins, in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Amen.
(The word suspensionis {suspension} is used only for clerics. A cleric may be suspended without being excommunicated; but, should he incur excommunication, he is suspended also.)..." - Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?
This is to say that not only can the priest absolve the sins of one excommunicated, it's the usual way. "In so far as I am able" is to say he (may or) may not be able to remove the censure depending upon the conditions attached to the censure.
-
Stubborn, you keep saying “The priest can remove an excommunication except sometimes he can’t.” This is a nonsensical argument.
How about your answer is “maybe”?
-
Pax, try to understand that though the priest says I "absolve you from every bond of excommunication, (suspension), and interdict, in so far as I am able and you are needful," obviously there are some "bonds of excommunication" (and suspension and interdict) that the priest is unable to absolve, hence the words "in so far as I am able."
If to you that means "maybe" even when it makes no sense and that is not what he says, ok.
The whole point is that "excommunication" does not mean expulsion from the Church.
-
So what if the priest can lift (some) excommunications? That actually goes against your point, where the priest needs to life the excommunication before giving absolution. Some excommunications a priest cannot lift, but here he's lifting any that are in place that he can lift (based on Church law or being giving the authority by superiors who can confer it). If the individual could merely go to Confession, there would be no need for this at all. This clearly suggests that one cannot validly receive absolution while in a state of excommunication, so you're shooting yourself in the face here.
-
So what if the priest can lift (some) excommunications? That actually goes against your point, where the priest needs to life the excommunication before giving absolution. Some excommunications a priest cannot lift, but here he's lifting any that are in place that he can lift (based on Church law or being giving the authority by superiors who can confer it). If the individual could merely go to Confession, there would be no need for this at all. This clearly suggests that one cannot validly receive absolution while in a state of excommunication, so you're shooting yourself in the face here.
What an odd mentality that so effectively blocks all Catholic common sense in this matter.
No, what it clearly suggests is that one who is excommunicated can still go to confession, which is something non-Catholics cannot do. If the priest is able (and willing) to remove the particular censure, he will remove the censure then he will absolve the penitent of his sins, in that order.
If the priest is unable to remove the particular censure, he will let the penitent know he is unable, and presumably let the penitent know who it is that can remove the censure.
Again, the whole point is that "excommunication" does not mean expulsion from the Church.
-
Again, the whole point is that "excommunication" does not mean expulsion from the Church.
:facepalm: No one has said it does. You're arguing against a point that nobody is making.
-
Again, the whole point is that "excommunication" does not mean expulsion from the Church.
Says you. According to St. Robert Bellarine, excommunication severs from membership in the Church.
In any case, there' a Venn diagram overlap between excommunication and heresy/schism, as one can be excommunicated for reasons other than heresy/schism (e.g. gravely immoral activities).
As I've pointed out before, you're seriously lacking in basic logic skills. Someone who remains in a state of heresy/schism cannot be forgiven the Sacrament of Confession. According to your absurd reasoning, someone who was baptized Catholic but then by the age of reason was being raised as, say, a schismatic or Protestant, can just go to Confession to a priest and be absolved ... without first having returned to a public profession of the faith (i.e. to Catholicism). If the individual is eligible to go to Confession and be absolved, it's predicated upon the idea that he's repented of his heresy/schism first and has returned to membership in the Church. Absent that condition, he may most certainly NOT just be forgiven in Confession, nor is a priest permitted to absolve such an individual (it would be a sacrilege). If his rupture with the Church were notorious, he's have to first make a public abjuration (except in danger of death). Otherwise, simply resuming the profession of the Catholic Church as the true Church and rejecting the profession of heresy suffices to re-establish membership in the Church based upon the criteria set out by St. Robert Bellarmine.
Can an individual who was baptized Catholic, but then at some point became a schismatic or heretic (e.g. Protestant) simply go to Confession and have his sins forgiven? Would a priest be allowed to absolve such an individual? Of course not. Why? Because he's no longer a Catholic. Now, as soon as he renounces his heresy and/or schism (provided there's no other obstacle remaining), then AT THAT TIME he'd be able to go to Confession.
You get hung up on these mental obsessions and stupidities.
