Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Catholic Knight on October 03, 2025, 09:12:19 AM
-
Alternate expressions of the proposition:
1. One who knowingly, consciously, and willingly publicly asserts a proposition that is in direct contradiction to a Church teaching that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith separates himself from the Church by that very fact.
2. One who knowingly, consciously, and willingly publicly denies or doubts a Church teaching that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith separates himself from the Church by that very fact.
Clarifications:
1. One who is separated from the Church is not a member of the Church. He goes from being Catholic to non-Catholic.
2. The separation takes place at the very instant the sin is committed.
3. The proposition is independent of its application to a particular case.
-
Back to the top. Please vote.
-
The silence is deafening.
-
As at the time of this post, here are the poll results:
(https://i.imgur.com/m81SeVg.png)
I am pleasantly surprised to see that 11 out of 14 votes affirmed the proposition. Deo gratias!
Affirm = in accordance with a Church teaching that is of Divine and Catholic Faith
Deny = heresy (I am not accusing you of being a heretic)
Doubt = heresy but to a lesser degree than denying (I am not accusing you of being a heretic)
Unsure = more homework needed
-
At this time with 20 votes cast:
Affirm = 17
Deny = 1
Doubt = 1
Unsure = 1
Beautiful!
-
Thank you to all those that voted. For those who voted "deny", "doubt", or "unsure", will you please state the reason?
-
affirm
-
affirm
Thank you.
-
Please define being part of the resistance.
-
Alternate expressions of the proposition:
1. One who knowingly, consciously, and willingly publicly asserts a proposition that is in direct contradiction to a Church teaching that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith separates himself from the Church by that very fact.
2. One who knowingly, consciously, and willingly publicly denies or doubts a Church teaching that must be believed with Divine and Catholic Faith separates himself from the Church by that very fact.
Clarifications:
1. One who is separated from the Church is not a member of the Church. He goes from being Catholic to non-Catholic.
2. The separation takes place at the very instant the sin is committed.
3. The proposition is independent of its application to a particular case.
First, you should differentiate between the sin of formal heresy, and the possible sin material heresy:
Fr. Hesse:
Objective (or Material) heresy is: "According to the Church, salvation is attainable outside the Church".
Formal (or Manifest) heresy is: "I don't care what the Church teaches, the Church is wrong, I say salvation is attainable outside the Church."
Second, it might help to differentiate between the heresy of (A) a Catholic, and (B) one who never was Catholic so has always been separated from the Church. Of course for this thread, (B) is pretty much irrelevant.
We know that a penitent heretic (A) can receive absolution of his sin of heresy through confession, or in danger of death can receive all of the sacraments of the Last Rites (Confession, Communion and Extreme Unction) and thereby the censure is removed and he is absolved of his sin of heresy (and all of his other sins) by any priest, whereas (B) those separated from the Church are forbidden by the Church to receive the sacraments.
How do you explain that one who is presumably no longer a member of the Church (A) can receive the sacraments at all.
Also, how is what you say in your quote above for the sin of heresy is not also true for, say, the sin of Adultery?
-
Please define being part of the resistance.
You attend Masses of the Resistance and you agree with the SSPX (not neo-SSPX) position regarding the crisis of the Church.
-
First, you should differentiate between the sin of formal heresy, and the possible sin material heresy:
Fr. Hesse:
Objective (or Material) heresy is: "According to the Church, salvation is attainable outside the Church".
Formal (or Manifest) heresy is: "I don't care what the Church teaches, the Church is wrong, I say salvation is attainable outside the Church."
Second, it might help to differentiate between the heresy of (A) a Catholic, and (B) one who never was Catholic so has always been separated from the Church. Of course for this thread, (B) is pretty much irrelevant.
We know that a penitent heretic (A) can receive absolution of his sin of heresy through confession, or in danger of death can receive all of the sacraments of the Last Rites (Confession, Communion and Extreme Unction) and thereby the censure is removed and he is absolved of his sin of heresy (and all of his other sins) by any priest, whereas (B) those separated from the Church are forbidden by the Church to receive the sacraments.
How do you explain that one who is presumably no longer a member of the Church (A) can receive the sacraments at all.
Also, how is what you say in your quote above for the sin of heresy is not also true for, say, the sin of Adultery?
I stated public sin of manifest "formal" heresy.
Through Confession, "A" is reconciled with the Church. Given that "A" was a member of the Church before his public formal heresy, he has the knowledge about the Church's tenets. Therefore, there is no need to reinstruct him on the Church's tenets prior to administering the Sacraments again to him. "B" was never been a member of the Church. He needs to renounce his heretical sect and be instructed on the Church's tenets prior to receiving the Sacraments. I am granting you here that what you said about "A" is true. You have not provided evidence, however. If you deny that the public sin of manifest formal heresy makes a Catholic become a non-Catholic, then you deny the teaching of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, Paragraph 23 because that teaching is specifically about Catholics becoming severed from the Church via public heresy (and apostasy and schism).
The sin of adultery does not by its very nature make one a non-Catholic. It is by its very nature a mortal sin, but it does not by its very nature sever one from the Church.
-
So, it's really the wrong question, as nearly everyone agrees with the propostion ... with the key being when "formal" heresy can be discerned, when it's "manifest" and to whom ... and of course the term "sin" is a bit tricky as bleeds into the internal forum, and then the term "public and manifest" overlap and are redundant, so the proposition remains a bit murky.
Many R&R would likely agree that the Conciliar papal claimants are manifest heretics, but would dispute the "formal" part.
-
So, it's really the wrong question, as nearly everyone agrees with the propostion ... with the key being when "formal" heresy can be discerned, when it's "manifest" and to whom ... and of course the term "sin" is a bit tricky as bleeds into the internal forum, and then the term "public and manifest" overlap and are redundant, so the proposition remains a bit murky.
Many R&R would likely agree that the Conciliar papal claimants are manifest heretics, but would dispute the "formal" part.
I took the phrase "the public sin of manifest formal heresy" straight from Fr. Paul Kramer's First Volume of To Deceive the Elect. I guess he didn't want to leave out any term that would lead to different interpretations. He does use other variations as well. Father did comment on Facebook that Bishop Pivarunas' use of the term 'manifest heretic" is not correct. See below.
(https://i.imgur.com/QYRg6Zu.png)
-
I stated public sin of manifest "formal" heresy.
I don't think so because your #1 and #2 merely state that the sin of heresy was being committed. Certainly all heresies are in direct contradiction to what the Church teaches, but for the sake of argument, your #s 1 and 2 were coming out of the mouth of an infidel, a prot minister, or a prot child for that matter. In these cases, I don't think we can say with certainty that they are speaking manifest heresy.
Instead of saying "One who knowingly...." You could have phrased it: "A Catholic who knowingly..." in this way it would have been more clear I think that the person was guilty of the sin of heresy.
Through Confession, "A" is reconciled with the Church. Given that "A" was a member of the Church before his public formal heresy, he has the knowledge about the Church's tenets. Therefore, there is no need to reinstruct him on the Church's tenets prior to administering the Sacraments again to him.
But all non-Catholics, all of those outside of the Church, all non-members cannot receive the sacraments. So if this Catholic guilty of the sin of heresy, per the OP is ipso facto outside of the Church, then he cannot simply go to confession and be absolved as if he is a member of the Church, again, this is per the OP.
In reality, manifest heresy is a mortal sin, for this particular sin the Church attaches a censure, the censure of excommunication. In confession, in the traditional formula for absolution, the priest first removes the censure, then absolves the sinner. This is true for all of us trads each time we go to confession.
And that's why a Catholic who has committed the sin of heresy is still a member because he can simply walk into the confession like only Catholics can do and leave absolved, whereas non-Catholics cannot.
I am granting you here that what you said about "A" is true. You have not provided evidence, however. If you deny that the public sin of manifest formal heresy makes a Catholic become a non-Catholic, then you deny the teaching of Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, Paragraph 23 because that teaching is specifically about Catholics becoming severed from the Church via public heresy (and apostasy and schism).
The sin of adultery does not by its very nature make one a non-Catholic. It is by its very nature a mortal sin, but it does not by its very nature sever one from the Church.
PPXII was of course right. The excommunicated Catholic cannot partake with the community of the Church, he has excommunicated or severed himself from that due to his sin of public heresy.
This means those who are excommunicated are forbidden from taking part in the communal life of the Church, they cannot receive communion or any of the sacraments until their sin is forgiven, they cannot be a sponsor, they cannot sing in the choir, be an usher etc. etc,. The nature of the sin of heresy makes one position themselves in direct opposition to God, the Church, her teachings, her doctrines, her magisterium and all things Catholic. They have effectively severed themselves from the Church by their sin of heresy. But if they were ever Catholic, they are still a Catholic - guilty of the sin of public heresy - and need to go to confession, which again, is something only Catholics can do.
-
We should certainly try to understand the terms.
Pertinacity is one of the most incorrectly used terms. Let's understand it by contrast. Priest utters a heresy. You point it out and he says it was a slip of the tongue. Not petinacious. You point it out, he looks it up, and he says, "oh, my bad ..." and retracts the view. Not pertinacious.
Those are the types of things that pertinacity rules out, so someone doesn't lose membership for merely uttering a heresy.
Now, pertinacity does not require someone to consciously think, "I know that the Church teaches this and that it's heretical to deny it, and I deny it anyway." That degree of conscious and deliberate rejection of dogma is not required, and there has been an attempt by R&R to turn pertinacity into some phenomenon that can only be discerned in the internal forum.
It suffices for petinacity that someone repeatedly make the assertion (so not a slip of the tongue or simple mistake) and appear to be very strongly in favor of it, i.e. for them to adhere to it.
