6.  One cannot be a "Catholic heretic."  They are mutually exclusive. [No.  You seem to separate the word Catholic from baptism, while associating as one meaning, a Catholic and member.  It is the other way around.  A Catholic and baptism is one and the same, and a Catholic and a member can be two different things.  When one says they are Catholic, it is because they are baptized.  When one says they are baptized (in the Catholic form of the Gospel), they are Catholic; it is one and the same.  When one says that they are a member of the Catholic Church, it is because they are a Catholic.  However, when one says that they are Catholic (by baptism) it does not mean that they are a practicing member of the Catholic Church i.e. lapse mortal sin, apostation, or formal heresy.

In regards to Faith and Catholic, when one says they have the Faith, it is because they are Catholic; it is one and the same.  However, when one says they are Catholic, it does not mean that they are practicing the Faith, or even have it any longer i.e. lapse mortal sin, apostation, or formal heresy; but they are still a Catholic.

Also, you seem to separate the word Catholic from heretic (mutually exclusive).  The word Catholic and heretic are only associated by cause and effect.  Like truth and error.  The definition of “error” is the absence of truth.  The definition of “darkness” is the absence of light.  In other words, you need first to be a Catholic before you can apostate into a heretic.

You can also say in that meaning, that to combine those two words of “catholic heretic” is really redundant in a Catholic discussion; because when you say heretic, one means apostation from being a Catholic.  But to the uneducated world, redundancy is necessary.

Also, when the word heretic is used in the case of “a catholic heretic”, it is used as a noun; and the word Catholic is used as a descriptive to that noun (The catholic heretic.  A catholic heretic.  As like: A catholic soldier. A catholic man.  Etc).    A heretic has only one meaning; and other religions (false) cannot use it.  It is a word that has a direct relationship to the Truth.  One can have the truth.  One does not know the truth.  One can be a heretic to the truth.  Truth is Catholic; as Catholic is Truth.  So the word heretic can only be used in relation to apostation from Catholicism –a catholic heretic.]

Once one becomes a public heretic, he has lost the Faith, and by losing the Faith and this being public, he loses his membership in the Church.  In order to return to the Church he must be accepted and make an abjuration. [Yes, however, justice requires more stringencies on the accuser to prove the “heretic” with “matter and form”.  Matter: of the substance of the heresy, and form: of the conscience of the heresy.  In other words, knowing the contents of “material and formal” heresy to pass judgment.]

Hello Ambrose,

My apologies for being away for a little while in not responding to your latest posts.  My work and duties are paramount with responsibilities to me that I need to keep before God.

Let me respond to you where we left off.

Ambrose said:

I agree with you that the indelible mark cannot be removed.  I also believe that the indelible mark is the mark of a Catholic, but that does not mean one is still a member of the Church.  Perhaps you mean that and we are not using the same terms. [Yes.]

What I am confused about is when you say what I said is "false."  Do you believe that the indelible mark from baptism makes it impossible for one to sever oneself from the Church?  [No.  I responded to the question the way you had it written; in answering that the indelible mark and being Catholic is really one and the same.  But your question was different:  “The indelible mark on the soul given at Baptism does not mean that one is always a Catholic.”] That is what it appears you are saying, but as I said this may be a matter of not using the same terms.

I also understand that one cannot baptize twice.  You and I both agree, as we must that one of the effects of Baptism is the indelible mark.  There is no disagreement on this point.

I stand by my initial statement that the "indelible mark does not mean that one is always a Catholic." [Ambrose, this is a matter of terms again.  In your sentence, you are interchanging the word Catholic and member again.  Like you said above: “I also believe that the indelible mark is the mark of a Catholic”, which means you can never lose it.  I believe what you mean to say in your question is, the indelible mark does not mean that one is always a Catholic member.  Yes, that is correct.] Those who are baptized but who are outside of the Church, (the ark of salvation), have the indelible mark, but they outside the Church, they are not members of the Church. [The word “member” needs to be clarified.  RJS had brought in some good sources for this clarification. http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=22784&min=20&num=5

------------------------------------------

Machabees,

Here's a few quotes showing that faith is not necessary for membership in the Church.

Bellarmine: "

• ccult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members… therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book De Ecclesia. …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”.

An occult heretic is one who has lost the faith.

Suarez: “[T]he faith is not absolutely necessary in order that a man be capable of spiritual and ecclesiastical jurisdiction and be able to exercise true acts which demand this jurisdiction …. The foregoing is obvious, granted that, as is taught in the treatises on penance and censures, in case of extreme necessity a priest heretic may absolve, which is not possible without jurisdiction. (…) The Pope heretic is not a member of the Church as far as the substance and form which constitute the members of the Church; but he is the head as far as the charge and action; and this is not surprising, since he is not the primary and principal head who acts by his own power, but is as it were instrumental, he is the vicar of the principal head, who is able to exercise his spiritual action over the members even by means of a head of bronze; analogously, he baptizes at times by means of heretics, at times he absolves, etc., as we have already said”.

Bouix:  “Faith is not necessary for a man to be capable of ecclesiastical jurisdiction and that he might exercise true acts which require such jurisdiction.  (…) Moreover, the power of orders, which in its way is superior, can remain without faith, that is, with heresy; therefore ecclesiastical jurisdiction can do so too (…) To the argument that, not being a member of the Church [the soul], the heretical Pope is not the head of the Church either … one can give the following answer: I concede that the Pope heretic is not a member and head of the Church in so far as the supernatural life which commences by faith and is completed by charity, by which all the members of the Church are united in one body supernaturally alive; but I deny that he might not be a member and head of the Church as far as the governing power proper to his charge”.

