From 1996, listen to the attached.

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. 

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!

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.   

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.

  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.

.

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. 

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.