Bergoglio, for instance, and actually all the other V2 papal claimants as well, teach the heresy that there can be salvation outside the Church, that the Old Covenant continues in force and is salvific for the Jews (the heresy Father Kramer points out) ... and they're certainly PERTINACIOUS about it. They say it over and over again and teach it, and they're clearly adhering to it as something they strongly believe in. That suffices for pertinacity. Period. There's no requirement to discern the internal forum, nor is that ordinarily possible.
-
I don't think so because your #1 and #2 merely state that the sin of heresy was being committed. Certainly all heresies are in direct contradiction to what the Church teaches, but for the sake of argument, your #s 1 and 2 were coming out of the mouth of an infidel, a prot minister, or a prot child for that matter. In these cases, I don't think we can say with certainty that they are speaking manifest heresy.
Instead of saying "One who knowingly...." You could have phrased it: "A Catholic who knowingly..." in this way it would have been more clear I think that the person was guilty of the sin of heresy.
But all non-Catholics, all of those outside of the Church, all non-members cannot receive the sacraments. So if this Catholic guilty of the sin of heresy, per the OP is ipso facto outside of the Church, then he cannot simply go to confession and be absolved as if he is a member of the Church, again, this is per the OP.
In reality, manifest heresy is a mortal sin, for this particular sin the Church attaches a censure, the censure of excommunication. In confession, in the traditional formula for absolution, the priest first removes the censure, then absolves the sinner. This is true for all of us trads each time we go to confession.
And that's why a Catholic who has committed the sin of heresy is still a member because he can simply walk into the confession like only Catholics can do and leave absolved, whereas non-Catholics cannot.
PPXII was of course right. The excommunicated Catholic cannot partake with the community of the Church, he has excommunicated or severed himself from that due to his sin of public heresy.
This means those who are excommunicated are forbidden from taking part in the communal life of the Church, they cannot receive communion or any of the sacraments until their sin is forgiven, they cannot be a sponsor, they cannot sing in the choir, be an usher etc. etc,. The nature of the sin of heresy makes one position themselves in direct opposition to God, the Church, her teachings, her doctrines, her magisterium and all things Catholic. They have effectively severed themselves from the Church by their sin of heresy. But if they were ever Catholic, they are still a Catholic - guilty of the sin of public heresy - and need to go to confession, which again, is something only Catholics can do.
"They have effectively severed themselves from the Church by their sin of heresy. But if they were ever Catholic, they are still a Catholic - guilty of the sin of public heresy - and need to go to confession, which again, is something only Catholics can do."
What? You are essentially saying that Pope Pius XII's teaching in Mystici Corporis means that Catholics who are guilty of the public sin of heresy remain members of the Church. They do not go from being Catholic to non-Catholic. From where did you get this interpretation?
-
We should certainly try to understand the terms.
Pertinacity is one of the most incorrectly used terms. Let's understand it by contrast. Priest utters a heresy. You point it out and he says it was a slip of the tongue. Not petinacious. You point it out, he looks it up, and he says, "oh, my bad ..." and retracts the view. Not pertinacious.
Those are the types of things that pertinacity rules out, so someone doesn't lose membership for merely uttering a heresy.
Now, pertinacity does not require someone to consciously think, "I know that the Church teaches this and that it's heretical to deny it, and I deny it anyway." That degree of conscious and deliberate rejection of dogma is not required, and there has been an attempt by R&R to turn pertinacity into some phenomenon that can only be discerned in the internal forum.
It suffices for petinacity that someone repeatedly make the assertion (so not a slip of the tongue or simple mistake) and appear to be very strongly in favor of it, i.e. for them to adhere to it.
Bergoglio, for instance, and actually all the other V2 papal claimants as well, teach the heresy that there can be salvation outside the Church, that the Old Covenant continues in force and is salvific for the Jews (the heresy Father Kramer points out) ... and they're certainly PERTINACIOUS about it. They say it over and over again and teach it, and they're clearly adhering to it as something they strongly believe in. That suffices for pertinacity. Period. There's no requirement to discern the internal forum, nor is that ordinarily possible.
I think your definition of "pertinacity" is loosey-goosey. Do you have a source?
-
"They have effectively severed themselves from the Church by their sin of heresy. But if they were ever Catholic, they are still a Catholic - guilty of the sin of public heresy - and need to go to confession, which again, is something only Catholics can do."
What? You are essentially saying that Pope Pius XII's teaching in Mystici Corporis means that Catholics who are guilty of the public sin of heresy remain members of the Church. They do not go from being Catholic to non-Catholic. From where did you get this interpretation?
When one commits the sin of manifest heresy, the Church does not sever his membership, the one guilty of the sin of heresy severs himself from the Body of the Church by committing the sin.
But you're reading of Pope Pius XII is as if he is saying that it was the Church who severed it and kicked him out. Now if that were the case then yes, we could then say that he is no longer a member. But he does not say that because the Church does not work that way. St. Thomas says that for the sinner, the censures of the Church are always first and foremost medicinal, meant to prompt the sinner to repent. Not to condemn him to hell *except* as warnings to him if he does not repent.
The idea that the Church kicks sinners out of the Church is altogether contrary to the Church's mission.
How do penitent Catholics get absolved from their sins? They go to confession.
How do penitent non-Catholics get absolved from their sins? They can't.
-
How do penitent Catholics get absolved from their sins? They go to confession.
How do penitent non-Catholics get absolved from their sins? They can't.
A heretic must abjure his heresy to be absolved of his sins. There is no sacrament without absolution, right? So, is it possible that the abjuration of heresy is what causes the former member of the Church to re-enter the Church, allowing him to receive absolution (the Sacrament) which only Catholics can receive?
-
Catholic Knight, why was Bergoglio a formal heretic, but Ratzinger was not? Please provide examples that demonstrate the difference.
-
A heretic must abjure his heresy to be absolved of his sins. There is no sacrament without absolution, right? So, is it possible that the abjuration of heresy is what causes the former member of the Church to re-enter the Church, allowing him to receive absolution (the Sacrament) which only Catholics can receive?
No, I thought the same thing for a long time, but if you look it up in canon law, you will find under normal circuмstances, 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. Otherwise the penitent walks into the confession as a Catholic same as you and I do.
Obviously it depends on the authority, the heretic and the censure that is attached to the sin, and if it is reserved to the Holy See, or to the bishop, or whatever other penalties/requirements are part of that censure. But let's face it, nowadays nobody with the authority to do it is going to excommunicate anyone for heresy, schism or apostacy, which makes this whole conversation somewhat mute. But public abjuration is not always required in every case.
Fr. Wathen notes in Who Shall Ascend?:
"It may surprise lay readers to learn that in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church. This means, of course, that everyone who has received a censure, and everyone who is "under a censure," is a Catholic, since he goes to confession to seek its removal. [The priest first lifts the censure then forgives the sin].... "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."
-
No, I thought the same thing for a long time, but if you look it up in canon law, you will find under normal circuмstances, 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. Otherwise the penitent walks into the confession as a Catholic same as you and I do.
Obviously it depends on the authority, the heretic and the censure that is attached to the sin, and if it is reserved to the Holy See, or to the bishop, or whatever other penalties/requirements are part of that censure. But let's face it, nowadays nobody with the authority to do it is going to excommunicate anyone for heresy, schism or apostacy, which makes this whole conversation somewhat mute. But public abjuration is not always required in every case.
Fr. Wathen notes in Who Shall Ascend?:
"It may surprise lay readers to learn that in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church. This means, of course, that everyone who has received a censure, and everyone who is "under a censure," is a Catholic, since he goes to confession to seek its removal. [The priest first lifts the censure then forgives the sin].... "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."
Right, but what I am saying is the abjuration of heresy (public or privately in the confessional) takes place before the absolution of sins. The censure is lifted in the confessional prior to absolution of sins. The sacrament is not effected without absolution of sins, so I think there might be some distinction to be made between the heretic abjuring his heresies/the censures being lifted, and the absolution (the sacrament, which only Catholics can receive) being given only after those things occur
-
Right, but what I am saying is the abjuration of heresy (public or privately in the confessional) takes place before the absolution of sins. The censure is lifted in the confessional prior to absolution of sins. The sacrament is not effected without absolution of sins, so I think there might be some distinction to be made between the heretic abjuring his heresies/the censures being lifted, and the absolution (the sacrament, which only Catholics can receive) being given only after those things occur
Well, yes, I would expect that the priest, at the very least, would ask something along the lines of: "So you agree to stop preaching that heresy from now on and you know it's heresy and no longer believe it?" then lift the censure and then absolve the sinner.
But the whole point is that if it is a Catholic who commits the sin of manifest heresy, he is still a Catholic, he is still a member of the Church since he can still go to confession if he decides to repent.
-
Not quite, Stubborn. If the heresy is occult/private, then confession can be used.
In the case of manifest heresy (which is a public sin), then a public abjuration is required, to correct the sin of scandal which the heresy caused. That’s why the Middle Ages had public penances for public sin; because the sinner had to make up for the ADDITIONAL sin of scandal.
Also, even if the heresy is private, it depends on the bishop, if he has given priests power to abjure certain heresies. A priest has power only if given it.
It’s not that simple. Heresy is a MAJOR SIN. A simple confession does NOT fix the grave harm done by heresy.
-
Well, yes, I would expect that the priest, at the very least, would ask something along the lines of: "So you agree to stop preaching that heresy from now on and you know it's heresy and no longer believe it?" then lift the censure and then absolve the sinner.
But the whole point is that if it is a Catholic who commits the sin of manifest heresy, he is still a Catholic, he is still a member of the Church since he can still go to confession if he decides to repent.