Unfortunately, Stubborn, you are a heretic and schismatic ... having professed an ecclesiology that is 100% Old Catholic.
-
Says you. According to St. Robert Bellarine, excommunication severs from membership in the Church.
In any case, there' a Venn diagram overlap between excommunication and heresy/schism, as one can be excommunicated for reasons other than heresy/schism (e.g. gravely immoral activities).
As I've pointed out before, you're seriously lacking in basic logic skills. Someone who remains in a state of heresy/schism cannot be forgiven the Sacrament of Confession. According to your absurd reasoning, someone who was baptized Catholic but then by the age of reason was being raised as, say, a schismatic or Protestant, can just go to Confession to a priest and be absolved ... without first having returned to a public profession of the faith (i.e. to Catholicism). If the individual is eligible to go to Confession and be absolved, it's predicated upon the idea that he's repented of his heresy/schism first and has returned to membership in the Church. Absent that condition, he may most certainly NOT just be forgiven in Confession, nor is a priest permitted to absolve such an individual (it would be a sacrilege). If his rupture with the Church were notorious, he's have to first make a public abjuration (except in danger of death). Otherwise, simply resuming the profession of the Catholic Church as the true Church and rejecting the profession of heresy suffices to re-establish membership in the Church based upon the criteria set out by St. Robert Bellarmine.
Can an individual who was baptized Catholic, but then at some point became a schismatic or heretic (e.g. Protestant) simply go to Confession and have his sins forgiven? Would a priest be allowed to absolve such an individual? Of course not. Why? Because he's no longer a Catholic. Now, as soon as he renounces his heresy and/or schism (provided there's no other obstacle remaining), then AT THAT TIME he'd be able to go to Confession.
You get hung up on these mental obsessions and stupidities.
Unfortunately, Stubborn, you are a heretic and schismatic ... having professed an ecclesiology that is 100% Old Catholic.
Excellent post!
-
Says you. According to St. Robert Bellarine, excommunication severs from membership in the Church.
A) In any case, there' a Venn diagram overlap between excommunication and heresy/schism, as one can be excommunicated for reasons other than heresy/schism (e.g. gravely immoral activities).
B) As I've pointed out before, you're seriously lacking in basic logic skills. Someone who remains in a state of heresy/schism cannot be forgiven the Sacrament of Confession. According to your absurd reasoning, someone who was baptized Catholic but then by the age of reason was being raised as, say, a schismatic or Protestant, can just go to Confession to a priest and be absolved ... without first having returned to a public profession of the faith (i.e. to Catholicism). If the individual is eligible to go to Confession and be absolved, it's predicated upon the idea that he's repented of his heresy/schism first and has returned to membership in the Church. Absent that condition, he may most certainly NOT just be forgiven in Confession, nor is a priest permitted to absolve such an individual (it would be a sacrilege). If his rupture with the Church were notorious, he's have to first make a public abjuration (except in danger of death). Otherwise, simply resuming the profession of the Catholic Church as the true Church and rejecting the profession of heresy suffices to re-establish membership in the Church based upon the criteria set out by St. Robert Bellarmine.
Can an individual who was baptized Catholic, but then at some point became a schismatic or heretic (e.g. Protestant) simply go to Confession and have his sins forgiven? Would a priest be allowed to absolve such an individual? Of course not. Why? Because he's no longer a Catholic. Now, as soon as he renounces his heresy and/or schism (provided there's no other obstacle remaining), then AT THAT TIME he'd be able to go to Confession.
You get hung up on these mental obsessions and stupidities.
Unfortunately, Stubborn, you are a heretic and schismatic ... having professed an ecclesiology that is 100% Old Catholic.
Man, the sedes on this thread are a dense bunch. It is apparent you are blind to words written. Pretty amazing, not sure why but I continue to find it a bit fascinating.
A) This, as I said, is why the priest says "as far as I am able." I explained this to you so you have no excuse for not understanding other than your own blind stupidity.
B) You've blinded yourself to the fact that each time I used the words "penitent heretic" and "repentant heretic." But at least you got that blabbering batch of BS out of your system again, for now.
Listen to the attached, Fred spells out quite nicely in only a few short minutes the Catholic principle involved.