Regarding a pope who loses the faith Garrigou-Lagrance wrote the following:

Garrigou-Lagrange: “This condition is quite abnormal, hence no wonder that something abnormal results from it, namely, that the pope becoming secretly a heretic would no longer be an actual member of the Church, according to the teaching as explained in the body of the article, but would still retain his jurisdiction by which he would influence the Church in ruling it. Thus he would still be nominally the head of the Church, which he would still rule as head, though he would no longer be a member of Christ, because he would not receive that vital influx of faith from Christ, the invisible and primary head. Thus in quite an abnormal manner he would be in point of jurisdiction the head of the Church, though he would not be a member of it.

“This condition could not apply to the natural head in its relation to the body, but such a condition is not repugnant in the case of the moral and secondary head. The reason is that, whereas the natural head must receive a vital influx from the soul before it can influence the members of its body, the moral head, such as the pope is, can exercise his jurisdiction over the Church, although he receives no influx of interior faith and charity from the soul of the Church. More briefly, as Billuart says, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, and his headship of the visible Church by jurisdiction and power is compatible with private heresy. The Church will always consist in the visible union of its members with its visible head, namely, the pope of Rome, although some, who externally seem to be members of the Church, may be private heretics”.

Ambrose said:

Without getting into the dispute about whether an occult heretic is a member of the Church, let us keep this on a public defection from the Faith.  It is an indisputable fact of our Faith that when one publicly and pertinaciously denies a teaching of the Church that he by that fact ceases to be a member of the Church. [Formal heretic, yes.]

I am well aware of the dispute about occult heresy, but I did qualify what I wrote when I said "public."  I also agree that when making a judgment about another Catholic on whether he is a pertinacious public heretic, one must be very slow and cautious about making such a judgment giving the suspected person every chance to show his innocence.

I also believe that if times were normal, and the hierarchy was properly functioning that these matters would be resolved by those in authority, and our main duty as laypeople would be to report the heretic to our local bishop.  He would then take it from there.  But, we are not in normal times, which is why we are discussing this in the first place.  Most of those who currently reject the heresies of Vatican II are vagus bishops and priests and laypeople.  The bishops who have kept the Faith and have habitual jurisdiction appear to be doing nothing to end this crisis. [I do not know what you mean by this last sentence: “The bishops who have kept the Faith and have habitual jurisdiction appear to be doing nothing to end this crisis.”  Are you speaking about some novus ordo bishops?  Do they still have the faith?]

I agree with you you wrote about cause and effect, but I think you misunderstood the point I was trying to make.  When one is a (public) heretic, they are not professing the Catholic Faith, [Yes.] therefore one cannot be a Catholic heretic. [? Use of terms.] In order to be a [practicing] Catholic one must profess the true Faith.  A Catholic cannot deviate in even one point.

God bless.

[I do not know what you mean by this last sentence: “The bishops who have kept the Faith and have habitual jurisdiction appear to be doing nothing to end this crisis.”  Are you speaking about some novus ordo bishops?  Do they still have the faith?]

[I do not know what you mean by this last sentence: “The bishops who have kept the Faith and have habitual jurisdiction appear to be doing nothing to end this crisis.”  Are you speaking about some novus ordo bishops?  Do they still have the faith?]

A father of a family is a member of that family, first by natural propagation (let us leave that out to apply this example), he is a member by government and jurisdiction, and a member by the Faith in the "objective" sharing and cultivation of that faith commanded by God to spread that Faith.

One day, this father started, in his person, to "teach" something different to that Faith in the "supernatural life" in his private capacity while in the Chair of his position (like Aaron and the golden calf, Caiaphas condemning Jesus Christ to death, Solomon and his permission of ecuмenical groves to be built to false gods and worship, and many others who had "taught" things contrary to that Faith). The children members started to complain to their father about this. The father listened, or half listened, and continued on; perhaps in human respect, or in peer pressure, or in a different upbringing of “understanding” of that Faith in its meanings and terms, or an outright abandonment of that understanding of the Faith to purposely teach something else, as with many other possibilities (matter/material of the heresy).

As this persisted in the Providence of this cross in the family, God had provided also many prophecies and apparitions that this crisis will happen, there are now, unfortunately, more divisions and turmoils in the body of the family, which have now developed into different things of understandings, sayings, and beliefs from the original Faith and peace that was in that family to begin with. However, everyone does want the health of the body and membership of the family for the glory of God.

In this cross that continues for many years, there now comes a question in the family by some members: is the father still the father? The obvious to this question is: of course he is; he is the father. He is the father to still provide and govern the family. He still has the jurisdiction of authority to do so unless God removes him and replaces him with another (foster) father.

With this above example, it gives an understanding of today’s unprecedented crisis with speaking about the Pope. Like the father of the family, as with the Pope, the meaning and example is the same.

The Pope is “teaching” something different to that Faith in his private capacity of the "supernatural life", while in the Chair of his position, like Aaron and the golden calf, Caiaphas condemning Jesus Christ to death, Solomon and his permission of ecuмenical groves to be built to false gods and worship, and many others who had "taught" things contrary to that Faith, but they are still members of that governing capacity, with authority, and jurisdiction.

So is the Pope the Pope? Yes. He may have erred in his private capacity in the “supernatural life” like the father in his position; he is none the less, still the member of government, authority, and jurisdiction until God chooses to remove him.

4.  The presumption must be that these bishops have the Faith, until the contrary can be shown by external evidence, not assumptions.  Whichever of these bishops have the Faith, they would still possess their offices, and they would constitute the hierarchy. [Always giving a benefit of the doubt; however, wouldn’t that also be an assumption on your part?  If they follow and promote the errors of Vatican II to be in “union” with the conciliar Pope in which he also follows and promotes, yet, you condemn the Pope for doing it and not others.]