There is nothing stopping anybody at all from walking into a confessional and confessing their sins. Simply being in a confessional with a priest does not necessarily mean someone is Catholic. Hypothetically, a jew, Protestant, Hindu, etc. could do that. But they cannot receive absolution (the sacrament) because they are not Catholic. My point is, a heretic must abjure his heresy before being absolved of his sins. That is what allows a former heretic, someone who was outside of the Church, but is no longer, to receive absolution.
>Heretic enters confessional. *No sacrament at this point
>Heretic abjures his heresy and confesses other sins if necessary. It is evident he is no longer a heretic *No sacrament at this point
>Censure is lifted, former heretic is now a member of the Church again *Still no sacrament at this point
>Former heretic receives absolution *The Sacrament is effected, which only Catholics can receive
I really cannot agree with Fr. Wathen's "once a Catholic always a Catholic" and "heretics are still members of the Church" ideas. It seems incredibly novel to me and flies in the face of what the popes have taught:
[The Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).
Pope Leo XII, Satis Cognitum
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
...
For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis
-
When one commits the sin of manifest heresy, the Church does not sever his membership, the one guilty of the sin of heresy severs himself from the Body of the Church by committing the sin.
That the one guilty of the sin of heresy severs himself is the exact point. He severs himself from membership in the Church by the very act of the public sin of heresy. It's called ipso facto.
“Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of the faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors-baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy-pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy, automatically sever a man from the Church. ‘For not every sin, however grave and enormous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy‘ (MCC 30, italics ours).”
(Monsignor G. Van Noort, S.T.D., Dogmatic Theology, Volume II, Christ’s Church, 153)
“Certain sins – viz., apostasy, heresy and schism – of their nature cut off the guilty from the living Body of Christ…..It can hardly be denied that those who take up any of these positions – most evidently is this the case with the deliberate apostate – sever themselves by their own act from membership of the Church.”
(The Teaching of the Catholic Church, Volume II, Arranged and Edited by Canon George Smith, New York, 1961, Fourteenth Printing, p. 708)
-
It’s not that simple. Heresy is a MAJOR SIN. A simple confession does NOT fix the grave harm done by heresy.
A Catholic who is guilty of heresy commits a mortal sin. Heresy is the worst of all the sins, that is what heresy is, a sin. The only way a Catholic can be absolved of mortal sin is through confession.
IF the censure attached to the sin requires an abjuration then so be it, once completed in what, 60 seconds? 2 minutes? 3 minutes? they then would walk right into the confessional to be absolved exactly the same as you and I and all Catholics have done all of our lives.
Whereas as typically, the priest always presumes our contrition and firm purpose of amendment prior to absolution, the censure attached to the sin of heresy requires the heretic to profess as much with the abjuration, privately or publicly.
Compare that to a heretic who was never Catholic and wanted to repent. Before they could go to confession they would first have to become a member of the Church through all the usual catechetical instructions etc.,
This is basic Catholicism, it is not complicated. It really is not the least bit complicated.
-
Stubborn, we’ve been through this. Major heresies cannot be abjured by a priest or in confession. Martin Luther could NOT abjure his heresy in confession. His sin was too public for that. He had to be summoned to Rome, for a papal inquest and then formally and publicly abjure.
Yes, a simple heresy can be abjured by a simple confession. But the V2 popes and modernists are at the level of error of Martin Luther. Confession doesn’t cut it. A public abjuration would be necessary so ALL THE FAITHFUL WORLDWIDE would know that these guys repent and were wrong. We know this won’t happen, but that’s what it would take for them to get back into the Church.
-
I have a close family member that was denied absolution by a priest for schism (not SV because this individual is a NO). That person was sent to the bishop for absolution.
-
Stubborn, we’ve been through this. Major heresies cannot be abjured by a priest or in confession. Martin Luther could NOT abjure his heresy in confession. His sin was too public for that. He had to be summoned to Rome, for a papal inquest and then formally and publicly abjure.
Yes, a simple heresy can be abjured by a simple confession. But the V2 popes and modernists are at the level of error of Martin Luther. Confession doesn’t cut it. A public abjuration would be necessary so ALL THE FAITHFUL WORLDWIDE would know that these guys repent and were wrong. We know this won’t happen, but that’s what it would take for them to get back into the Church.
So what?
Fr. Luther only had to abjure his heresies to be absolved - yet, he remained a Catholic priest in the sin of heresy through it all. And yet the no good heretic could still do what all Catholic priests do, namely, administer the sacraments in dire emergencies. Since his death, it is to his everlasting shame that he will always be a Catholic priest for all eternity. The evil excommunicated heretic, apostate and schismatic that he was, he never ceased being a Catholic priest.
There is a difference there even if no one wants to admit it. The difference is between one who was never Catholic having to go through at least a few months to a year of instruction and THEN become a member of the Church before finally being absolved in confession, and a Catholic who has to make an abjuration of heresy, even if that's before the whole world, and then be absolved in confession.
-
There is a difference there even if no one wants to admit it. The difference is between one who was never Catholic having to go through at least a few months to a year of instruction and THEN become a member of the Church before finally being absolved in confession, and a Catholic who has to make an abjuration of heresy, even if that's before the whole world, and then be absolved in confession.
Yes, the difference between Martin Luther (a catholic) and a guy like Charlie Kirk (protestant). Yes, it's a big difference. Your point is well taken.
Fr. Luther only had to abjure his heresies to be absolved - yet, he remained a Catholic priest in the sin of heresy through it all. And yet the no good heretic could still do what all Catholic priests do, namely, administer the sacraments in dire emergencies. Since his death, it is to his everlasting shame that he will always be a Catholic priest for all eternity. The evil excommunicated heretic, apostate and schismatic that he was, he never ceased being a Catholic priest.
Yes, we get your point. He's still a priest.
But your ignoring the other problem. Luther was excommunicated, just like all modern-day Modernists. Masons, heretics, etc are in a state of MAJOR excommunication (and all manner of canon law penalties). These CANNOT be removed simply by confession.
There's a process; a public meeting; a trial. (assuming the Church was operating at full, anti-heretical capacity). So a 'public, manifest heretic' can be forgiven ONLY AFTER they abjure their heresy.
It's like a thief who stole $100,000. Can they simply go to confession? No. They must also do restitution and pay the money back.
Can an excommunicated heretic simply go to confession? No. They must make PUBLIC restitution and PUBLIC abjuration of heresies, towards the public, whom they scandalized and led into sin.
Do you get the point?
-
Yes, the difference between Martin Luther (a catholic) and a guy like Charlie Kirk (protestant). Yes, it's a big difference. Your point is well taken.
Yes, we get your point. He's still a priest.
But your ignoring the other problem. Luther was excommunicated, just like all modern-day Modernists. Masons, heretics, etc are in a state of MAJOR excommunication (and all manner of canon law penalties). These CANNOT be removed simply by confession.
There's a process; a public meeting; a trial. (assuming the Church was operating at full, anti-heretical capacity). So a 'public, manifest heretic' can be forgiven ONLY AFTER they abjure their heresy.
It's like a thief who stole $100,000. Can they simply go to confession? No. They must also do restitution and pay the money back.
Can an excommunicated heretic simply go to confession? No. They must make PUBLIC restitution and PUBLIC abjuration of heresies, towards the public, whom they scandalized and led into sin.
Do you get the point?
I get your point of course, but you are mixed up.
Yes, an excommunicant can simply go to confession - depending, as I already said: "it depends on the authority [who issued the penalty], the heretic and the censure that is attached to the sin, and if it is reserved to the Holy See, or to the bishop, or whatever other penalties/requirements are part of that censure."
Otherwise, why, in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance, is there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church? It is because an excommunicated heretic can simply go to confession - depending on what I said above in italics - have the censure lifted and then be absolved by the priest.
You're failing to consider that in-between making the abjuration and being absolved, the heretic is still a heretic because not having been absolved yet he still has the sin of heresy on his soul. Abjuration is not a way to self absolve.
What this means is that a Catholic with the sin of heresy, whom you insist is not a member, is indeed receiving a sacrament that only members of the Church may receive.
-
A Catholic who is guilty of heresy commits a mortal sin. Heresy is the worst of all the sins, that is what heresy is, a sin. The only way a Catholic can be absolved of mortal sin is through confession.
IF the censure attached to the sin requires an abjuration then so be it, once completed in what, 60 seconds? 2 minutes? 3 minutes? they then would walk right into the confessional to be absolved exactly the same as you and I and all Catholics have done all of our lives.
Whereas as typically, the priest always presumes our contrition and firm purpose of amendment prior to absolution, the censure attached to the sin of heresy requires the heretic to profess as much with the abjuration, privately or publicly.
Compare that to a heretic who was never Catholic and wanted to repent. Before they could go to confession they would first have to become a member of the Church through all the usual catechetical instructions etc.,
This is basic Catholicism, it is not complicated. It really is not the least bit complicated.
Provide evidence that Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis did not mean by the term "separation" that a Catholic becomes a non-Catholic by the public sin of heresy. I have provided you evidence that the term "separation" does mean that a Catholic becomes a non-Catholic by the public sin of heresy.
-
Provide evidence that Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis did not mean by the term "separation" that a Catholic becomes a non-Catholic by the public sin of heresy. I have provided you evidence that the term "separation" does mean that a Catholic becomes a non-Catholic by the public sin of heresy.
Ok, so you agree that heresy is a sin, a mortal sin - the worst of all the sins. The question is, how can a penitent Catholic obtain absolution from the sin of heresy?
1917 Canon 2314
§ 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
1.° Incur by that fact excommunication"
What is excommunication?
Excommunication is a censure attached to certain sins (the sin of heresy in this case) by the (1917) Code of Canon Law.
What is a censure?
From Commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law (pdf attached)....
