Author Topic: Membership in the Church (Read 936 times)

Recusant Sede · « **on:** November 10, 2015, 06:35:39 PM »

To make sure everyone is on the same page, I first want to produce the following statement by Pope Pius XII:

"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."
Pope Pius XII

Recusant Sede · « **Reply #1 on:** November 10, 2015, 06:43:01 PM »

Here is Saint Robert Bellarmine:

"The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."

Centroamerica · « **Reply #2 on:** November 10, 2015, 07:54:29 PM »

Just to clarify this thread is in reference to the very stupid claim that Fr. Pfeiffer made that if you are Catholic and join the 'protestant church' you are still Catholic.

This is akin to heresy. You are either a member of the Catholic Church or not. "Oh but he means that they were baptized...bla bla." Still not a member of the Catholic Church. At best his comment is more ambiguous than any phrase in Vatican 2. He might as well have said that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. At worst his statement is a heretical lie to try to sooth those seminarians by reminding them, it doesn't matter, always Catholic. Really? What if he signed a docuмent denouncing the papacy? Wouldn't he have to abjure to re-enter the Catholic Church? Meaning that he would continue until this day to be a non-Catholic.

Ambrose signing formal heresy and renouncing the papacy.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #3 on:** November 11, 2015, 01:03:13 AM »

.

Someone who knows the rule could clarify this, but as I recall, there are certain sins that cannot be absolved by a priest but the penitent is referred to confess it (or them) to the local bishop. It seems to me that one such sin would be apostasy or formal heresy, especially if it was public and committed by a well-known person.

If this is correct, then a public figure like a congressman saying that it doesn't matter what church you're in you can be saved without the Catholic Church, then he would have to confess to his local bishop.

Of course, in these days, the local bishop might not have much to say about it, but then again, there may be a few around who could do some good.

I can't help but imagine how Ambrose Moran might counsel a penitent on this.

.

poche · « **Reply #4 on:** November 11, 2015, 10:25:27 PM »

If this is correct, then a public figure like a congressman saying that it doesn't matter what church you're in you can be saved without the Catholic Church, then he would have to confess to his local bishop.

If this is the only thing this poorly catechized congressman would say then I think we would be very lucky.

songbird · « **Reply #5 on:** November 12, 2015, 05:30:26 PM »

This is called "excommunication". And, we don't have to have someone tell us officially. And to undo this, yes, a Bishop, and publicly is necessary. We won't see anything like that. New Order took the "word" out of it's vocabulary.

Sigismund · « **Reply #6 on:** November 14, 2015, 12:09:14 PM »

Quote from: Centroamerica

Just to clarify this thread is in reference to the very stupid claim that Fr. Pfeiffer made that if you are Catholic and join the 'protestant church' you are still Catholic.

This is akin to heresy. You are either a member of the Catholic Church or not. "Oh but he means that they were baptized...bla bla." Still not a member of the Catholic Church. At best his comment is more ambiguous than any phrase in Vatican 2. He might as well have said that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. At worst his statement is a heretical lie to try to sooth those seminarians by reminding them, it doesn't matter, always Catholic. Really? What if he signed a docuмent denouncing the papacy? Wouldn't he have to abjure to re-enter the Catholic Church? Meaning that he would continue until this day to be a non-Catholic.

Ambrose signing formal heresy and renouncing the papacy.

If that is accurately represents what Fr. Pfeiffer said ( and I am not suggesting that it doesn't) It is more akin to stupidity than heresy, although it is heretical too of course. It is like saying that if red becomes blue, it is still red.

I am sure I have just missed it, but who is Ambrose and why is his apparently becoming Orthodox of concern to Fr. Pfeiffer?