Of course I'm not. 

The issue is heresy severs one from the membership of the Church. But such a person can choose to return to the Church.

The last sentence speaks of those who "hold fast to faith".  He is clearly not referring to those who sever themselves from the Church via the sins of heresy, schism or apostasy because they do not "hold fast to faith":

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.

"Hold fast" applies to those not "deprived of all life." IOW, their conscience bothers them and eats at them, perhaps to the point of torment, to the point the only cure is to repent. I believe this is not uncommon among many fallen away Catholics, whether or not all those afflicted listen to their conscience and repent or not is another question.

Again, what would YOU need to do? Can you put yourself in that situation as I asked in my last post to you and tell me, what would you need to do? Because what you're alluding to is there being zero hope for a Catholic guilty of the sin of heresy.

Of course not, just as they would remain Catholic if they never attained the use of reason throughout their whole adult life. In order to be a Catholic after attaining the use of reason, one must be baptized and profess the Catholic faith. After that, they can choose to turn into Luther and Calvin combined - and still walk into the confessional and confess their sins for absolution should they decide to repent. Same as every other Catholic.

Are you saying that Luther was still a Catholic until the day he died or did he lose the Faith, at some point, and ceased being a Catholic?

unless the confessor or bishop require a public abjuration

Yes, Stubbon, that's the level of heresy/schism we're talking about.  Martin Luther nailed 99 heresies to the door of the Church.  He could not change his mind the next day and simply go to confession for this level of error and scandal.


Martin Luther was summoned by his bishop to discuss the matter.  (He was also probably immediately suspended from public worship).  Then Martin Luther had to have a formal hearing to determine a) the reasons he was in error, and b) to determine if he was simply confused or if he was obstinate in error.

Luther eventually recanted on many of his heresies, being he was an emotional person who was reacting to widespread German corruption.  But he remained obstinate on 30-40 heresies and resisted correction.  A simple confession would not fix the problem.  A simple confession does not remove the excommunication for his serious errors.

Pope Francis could not simply "go to confession" if he were to wake up one day and realize that his entire papacy was a heresy-a-minute disaster.  There's much more to it.  The law demands restitution for error, on some level, so that the scandals caused by such a pope, bishop, priest, etc are known to be serious and regrettable.

Stubborn:  Do you have Church docuмents that support your interpretation of Mystici Corporus Christi....that a person that commits the sin of heresy, schism, or apostasy "only" needs to go to confession? 

Do you have Church docuмentation that supports "once a Catholic, always a Catholic"?

These are 2 distinct questions.  When you combine them together, you get wrong answers.

1.  For simple heresy, yes, confession suffices.  For major heresy, apostasy, schism - it doesn't.  You have to do more than just go to confession.

2.  "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic" -- this has to be looked at in multiple ways.
a.  Can one get re-baptized, or baptized twice?  No.  Therefore, in regards to Church membership -- once a member, always a member.
b.  Can one apostasize and reject the Faith and become a non-catholic (in practice)?  Yes, in the sense that they stop practicing the Faith. 
    1.  Can such a one simply go to confession and rejoin the Church?  No, they cannot.  It's not that simple.
c.  Can we consider a person who is formally excommunicated for schism (i.e. a catholic leaves and joins the Orthodox) a catholic?  Yes and no.
    1.  But they are baptized?  Yes, but still not a catholic.
    2.  Could they become a catholic?  Yes, but there are still steps to take.
    3.  Are such steps EASIER and QUICKER than a pagan?  Yes.

So, yes, in theory (based on baptism alone)...a person is "once a catholic, always a catholic".
But in practice (based on their lifestyle/religion choices)...a person can reject the Faith.

1.  Catholic
2.  Former catholic, heretic
3.  Former catholic, schismatic
4.  Baptized never-catholic/protestant
5.  Baptized never-catholic/misc
6.  Non-baptized pagan

"Once a catholic, always a catholic" presumes that #2 and #3 are "still catholic", in that they could MORE easily and MORE quickly convert than #4-6.  But some would argue, in practice, that #2 and #3 aren't catholic anymore, being they've rejected the Faith.