"1525. A censure is a penalty by which a subject (by Baptism) of the Church is deprived of some spiritual benefits, or of benefits connected with matters spiritual, because of obstinate violation of some law of the Church, until such time as he repents and obtains absolution."
Note that, contrary to popular opinion, per (1917) Canon Law, the censure of excommunication does not mean that one is outside of the Church, what the censure means is said above.
What all of this means, is that the penitent Catholic guilty of the sin of heresy, whether the bishop decides an abjuration is required or not, can do that which only members of the Church can do - walk into the confessional, confess his sin to the priest and be absolved by the priest. This is because in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance, there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church.
Honestly, all any trad needs to do is use themselves as an example, i.e. what would they do if (God forbid) they fell into the sin of heresy and wanted to repent?
-
I get your point of course, but you are mixed up.
Yes, an excommunicant can simply go to confession - depending, as I already said: "it depends on the authority [who issued the penalty], the heretic and the censure that is attached to the sin, and if it is reserved to the Holy See, or to the bishop, or whatever other penalties/requirements are part of that censure."
Otherwise, why, in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance, is there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church? It is because an excommunicated heretic can simply go to confession - depending on what I said above in italics - have the censure lifted and then be absolved by the priest.
Because a censure is a low level canon law punishment, which (most) priests are allowed to forgive. An excommunication is the highest level, and there are various levels of these too. A person like Martin Luther (or the current Pope Leo, or Cardinal Dolan...really bad heretics), who have the highest excommunication penalty, they CANNOT be forgiven these canon law penalties by a simple priest, in confession. No, per canon law, it requires a formal process. A formal hearing. Or...it would require such AND THEN it would require a papal forgiveness or by a bishop or some roman official. After the heretic recants his heresy (abjuration), THEN he goes to confession.
-
Because a censure is a low level canon law punishment, which (most) priests are allowed to forgive. An excommunication is the highest level, and there are various levels of these too.
I supplied the definition from Canon Law's Commentary on what a censure is. You change it from that to "a low level canon law punishment." Better to stick to what the commentary says Pax, it's plain and clear, your idea of what it is is your idea.
I already posted above that the censure of excommunication can have various different penalties/remedies attached to it depending on the sin and the judge (e.g. pope or bishop). But in the end, the censure of excommunication means what is defined in my previous post. Period. You can add whatever other conditions you feel you need to, but you or anyone should not be dong that.
A person like Martin Luther (or the current Pope Leo, or Cardinal Dolan...really bad heretics), who have the highest excommunication penalty, they CANNOT be forgiven these canon law penalties by a simple priest, in confession. No, per canon law, it requires a formal process. A formal hearing. Or...it would require such AND THEN it would require a papal forgiveness or by a bishop or some roman official. After the heretic recants his heresy (abjuration), THEN he goes to confession.
Ok.
So Deo Gratias now that the penitent heretic pope or cardinal or layman or whomever went through the "formal process," he is still a heretic because all the heretic did was essentially promise to repent, made a profession of faith and promised to be faithful till he dies. Right? HE IS STILL A HERETIC BECAUSE HE STILL HAS THE SIN OF HERESY ON HIS SOUL BECAUSE HE HAS NOT YET BEEN ABSOLVED. Here you need to admit that the "formal process" does not absolve anyone from their sin of heresy.
So lets say that Catholics in the sin of heresy are outside of the Church - if that is so then he cannot partake of the sacrament of penance even after completing the "formal process", not even to the pope, because having the sin of heresy on his soul he is still not a member of the Church because he is still a heretic. No abjuration or "formal process"can absolve him from that sin.
Among other important aspects, the "formal process" proves to the confessor that the heretic really wants to repent and be absolved. Normally, this is something that the confessor always initially presumes for all Catholic sinners who walk into the confessional, that's why a "formal process" for all penitent sinners going to confession is not required.
I am saying "formal process" or not, he is still a heretic until he receives absolution - the only way for that to happen is for the heretic to walk into the confessional and be absolved exactly the same as only members of the Church are permitted to do.
Maybe this is all too simple, I don't know.
-
I supplied the definition from Canon Law's Commentary on what a censure is. You change it from that to "a low level canon law punishment." Better to stick to what the commentary says Pax, it's plain and clear, your idea of what it is is your idea.
I misspoke. A censure is a general term. An excommunication is a TYPE of censure. All excommunications are censures, but not all censures are excommunications.
So Deo Gratias now that the penitent heretic pope or cardinal or layman or whomever went through the "formal process," he is still a heretic because all the heretic did was essentially promise to repent, made a profession of faith and promised to be faithful till he dies. Right? HE IS STILL A HERETIC BECAUSE HE STILL HAS THE SIN OF HERESY ON HIS SOUL BECAUSE HE HAS NOT YET BEEN ABSOLVED. Here you need to admit that the "formal process" does not absolve anyone from their sin of heresy.
I never said the formal process means that he is forgiven, but...it is a sign that he's repentant. Which is a necessary sign/step, per canon law.
So lets say that Catholics in the sin of heresy are outside of the Church
I've never said this.
- if that is so then he cannot partake of the sacrament of penance even after completing the "formal process", not even to the pope, because having the sin of heresy on his soul he is still not a member of the Church because he is still a heretic. No abjuration or "formal process"can absolve him from that sin.
The whole point of the "formal process" is to determine if the person is willing to recant his heresy and come back to the Church. If he is NOT WILLING TO RECANT, then even if he were to go to confession, he would NOT be forgiven.
Example: A thief steals $10,000. He can go to confession and ask forgiveness, but if he's not willing to give back the $, confession is worthless. If he gives back the money, THEN he can go to confession.
Major heresy is the same way. A heretic is excommunicated (i.e. put on probation). ONLY AFTER they promise to amend, recant their heresies, and formally rejoin the Church, will the Church give permission for a confession to be valid. Martin Luther could've gone to confession 500x prior to his meeting with the Church authorities, but none of these confessions would've been valid, because Christ allows the Church to "bind", in this case, and create canon law penalties which are ADDITIONAL penalties for certain sins.
I am saying "formal process" or not, he is still a heretic until he receives absolution - the only way for that to happen is for the heretic to walk into the confessional and be absolved exactly the same as only members of the Church are permitted to do.
If a heretic repents, recants his errors and wants to rejoin the Church then they are no longer a heretic, because they have rejected the heresy. A heretic is one who holds/believes an error. Once a person repents of this error and accepts truth again, they are no longer a heretic. Which is the whole point of the "formal process"...to re-convert the heretic back to a catholic.
Once this is accomplished, then the SIN of heresy is forgiven in confession.
Just like the thief who promises to pay back the money and amend his life, is no longer a thief (i.e. spiritually speaking, because his promise to amend is required for confession).
-
If a heretic is a major, public, heretic, then he incurs 2 penalties - 1) the sin of heresy and 2) the penalties of the Church, which is excommunication.
A heretic must FIRST be forgiven/reconciled BY THE CHURCH (i.e. through the formal process) and THEN he can be reconciled to God (through confession).
God will not forgive in confession, a heretic who has not humbled himself before the Church (....except in danger of death).
Excommunication means a person is 'severed from the Church' (spiritually, due to their sin and also due to canon law). Some popes use the term 'lose membership'. Some saints use the term 'outside the church' (excommunication LITERALLY means to "deprive one of membership").
The error of those who debate this topic is a lack of distinguishment.
An excommunicated catholic is, by definition, 'not a member' of the Church.
A heretic, by definition, is 'not a member' of the Church.
But...a hindu is also 'not a member' of the Church.
Is a hindu's lack of membership the same as a heretic's lack of membership? Of course not.
-
I misspoke. A censure is a general term. An excommunication is a TYPE of censure. All excommunications are censures, but not all censures are excommunications.
I don't know where you come up with the stuff you're saying, but I can show you where I come up with what I'm saying.....by definition (see attached from pre-V2 Catholic Dictionary), it begins: "Excommunication is an ecclesiastical censure which excludes a person from the communion of the faithful with consequent disabilities and deprivations."
Note that it does not say that they are no longer members.
I never said the formal process means that he is forgiven, but...it is a sign that he's repentant. Which is a necessary sign/step, per canon law.
I already said: "Among other important aspects, the "formal process" proves to the confessor that the heretic really wants to repent and be absolved."
Basically the rest of your whole post says what I already said.
But the heresies and conditions pertaining to Luther cannot be compared to the conciliar popes anyway. Whereas the popes all believe that their heresies are actual Church teachings, Luther flat out told the Church to go to hell and that she was wrong. Luther hated everything about the faith, the Church, and the pope - and preached against pretty much all things Catholic on purpose - and he was still a Catholic priest. Guaranteed he faced God as a Catholic priest and in hell, to his everlasting shame, he will remain a Catholic priest forever, because: "Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek."
-
Heresy doesn’t take away the priesthood. That has nothing to do with the discussion.
-
Heresy doesn’t take away the priesthood.
I know that.
-
"Excommunication is an ecclesiastical censure which excludes a person from the communion of the faithful with consequent disabilities and deprivations."
Note that it does not say that they are no longer members.
Notice the definition above uses the phrase "communion of the faithful". If someone isn't part of the communion of the faithful, then they aren't a member. THAT'S THE ARGUMENT. How can one be a member if they aren't part of the faithful? A catechumen isn't part of the faithful, and that's why they aren't a member.
As I explained, if one just leaves it at that, saying "a heretic isn't a member" then that is a partial truth. Because an excommunicated person, IS still a catholic, but not a member of the Church. THAT is the distinction.
But the heresies and conditions pertaining to Luther cannot be compared to the conciliar popes anyway. Whereas the popes all believe that their heresies are actual Church teachings, Luther flat out told the Church to go to hell and that she was wrong.
