Author Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism? (Read 56048 times)

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #310 on:** May 29, 2023, 06:53:59 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 27, 2023, 10:36:02 AM

See this is the complex part of this principle which has to be delved into deeper. As it's written, it's too general.

1. HOW is one separated from the Church?

Spiritually, obviously, due to sin. But also, physically separated (i.e. the office is lost)? This is one of the main things that St Bellarmine and everyone else of his time debated. Everyone agreed on the "spiritual separation" but they disagreed on the physical separation happening WITHOUT some physical legal, govt act by the Church.

Conclusion - There is no conclusion. It's debatable.

2. WHEN is one separated from the Church?

Is it immediately? Or is there a time period of "correction" as St Paul tells us, is necessary.

In the case of Martin Luther...when he hung up his 99 heresies on the door of the church, was he immediately separated from the Church? Maybe. Maybe not. Spiritually, it probably depends on if he understood what he wrote was heresy, or if he was confused about some points of doctrine (which, at the time, was very corrupted due to corrupt clerics). This is why the Church has a hearing/trial to distinguish the pertinacity/mindframe of the heretic.

After such a hearing occurred, Martin Luther did recant maybe 30-40 of his "issues" so it's not like he was 100% sure/firm on his errors.

Also, did Martin Luther immediately lose his office of priest/prior (whatever his office was, i'm not sure)? I don't think he did. He might have been suspended until the trial/hearing but nothing was lost "immediately". And his act of heresy was public, manifest, etc.

Conclusion - again, no conclusion. It takes an act of the Church to decide these matters. Canon law has a process. Even if spiritually, the person is judged by God immediately...but no one can know that "at first". Only the heretic knows what he believes. We are human beings, who live in the physical world. It takes physical action, and human efforts to discern heresy and judge accordingly.

Please affirm or deny the following proposition:

A Catholic who knowingly and willingly publicly denies a teaching of the Church that must be held with Divine and Catholic Faith, by that very act, is severed from membership in the Catholic Church.

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #311 on:** May 29, 2023, 10:21:01 AM »

Quote

A Catholic who knowingly and willingly publicly denies a teaching of the Church that must be held with Divine and Catholic Faith, by that very act, is severed from membership in the Catholic Church.

Yes. But...

...there are still details in this principle that are debatable. And that only Church officials, not any priest/laity, can decide.

1. "knowingly and willingly and publically". This can only be determined AFTER THE ACT HAPPENED, not right in the moment. Martin Luther nailed his 99 thesis to the church door knowingly, willingly and publicly, yet the Church still had meetings and gave him a trial.

So none of his "severance" happened immediately. The spiritual severance (based on his own sin and bad will) may have happened immediately (only he and God knows this) but his temporal/govt/priest severance from the Church, by way of excommunication, only happened AFTER church proceedings and a trial.

2. "by that very act". Again, this can only be known later, by human investigation, conversations, etc. +Bellarmine refers to this often, when he talks about the Cardinals rebuking a pope, or judging his actions as heretical.

3. "Severed from membership". There are 2 parts to this - the spiritual severance (i.e. sin of heresy, and the internal will of the heretic to reject the Faith) and the human/govt/office severance, which only happens by way of Church actions - i.e. the human/govt/official acts to remove one from office.

Catholic Knight · « **Reply #312 on:** May 29, 2023, 11:17:28 AM »

Quote from: Pax Vobis on May 29, 2023, 10:21:01 AM

Yes. But...

...there are still details in this principle that are debatable. And that only Church officials, not any priest/laity, can decide.

That only the Church officials can decide is one fundamental area where you are wrong. For example, I presume you reject Vatican II and the New Rite of Mass; yet, the Church officials have not yet officially rejected Vatican II as such and the New Rite of Mass as such. What then is the cause for you rejecting them?

Pax Vobis · « **Reply #313 on:** May 29, 2023, 11:54:25 AM »

Quote

That only the Church officials can decide is one fundamental area where you are wrong.

No. Where in canon law does it give ANY LAITY the power/authority to DO ANYTHING? Hint: it doesn't.

If non-church officials (i.e. laity, simple priests, and non-jurisdictional bishops) can do x, y, or z, outside of the church hierarchy, then the hierarchy is meaningless. Either the Church is a monarchy, with authority, or it's some kind of protestant/grass-roots/"personal faith" type of spirituality. It can't be both.

The only "personal decision" that the laity, simple priests, non-jurisdictional bishops can make is to "stay away" from error. Any legal, authoritative, canonical decision is the Church's alone to make, or not make.

Emile · « **Reply #314 on:** May 29, 2023, 12:25:08 PM »

Making a practical judgement, based on one's understanding of the Faith and available evidence, for oneself, is on a totally different level than binding others, in conscience and under threat of damnation, to one's opinion.

CathInfo.com

Author Topic: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism? (Read 56048 times)

Catholic Knight

Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?

Pax Vobis

Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?

Catholic Knight

Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?

Pax Vobis

Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?

Emile

Re: R&R -- why don't you get behind Father Chazal's sede-impoundism?