Both are right.  It depends how you look at it.  Theory vs Practice.

Not true.  At all.  You are minimizing the seriousness of heresy and schism.

There are a wide variety of excommunications and many of them CAN be removed through confession alone.  But for major heresy and schism, these can require more than just confession.

Those who can absolve from excommunication
The answer is given in the customary rules of jurisdiction. The right to absolve belongs to him who can excommunicate and who has imposed the law, moreover to any person delegated by him to this effect, since this power, being jurisdictional, can be delegated. First, we must distinguish between excommunication ab homine, which is judicial, and excommunication a jure, i.e. latae sententiae. For the former, absolution is given by the judge who inflicted the penalty (or by his successor), in other words by the pope, or the bishop (ordinary), also by the superior of said judge when acting as judge of appeal.^[7]

As to excommunication latae sententiae, the power to absolve is either ordinary or delegated. Ordinary power is determined by the law itself, which indicates to what authority the censure is reserved in each case. Delegated power is of two kinds: that granted in permanency and set down in the law and that granted or communicated by personal act, e.g. by authority (faculties) of the Roman Penitentiaria, by episcopal delegation for special cases, or bestowed upon certain priests.^[7]

Unless the canon reserves removal of the penalty to the Holy See, the local ordinary can remit the excommunication, or he can delegate that authority to the priests of his diocese (which most bishops do in the case of abortion).^[29]


Notice the last phrase "which most bishops do in the case of abortion"...this was NOT the case prior to V2.  Abortion required a special papal absolution which not even many bishops could give.  The point being, prior to V2, the rules and penalties for abortion, heresy and schism were much more strict.  A simple confession would not "fix" the problem.  (This assumes we're talking about Martin Luther-level heresy/schsim, which...with such being so rampant today...this level is met by a high % of "catholics").

Oh brother. Look up canon law. I did and posted it a while back, but not going to do your leg work on this one.

This is what it seems like to me too. 

Stubborn:  Do you have Church docuмents that support your interpretation of Mystici Corporus Christi....that a person that commits the sin of heresy, schism, or apostasy "only" needs to go to confession?  Do you have Church docuмentation that supports "once a Catholic, always a Catholic" even if they become a heretic? So far all I've seen are your words.

Because it doesn't matter what *I* think I would have to do if I, God forbid, became a heretic, apostate or schismatic.  It only matters what *the Church* expects me to do.

Church docuмents?

What does the Church expect her children to do when they commit mortal sin? Answer: Go to confession and amend their life. Confession is THE ONLY sure way for Catholics in mortal sin to be forgiven. Heresy is a sin - you have to go to confession and amend your life to be forgiven. Why is this so complicated? Once a Catholic, we have all the sacraments God gave us at our disposal until we leave this world.

It is the sin that severed, not the Church. If the Church did the severing, then yes, I could see and even agree with the point of this debate.

This really should not be the least bit complicated to anyone here on this forum.

And Francis, were he to go to confession - whether he is a pope or not, the majority of the Catholic world recognizes him as such; by virtue of his baptism he is a member of the Church- would have to publicly retract his many sins.  Because his sins are in the public domain, he would be required to issue a public retraction of them.  It would be no different than Madonna were she to go to confession.  Her public sins would require a public retraction. 

On the issue of a modern pope declaring something ex cathedra, I am of the opinion that the state of grace is required for a pope to make an ex cathedra declaration, since it is ultimately an operation of the Holy Ghost speaking through the pope.  Of course the pope writes the papal bull and then he speaks the truth contained therein.  The question is, Are all the words of the papal bull infallible?  I say no.  If we have no guarantee that all of the words are true, then how can guarantee that some of the words are true?  And the answer is, the qualifying words, "We declare, say, and pronounce...,"  uttered by the pope.