Irrelevant to Church law. The distinction you are making is in regards to the internal forum and their degree of guilt for the sin. But in regards to canon law, V2 heretics are equally as guilty as Luther. In fact, V2 clerics would be MORE guilty because Luther was a simple priest, while V2 clerics are more educated, more learned and have more graces of state.
-
Notice the definition above uses the phrase "communion of the faithful". If someone isn't part of the communion of the faithful, then they aren't a member. THAT'S THE ARGUMENT. How can one be a member if they aren't part of the faithful? A catechumen isn't part of the faithful, and that's why they aren't a member.
It excludes a person from the communion of the faithful with consequent disabilities and deprivations." The disabilities and deprivations mean that the consequences of their sin is that, they cannot receive communion, cannot be a sponsor, cannot sing in the choir, cannot be an usher and so on. They are excluded and deprived from participating in some of the community activities due to their sin.
A catechumen is not a member, hence not a Catholic, not a part of the faithful because they never were. That's why the catechumen is not a member. They will never be a member until they are baptized and profess the Catholic faith.
As I explained, if one just leaves it at that, saying "a heretic isn't a member" then that is a partial truth. Because an excommunicated person, IS still a catholic, but not a member of the Church. THAT is the distinction.
Irrelevant to Church law. The distinction you are making is in regards to the internal forum and their degree of guilt for the sin.
That is double talk, not a partial truth. One cannot be a Catholic, but at the same time not be a member of the Catholic Church. He may not be a member of the local Church, but he is still a member with all the benefits the Church offers only to her members, all he needs to do is repent and be absolved to take advantage of them.
But in regards to canon law, V2 heretics are equally as guilty as Luther. In fact, V2 clerics would be MORE guilty because Luther was a simple priest, while V2 clerics are more educated, more learned and have more graces of state.
St. Thomas Aquinas was a simple priest, so that idea doesn't fly.
Nope, the conciliar popes and hierarchy are only material heretics because they believe that they are carrying on the Church's Mission. That is what they believe. It is impossible to prove otherwise without them admitting that they know they are preaching heresy, or they would have to insist that the Church's teaching are wrong and they're right, or they are officially accused with an itemized list of their heresies by the bishops or cardinals - and then the popes would have to refuse to recant their heresies.
I agree they SHOULD know better, and that before God they are culpable for losing the faith and preaching heresies, but what we cannot do is accuse them of manifest, formal heresy - because that is judging the internal forum, which is something the Church does not do.
-
It excludes a person from the communion of the faithful with consequent disabilities and deprivations." The disabilities and deprivations mean that the consequences of their sin is that, they cannot receive communion, cannot be a sponsor, cannot sing in the choir, cannot be an usher and so on. They are excluded and deprived from participating in some of the community activities due to their sin.
They aren't excluded from "some" activities, but nearly all. Save repentance/confession.
That is double talk, not a partial truth. One cannot be a Catholic, but at the same time not be a member of the Catholic Church.
:facepalm: Yes. It all depends on how you define "member". You're defining it in the most general way possible -- a baptized person = member. This true. But there are OTHER ways to define the term.
Is a baptized protestant a member?
Is a baptized self-avowed apostate a member?
Is a baptized excommunicant a member?
Yes and no. Yes, they are a baptized member. No, they are not an ACTIVE member. That's the difference. That's why the popes can say that a heretic "severs himself from the mystical body" while not denying that he is still a member due to baptism. You see the difference?
Nope, the conciliar popes and hierarchy are only material heretics because they believe that they are carrying on the Church's Mission.
Material vs formal heresy has nothing to do with intention, nor with the internal forum.
I agree they SHOULD know better, and that before God they are culpable for losing the faith and preaching heresies, but what we cannot do is accuse them of manifest, formal heresy - because that is judging the internal forum, which is something the Church does not do.
Manifest/formal heresy has nothing to do with the internal forum.
-
[20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. 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.
The point is, there is a distinction between being a member (i.e. baptized) and being "in union with" the mystical body, which heretics, schismatics and excommunicated persons are NOT in unity.
To use a business explanation, these persons are not "active members" even if they are still, technically, members. It just depends on how you look at it. If you cut off your arm, that limb is still part of you, but it's no longer part of your living self.
-
:facepalm: Yes. It all depends on how you define "member". You're defining it in the most general way possible -- a baptized person = member. This true. But there are OTHER ways to define the term.
:facepalm: "It all depends on how YOU define member, I define it the way the Church defines it, as I said: "They will never be a member until they are baptized and profess the Catholic faith." Very simple, very clear.
Is a baptized protestant a member?
Is a baptized self-avowed apostate a member?
Is a baptized excommunicant a member?
Yes and no. Yes, they are a baptized member. No, they are not an ACTIVE member. That's the difference. That's why the popes can say that a heretic "severs himself from the mystical body" while not denying that he is still a member due to baptism. You see the difference?
No, there is no "yes and no." Could you be more confused?
To be a Catholic, a member of the Church, one must be baptized and profess the Catholic faith. One who is baptized may never profess the faith hence will never be Catholic, hence never be a member of the Church.
A Catholic may stop professing the Catholic faith and preach heresy, and on that account sever themself from the Body of Church, but remains a Catholic hence a member of the Church by virtue of his baptism and the faith he professed. Heretics belong to the Church only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted, but like the soldier still belongs to the army, the Catholic that committed the sin of heresy still belongs to the Church.
Material vs formal heresy has nothing to do with intention, nor with the internal forum.
:facepalm:
The point is, there is a distinction between being a member (i.e. baptized) and being "in union with" the mystical body, which heretics, schismatics and excommunicated persons are NOT in unity.
To use a business explanation, these persons are not "active members" even if they are still, technically, members. It just depends on how you look at it. If you cut off your arm, that limb is still part of you, but it's no longer part of your living self.
Unlike a severed limb, a severed member it is able to be reattached to the Body should he choose to repent. But unlike lesser sins, the nature of the sins of heresy etc., makes the sinner want to always reject the idea of repentance. That's the nature of that particular sin - there must be a lot of the sin of pride that goes along with it imo.
That's why when PPXII said they sever a man from the body like no other sins, he was talking about the nature of those sins, not that sinners are expelled from membership in the Church.
-
:facepalm: "It all depends on how YOU define member, I define it the way the Church defines it, as I said: "They will never be a member until they are baptized and profess the Catholic faith." Very simple, very clear.
You just made my point. There are 2 conditions. Baptism + Faith.
So a baptized (condition 1) person who is a heretic (fails condition 2) is not a member?
A Catholic may stop professing the Catholic faith and preach heresy, and on that account sever themself from the Body of Church,
Right, so they stop being a member.
but remains a Catholic hence a member of the Church by virtue of his baptism and the faith he professed
This makes no sense and is contradictory from the above quote. What a heretic PROFESSED (in the past) has no bearing on the NOW, (i.e. his rejection of the faith).
-
So, the Bellarmine position is indeed that heretics are excluded from membership in the Church, as are the unbaptized -- i.e. where both Baptism and orthodox faith are required.
I used to tell Stubborn that no theologian ever held his Baptism-only-suffices theory (promoted also by Father Wathen, Stubborn's rule of faith) ... but I later retracted that when, in a survey of this very question, Msgr. Fenton discovered exactly one, but then says the opinion died with him ... and that, since Pius XII later taught otherwise, it was no longer a viable opinion anyway.
But Stubborn's going to cling to his once-Catholic-always-Catholic Wathenian position with his cold dead hand ... and I wonder whether he'd accept otherwise even if a Traditional Pope came along and condemned it explicitly.
If there's ever been a more apt screen name for any user on CathInfo than "Stubborn", then I'd like to see it, since, as far as I'm concerned, nothing else here comes even close.
I've stopped arguing with Stubborn entirely, since I've found that it's a complete and total waste of time, to say nothing of the frustration involved.
-
I can see a distinction being made that says "once a member always a member" because that member can always be re-attached to the mystical body. And Pius XII's statement is about such (former) members no longer being "in union with" the body.
So maybe there's a distinction there between a non-member (i.e. unbaptized), a "member not united" (i.e. heretic, schismatic, excomm), and a "member united".
But just saying either member or non-member is not enough. It's an over-generalization that explains nothing and causes confusion.
-
I can see a distinction being made that says "once a member always a member" because that member can always be re-attached to the mystical body. And Pius XII's statement is about such (former) members no longer being "in union with" the body.
So maybe there's a distinction there between a non-member (i.e. unbaptized), a "member not united" (i.e. heretic, schismatic, excomm), and a "member united".
But just saying either member or non-member is not enough. It's an over-generalization that explains nothing and causes confusion.
St. Robert Bellarmine referred to those who had left the Church but still had the character of Baptism as simply having been marked a former member, and they would be in closer proximity to be actually a member (vs. potentially), since they have a higher potency to become a member (again).
He likens it to the brand or a mark on a sheep that then escapes. So the brand tells you that the sheep USED to be in the fold and that it rightfully belongs (or at least belonged) to a certain owner, but it doesn't mean that it's actually still a part of the fold after it takes off.
In modern day terms, we can think of the Baptismal Character to be analogous to DNA. If someone chops my hand off, and it just dies, you can find my DNA in the severed member, so that you know it used to be part of my body, but it's no longer part of my body, having been removed from it, but it's no longer actively part of my body. If I see it there lyhing on the ground, it's no longer part of my body (and I can't move it or do anything with it), but we can determine that it used to be part of my body (rather than being someone else's hand) by checking the DNA. Now, if it isn't completely dead, it could be re-attached (by surgery) and resume functioning normally. Alternatively, my hand could develop gangrene and die, without being severed, so it would still be part of my body, just a dead part (Catholics not in a state of grace). But if it gets severed, and then dies, before it can be re-attached, there's no hope of ever re-attaching it again.
-
Yeah, the whole reason this debate exists is because Sedes use the overly-simplistic argument of "Heresy = loss of membership = loss of office. All happening in the span of 10 seconds."
Then those opposed say, "Well, heretics are still members." (which is true, to a degree).
What the Sedes argue is true (if re-framed), i.e. -- Manifest heresy (i.e. rejection of the faith) = loss of unity with the mystical body = loss of office. But WHEN all this happens, is anyone's guess.
-
Yes, both sides oversimplify ... yet another reason that privationism / Chazalism present the best theological approach.
So ... a priest is giving a sermon from the pulpit and makes a heretical statement. Aunt Helen (Father Cekada's heroine) recognizes the heresy for what it is, valiantly stands up, and declares him to be outside the Church. Is he a manifest heretic now?
Priest says, just a mental lapse and slip of the tongue, where I forgot to say the word "not". Was he a manifest heretic? Certainly he uttered heresy, and ... it was in fact manifest ... but it was clearly lacking in pertinacity. So ... no.
Next week a different priest comes and utters a different heresy. Once again, Aunt Helen shows herself to be an intredpid defender of the faith and denounces the heresy. Having learned her lesson from the previous week, she asks the priest if he meant to say what he said. Priest says he did mean to say it. But then Aunt Helen pulls out her pocket copy of Denzinger, the edition before Rahner's, and shows him where the proposition was condemned as heresy. Priests apologizes and retracts the heretical statement. Was he ever outside the Church? No, since, again, pertinacity was lacking.
Yet another week goes by, and a third priest proclaims a heresy. Aunt Helen, armed with her Baltimore Catechism No. 1, having not yet graduated to No. 2 ... goes through the previous steps, but the priest sticks to his guns, telling Aunt Helen that she doesn't know what she's talking about. Is this priest no longer a member of the Church? Just because Aunt Helen says so? So, let's say Aunt Helen was wrong. OK, then, he never lost membership in the Church. But let's say Aunt Helen did happen to get it right, and the priest was wrong and what he said was in fact heretical? Well, the priest goes back to his bishop, and the bishop, renowned for his great knowledge of Catholic doctrine, tells the priest, "Well, sorry to tell you this, but Aunt Helen was right. That's rather embarrassing. I'll have to get the rector of the seminary on the line to find out what's going on over there." Priest then admits his error and changes his mind -- and the seminary rector is relieved of duty. Did he ever lose his membership in the Church? No ... even if the seminary rector lost his job. Why? Because his heresy was not formal, i.e. the only reason he held to it was because he did not think it was condemend by the Church or the opposite was taught as dogma by the Church ... his only crime was not taking Aunt Helen's word for it. But, then ... who really would, since she cries wolf on heresy against every few priests who come by.
So, as a result of these cases, the heresy that results in loss of membership in the Church must be 1) manifest, 2) pertinacious, and 3) formal (where it at least implicitly rejects the Church's teaching authority).
Then what if there are a bunch of Catholics who claim something is here, and another group that say the opposite is heresy, such as when the Thomists and Molinists were battling it out. Are either group heretical? No, since there's enough disagreement among presumably-well-meaning Catholics that it's hard to discern the truth of the matter.
I've long told the SVs that personal manifest heresy is absolutely the wrong approach to this crisis, and you can argue either way until you're blue in the face and never come to a conclusion that can satisfy everyone.
In addition, despite multiple challenges, both here on CI and to a larger audience on X, I have requested evidence for Montinin having been a manifest heretic before he took office, and outside of his actually beginning to teach the Church and approve (allegedly) heretical teaching. Crickets. No one has ever produced anything. You could find more about Roncalli than Montini, since Montini evidently cared more about manning soup kitches and building stuff (like most bishops just prior to Vatican II) than about abstract, abstruse, and "pie in the sky" subjects like theology. In fact, and this was a terrible fault of Pius XII, the vast majority of bishops were organizers, builders, and fundraisers, while knowing very little about Catholic theology, despite their chief duty (as explained during the Rite of Consecration) being to teach and defend the faith. That's why most of them had to bring so-called "periti" in tow with them to Vatican II, since they lacked competence, and, then, having vouched for their periti, went off to the "Bar Jonah" to pass the time while deliberations, driven by their Modernist periti, took place. For them, if their peritus seemed smart, articulate, and had a degree from one of the Roman institutions, that was good enough for them ... and for all they cared, really. Since most of them weren't even fluent in Latin (listen to +Cushing's attempt to offer Mass at the risk of developing grave scruples), after returning from Happy Hour at Bar Jonah, they might nudge their "peritus" ... "Hey, Rahner ... should I vote for this?" Rahner: "Absolutely, yes ... it will transform the Church."
In any case, there's zero evidence that's ever been presented to establish that Montini had been a manifest heretic prior to his teaching error at Vatican II. Big problem. If you think it suffices to determine a non-papacy due to manifest heresy ... only after he starts teaching heresy, that guts the entire Magisterium. That way, if I were an Old Catholic type, and disagreed with some dogmatic definition, I could simply declare the Pope to be really a non-Pope and reject the teaching. Problem solved. ... Bigger Problem created. You could never, then, have an a priori certainty regarding any dogma proclaimed by a Pope, since you could simple argue backwards from what you decided was false dogma to the illegitimacy of the one defining it. This guts the entire Magisterium. See, you were still considered Catholic prior if you denied papal infallibility prior to the dogmatic definition at Vatican I. But, once it was defined, you accepted the teaching with the certainty of faith, and retracted the previous error. That's how it should work. But with the principles of SVism, not necessary, since Aunt Helen can just depose the pope for you.
Nor has any SV ever produced a working viable solution to prevent Aunt Helen from starting to depose any pope from her armchair whose teaching she didn't care for, Pius XII, Pius XI, Pius IX, Leo XIII, and even St. Pius X. Father Cekada in his so-called "refutation" of my early "Pope-Sifting" essay (aka "article"), amid a flurry of personal attacks (rooted mostly in his ignorance of the fact that I had not in fact published any article nor was responsible for a good portion of its content), came up with one desperate idea that he slips in after four pages of not even coming up for air and catching his breath from the rattling off his stream of insults. He says that Dogmatic Facts (such as is the legitmacy of a Pope) is something that's "historical". So he declares, making an embarrassing blunder, that this means you cannot impugn the legitimacy of a past pope ... unless there was someone alive during his reign who had done so. Apart from the fact that this does not suffice, since it's quite possible many did exactly that to Pius IX after Vatican I, and there may even have been a bold ancestor of Aunt Helen alive during the reign of St. Pius X ... the embarrassing blunder comes from his misunderstanding of the term "historical", which does not mean "past" but simply refers to something that's in the nature of an event or a fact, rather than a proposition, so that a normal dogma involves the assent of faith to a proposition, a dogmatic fact refers to an event or a circuмstances, something historical IN NATURE, and not involving a "past" time. Apart from this single attempt, which nevertheless resulted in an epic fail, no SV has ever produced a principle that could restraing the indefatigable Aunt Helen in her crusade to find and denounce heresy wherever she saw it.
No, where it comes to something a serious as the legitimacy of a Pope, there must be some role for the Church to play, and it cannot be left up the musings of Aunt Helen, or even Father Cekada himself. That's again where Sedeprivationism comes in, and where I first coined, largely tongue-in-cheek, the term "Sededoubtism" (which Sean Johnson has actually adopted of late), where someone is not to be counted as a schismatic who refuses submission to a putative Pope based upon well-founded and relatively widespread (among orthodox believers) questions about his person or (the legitimacy of) his election. This would put a Pope into the "papa dubius" category, where the accompanying maxim indicatest that "papa dubius nullus pappa" (for all practical intents and purposes) and therefore into what Father Chazal aptly describes as a "state of suspension", until resolved definitively one way or another by the Church.
Let's take the Great Western Schism. If I believed that Pope A was the true pope, if Pope B had proclaimed a dogma during the Schism, would I have been a (formal) heretic for rejecting the dogma? No, since there wasn't an antecedent, or a priori, certainty of faith regarding the legitimacy of Pope B, and I wasn't alone in questioning him. EVENTUALLY, the Church intervened and decided who had been the legitimate Pope. At that point, had the legitimate Pope, let's say it was Pope A, been the true Pope, any dogma that he defined would have been accepted by the Church in hidsight as being a true dogma to be believed under the pain of heresy and separation from the Church. At some point the Church, not Aunt Helen, despite her zeal, energy, and theological acuмent ... must be The Final Decider, and if that means that the Pope is more in a "dubius" situation (contrary Bishop Sanborn's mistaken condemnation of "Opinionism") than anything else, in a state of suspension, perhaps a material but nor formal pope ... or something along those lines, rather than definitively a non-Pope. Archbishop Lefebvre often hinted that he expected a Future Pope or Council to declare these men Anti-Popes once and for all, and I too share that Opinion.
So the argument from personal manifest heresy is largely unworkable, since short of Prevost coming out an saying, "I don't believe Christ actually rose from the dead." or "There are Four Divine Persons in the Holy Trinity" ... it's just too difficult a case to make.
Onto the other angle, then, namely, from the heresies and errors TAUGHT by these putative Popes and from their having promulgated a form of Public Worship that offends God and harms souls, and then canonizine a veritable rogue's gallery of non-saints, an argument made modo tollentis.
So, where this breaks down is the SVs, in reaction against R&R who reduce the protection over the Church by the Holy Ghost to the 1-or-2-per-century solemn dogmatic definitions, leaving 99.9% of the Magisterium up for grabs and fair game, including allowing for nearly all of it to be polluted and corrutped, so long as those solemn definitions are protected. SVs then inanely join battle on this front, but absurdly extending the scope of infallibilty to include nearly every time a pope passes wind, even if it isn't through his lips, some even to any book that has received an imprimatur, leading to a dispute that can never be resolved. "That should have been infalible." "No it shouldn't have." "Yes it should." "No it shouldn't." "I know you are, but what am I?" ... this is pretty much the deplorable state we're in regarding this debate. While many SVs exalt the authority of pre-Vatican II theologians as if they were themselves a rule of faith, in a position that I have coined "Cekadism" (something, BTW, which the reputable and orthodox Msgr. Fenton, a true theologian, actually rejected as absurd), so while they puff up the authority of theologians, they are unable to cite a SINGLE THEOLOGIAN prior to Vatican II that had ever extended papal infallibility to the extent that SVs do. On this topic, I recommend the remarkably well-balanced discussion on the matter by Msgr. Fenton in his essay on the Authority of Papal Encyclicals, which, despite the name, does an admirable job of discussing the matter.
Now, this is where SVs missed the boat. Msgr. Fenton also describes a different type of infallibility enjoyed by the Church overall and the Papal Magisterium in particular, that of infallible safety, where a body of teaching could not be radically in error, and where said errors can result in fatal damage to faith and morals, where Catholics who follow that teaching risk losing their souls as a result of having done so. This speaks more to the infectibility of the Church rather than to "infallibility in the strict sense" (an apt term coined by Msgr. Fenton). Here's the basic argument from that. While you could go back and forth on whether this, that, or another teaching meets the notes of infallibility defined by Vatican I, you've clearly crossed a line into indefectibility where Catholics not only may, but even must, break from submission to the hierarchy in their Universal Teaching and Discipline, in order to please God and to save their souls. If things can get so bad where Catholics wouldn't even be able to consider themselves as practicing the Catholic Religion if they remained in the Conciliar Church, where they endanger their souls and risk offending God and embracing grave error (if not heresy) against the Catholic Faith, you've crossed the line into a defection of the Church in her mission, since that is in fact THE primary mission of the Church, to defend faith and morals, and to facilitate the salvation of souls. That cannot happen.
So SVs have missed the forest of indefectibility in getting distracted by the trees of infallibility, and as a result feel the need to exaggerate the scope of infallibility to absurd lengths that no Catholic theologian has ever held.
-
Next week a different priest comes and utters a different heresy. Once again, Aunt Helen shows herself to be an intredpid defender of the faith and denounces the heresy. Having learned her lesson from the previous week, she asks the priest if he meant to say what he said. Priest says he did mean to say it. But then Aunt Helen pulls out her pocket copy of Denzinger, the edition before Rahner's, and shows him where the proposition was condemned as heresy. Priests apologizes and retracts the heretical statement. Was he ever outside the Church? No, since, again, pertinacity was lacking.
Yet another week goes by, and a third priest proclaims a heresy. Aunt Helen, armed with her Baltimore Catechism No. 1, having not yet graduated to No. 2 ... goes through the previous steps, but the priest sticks to his guns, telling Aunt Helen that she doesn't know what she's talking about. Is this priest no longer a member of the Church? Just because Aunt Helen says so? So, let's say Aunt Helen was wrong. OK, then, he never lost membership in the Church. But let's say Aunt Helen did happen to get it right, and the priest was wrong and what he said was in fact heretical? Well, the priest goes back to his bishop, and the bishop, renowned for his great knowledge of Catholic doctrine, tells the priest, "Well, sorry to tell you this, but Aunt Helen was right. That's rather embarrassing. I'll have to get the rector of the seminary on the line to find out what's going on over there." Priest then admits his error and changes his mind -- and the seminary rector is relieved of duty. Did he ever lose his membership in the Church? No ... even if the seminary rector lost his job. Why? Because his heresy was not formal, i.e. the only reason he held to it was because he did not think it was condemend by the Church or the opposite was taught as dogma by the Church ... his only crime was not taking Aunt Helen's word for it. But, then ... who really would, since she cries wolf on heresy against every few priests who come by.
Are not these passages saying that guilt is presumed and ignorance must be proven past a mere assertion (at least according to "The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution” by the Rev. Eric MacKenzie, S.T.L., J.C.L."):
“All this has immediate application to cases where the delict was due to culpable ignorance, whether crass and affected, or culpable simpliciter. Ex hypothesi, the delinquent is ignorant that he has doubted or denied a revealed truth, and, as noted above, is responsible in conscience for neglect only. This means that his delict, while still serious, is less imputable than the delict of a conscious heretic. Hence, by application of the canon just cited, the delinquent escapes the latae sententiae penalties decreed against heresy. It must be immediately noted, however, that this ignorance must be proved. By virtue of canon 2200, §2, the fact that a delict has been committed establishes a presumption that the delinquent was fully responsible. A mere assertion of ignorance will not suffice. Lay persons will be able to prove this claim more easily than clerics, non-Catholics more easily than Catholics.” pg. 41
and a bit further:
“We have already discussed ignorance that their act was heretical. This is an entirely different claim ; they admit the heresy, and urge only that they were not aware that they would be excommunicated for their external act. As regards this claim , the same general principle holds as in any case of ignorance: the violation of a promulgated law gives rise to juridical presumption that the law was known and deliberately flouted.” In civil law the ignorance that penalties would be assessed for a given act is never accepted as an excuse. The Church is more anxious to fit the penalty to the delict, and weighs all the circuмstances affecting the moral guilt.’ She does however, require that these extenuating circuмstances be not merely alleged but proved in the external forum .” Hence the occult delinquent’s claim that he was ignorant of the penalty must be supported by demonstrable facts.” pg. 47
Thanks!
-
You just made my point. There are 2 conditions. Baptism + Faith.
So a baptized (condition 1) person who is a heretic (fails condition 2) is not a member?
Right, so they stop being a member.
This makes no sense and is contradictory from the above quote. What a heretic PROFESSED (in the past) has no bearing on the NOW, (i.e. his rejection of the faith).
Earlier you said: "A catechumen isn't part of the faithful, and that's why they aren't a member." A catechumen never had the faith whereas a Catholic once did, as such, he remains a Catholic always.
As I said, use yourself as an example. If you committed the mortal sin of heresy, you are trying to tell me that you're still Catholic, but having severed yourself from the Church you are no longer a member of the Church.
Now in order to be absolved, because you're not a member you cannot go to confession. Then you say that an abjuration makes the heretic a member again, which is you saying that a penitent heretic *is* a member of the Church and can be absolved in confession. So all the heretic has to do is be penitent and poof, he's back in.
You're saying that if he falls into the same sin and wants to repent again and again, he jumps into and out of membership each time, has to make an abjuration each time so that a heretic member of the Church can be absolved in confession, but then heretics are not members of the Church so ipso facto cannot go to confession.
This whole idea enjoys the same illogic as: "popes cannot preach heresy, but if they do...." But popes cannot preach heresy - - but if they do...."
How this makes sense to anyone is beyond me.
-
Why has every active thread on this forum devolved into arguments about BOD?
-
Are not these passages saying that guilt is presumed and ignorance must be proven past a mere assertion (at least according to "The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution” by the Rev. Eric MacKenzie, S.T.L., J.C.L."):
“All this has immediate application to cases where the delict was due to culpable ignorance, whether crass and affected, or culpable simpliciter. Ex hypothesi, the delinquent is ignorant that he has doubted or denied a revealed truth, and, as noted above, is responsible in conscience for neglect only. This means that his delict, while still serious, is less imputable than the delict of a conscious heretic. Hence, by application of the canon just cited, the delinquent escapes the latae sententiae penalties decreed against heresy. It must be immediately noted, however, that this ignorance must be proved. By virtue of canon 2200, §2, the fact that a delict has been committed establishes a presumption that the delinquent was fully responsible. A mere assertion of ignorance will not suffice. Lay persons will be able to prove this claim more easily than clerics, non-Catholics more easily than Catholics.” pg. 41
and a bit further:
“We have already discussed ignorance that their act was heretical. This is an entirely different claim ; they admit the heresy, and urge only that they were not aware that they would be excommunicated for their external act. As regards this claim , the same general principle holds as in any case of ignorance: the violation of a promulgated law gives rise to juridical presumption that the law was known and deliberately flouted.” In civil law the ignorance that penalties would be assessed for a given act is never accepted as an excuse. The Church is more anxious to fit the penalty to the delict, and weighs all the circuмstances affecting the moral guilt.’ She does however, require that these extenuating circuмstances be not merely alleged but proved in the external forum .” Hence the occult delinquent’s claim that he was ignorant of the penalty must be supported by demonstrable facts.” pg. 47
Thanks!
No ... and now we have an another armchair Canonist (where did you get your degree?). This has nothing to do with ignorance, but about the credibility of Aunt Helen being the litmus test to decide what is heretical and what is not. SVs constantly shoot from the hip with stupid accusations of "heresy!" when 95% of what they're accusing are errors that fall short of having the note of heresy (which makes a huge different), but our lay SVs don't even know what at theological note is.
We're not talking about anyone, Bergoglio, Prevost, Montini, or any of them saying anything as blatant as "there are Four Persons in God" or "I don't believe in the Resurrection". We're talking about issues that are disputed. Just because some Aunt Helen or you or any armchair layman hurls an accusation, the individual is not thereby deprived of membership in the Church. Even the Church authorities generally don't declare someone heretical until they've been corrected and refuse to accept the correction, much less because Aunt Helen says so armed with her Penny Catechism.
Really the closest thing to open heresy among the Conciliars is the denial of the dogma that there's no salvation outside the Church, but the irony there is that the vast majority of sedevacantists (apart from, say, the Dimond Brothers) actually believe the exact same thing. So if they accuse the Conciliars of heresy, they condemn themselves, since the vast majority don't believe that there's no salvation outside the Church. Oh, sure, sure ... they pay lip service to it, and try redefining the terms, depending on what your meaning of "is" is, or how you define "Church" ... but that's EXACTLY what the Conciliars did also.
Apart from that dogma, which SVs also by and large reject, I have seen not a single smoking gun clearcut heresy from the Conciliars ... just a lot of SV bluster.
-
I've run into SVs (one recently showed up here), who held that Pius XII, Pius XI, Pius IX, and even St. Pius X were heretic non-popes.
"Oh, well, that's because they're wrong." Says who? You?
That's the problem here, where your opinion you elevate to the point of objective truth that then imposes itself on everyone else's consciences simply because you say so.
That's why Totalist SVism is an epic fail ... as only the Church'a authority can impose conclusions on consciences.
-
Earlier you said: "A catechumen isn't part of the faithful, and that's why they aren't a member." A catechumen never had the faith whereas a Catholic once did, as such, he remains a Catholic always.
The point was to highlight the phrase "part of the faithful". A catechumen isn't part of the faithful, for 2 reasons...because they don't have the Faith ...and not baptized. In the same respect, as multiple popes have said, heretics/schismatics aren't part of the faithful because they don't have the Faith (even though baptized).
"Part of the Faithful" = requires Faith + Baptism.
TRUE -- "once baptized, always baptized."
TRUE -- "once a catholic, always a catholic" (another way to reference baptism).
FALSE -- "once a member, always a member" (wrong, because membership involves having the Faith, which one can reject).
FALSE -- "once a member of the mystical body, always a member" (wrong for the same reasons).
As I said, use yourself as an example. If you committed the mortal sin of heresy, you are trying to tell me that you're still Catholic, but having severed yourself from the Church you are no longer a member of the Church.
Your problem is that you're reducing heresy to sin alone. No, it's more than that. The sin of heresy is 1) a violation of the 10 commandments (i.e. a sin). 2) it's also a HUMAN violation of church law/canon law.
It all depends on how you define the term "catholic".
a. If you simply define it as "being baptized" then a heretic is still a catholic, but no longer a member.
b. Sedes define a catholic as "being a member" so the terms are equal. So to them, a heretic is no longer a member, thus, they are no longer a catholic.
This whole argument is one of semantics.
Now in order to be absolved, because you're not a member you cannot go to confession.
Remember above, a member = "part of the faithful" which requires 2 things - baptism + Faith. This is what Pius XII said and others.
A heretic rejects the faith, so no, they are no longer a member. And no, they cannot simply go to confession. Because heresy is a two-fold violation - 1) sin against God, 2) violation of canon law.
Then you say that an abjuration makes the heretic a member again,
The abjuration is the necessary act by a heretic to regain status in the Church, by rejecting error and re-affirming the Faith. It is a human process because it is a violation of a human law of the church.
which is you saying that a penitent heretic *is* a member of the Church and can be absolved in confession.
To use your terminology, a heretic is a catholic who has rejected his Faith and thus, rejected his membership.
If the heretic abjures his error and re-affirms his Faith, then he's no longer a heretic, but returns to membership. Membership = Faith/belief/adherence to doctrine.
So all the heretic has to do is be penitent and poof, he's back in.
The heretic has to CEASE TO BE A HERETIC, and re-affirm the Faith, and abjure his heresies. He lost his membership due to error; to regain membership he has to abjure the error.
You're saying that if he falls into the same sin and wants to repent again and again, he jumps into and out of membership each time, has to make an abjuration each time so that a heretic member of the Church can be absolved in confession, but then heretics are not members of the Church so ipso facto cannot go to confession.
It depends on the level of heresy. If your neighbor, John Doe, struggles with some doctrine and continues to read anti-catholic, anti-faith books, and repeatedly confesses this sin against the Faith, this is a type of sin that could be forgiven in confession. Even though it is, strictly speaking, heresy. But it's called "occult/secret" heresy. It's different from the examples i've given to use - i.e. Martin Luther or V2 clerics.
If Martin Luther had FULLY abjured his protestant heresies and come back into the Church, he would be a 100% member. But if a year later, he left and joined Calvinism, he would cease to be a member, because heresy = a rejection of the faith. You cannot be a member if you reject the Faith. You are no longer "part of the Faithful".
Now, if Luther then decided to repent again, this time from Calvinism, he would have to go through the whole process of abjuration, re-affirming the faith, etc.
As many times as he rejected the Faith and left, he would lose membership and then regain it. Because membership is based on (at least exteriorly) admitting to/following the Faith.
How this makes sense to anyone is beyond me.
You've given an example of some guy hopping between heresy and the faith multiple times, in a manifest manner, which normally doesn't happen. In other words, a public figure, who preaches heresy and then goes back to catholicism, and then, later, goes to another heresy and openly preaches it. Don't know of any time in history this has happened.
What is more common is NOT manifest heresy, but occult/secret, where some guy grew up catholic and then went protestant for his wife. And then he goes back and forth from catholic church to protestant church, dogma to heresy. This guy, in theory, does still lose his membership, but he's not a manifest heretic, because he's not OPENLY trying to convince people to follow him. He's not trying to start a new church. His errors are secret. His abjuration of heresy is at a lower level and can be done by a priest (normally).
Everything i'm talking about are openly brazen and public heretics. Their abjuration of error is more process-oriented and tedious because their openness of error has CAUSED SCANDAL and the Church requires a PROCESS and a PUBLIC abjuration to rectify and make amends for the public sins they've done.
-
Fellows, unless one of you is planning to apostatize, thinks he has a mandate from Our Lord to judge other’s souls, or bind others’ consciences, why continue hijacking nearly all theological (and some non-Theological!) threads to this argument? Traditional bishops can’t even agree. Better to pour your energy into imitating Our Lord. Why not start a thread or a few threads specifically for this and similar topics?
I’m now going to the Women Only section to ask for suggestions regarding sewing a certain style of dress. If any of you men are tailors, (not Taylors unless you are also a tailor), feel free to PM me.
-
No ...
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExdmNzanN1OGtsbGV4bGF0dDJxY2g5bTFnd2Q1bjZ6MHJyazQ2cTdmMSZlcD12MV9pbnRlcm5hbF9naWZfYnlfaWQmY3Q9Zw/dXJwllNqVTqyyzVasp/giphy.gif)
-
This has nothing to do with ignorance
Your satire is illustrating (quite entertainingly) what you meant to highlight about the formal motive of faith and pertinicity necessary for formal heresy.
But, it is 100% based on the internal and NOT the external (which is what is judged by the Church).
Your examples all revolve around the internal dispositions of the priest(s) and/or his level of ignorance - Your whole approach is pastoral and not juridical - I get it.
But, that is just the thing. Your examples read like a normal functioning scenario In the 1940s with what would then be considered a pre-Vatican II "Karen" (in your case Helen).
I thought the thread as discussing what the Church teaches about the definitions/processes of determining who is a heretic and if they are then to be considered a member of the Church... How should one approach this question, pastorally, or according to the law?
Your story was tongue-n-cheek, as was my query, but it is still a legitimate question.
-
No ... and now we have an another armchair Canonist (where did you get your degree?)
I will have you know that I have been able to read (somewhat) since I was about 6 yrs old. I am very proud of this achievement. I am an ongoing student in the school of hard knocks. Maybe you could knock some more sense into my head and explain how addressing the internal forum rather than following the processes as laid down by the law is a better approach to this question... Does this look right?
Any member of the faithful, including a layperson, had the right to bring a denunciation to the proper ecclesiastical authority. However, the denunciation itself did not carry any automatic canonical penalty. The cleric accused of heresy would automatically lose his ecclesiastical office only if his defection from the faith was public and notorious.
The key canons for this process are:
- Canon 188.4: This canon establishes the principle of "tacit resignation" for a cleric. It states that "any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric... publicly defects from the Catholic faith". This means that the cleric would lose his office automatically upon committing a public act of heresy.
- Canon 1324: This canon (and the closely related Canon 1325) defined heresy as the "stubborn denial" of a truth proposed by the Church as divinely revealed.
- Canon 2200: This canon explains that in the external forum (meaning, publicly), the intent to commit a crime (in this case, the pertinacity required for heresy) is presumed from the external violation of the law.
- Canon 2314: This canon specified the penalties for the crime of heresy, including automatic excommunication. For a cleric, this was compounded by the tacit resignation of office mentioned in Canon 188.4.
How the process worked
While a layperson could denounce a cleric for heresy, they did not have the authority to make an official judgment. Their role was to inform the proper ecclesiastical superior, who would then investigate and make a judgment in the "external forum."
- Denunciation: A layperson who became aware of a cleric's public heresy would bring a denunciation to the cleric's bishop or other appropriate ecclesiastical superior.
- Investigation: The superior would investigate the claim to determine if the public defection had occurred.
- Automatic Vacancy: If the cleric's defection was judged to be public and pertinacious (stubborn), Canon 188.4 would apply. The cleric's office would be considered vacant by the law itself, effective from the moment he committed the heretical act.
- Declaratory Sentence: While the loss of office was automatic, a "declaratory sentence" might be issued by the Church. This sentence did not impose the penalty but confirmed that it had already been incurred. This was necessary to make the vacancy official for legal purposes and to allow for the appointment of a new office holder.
-
The Delict of Heresy in Its Commission, Penalization, Absolution : Published in 1932.
“The well-known controversy of Saint Cyprian of Carthage with the Roman authorities turned not merely on the question of rebaptising heretics, but also on the extent of the punishment to be inflicted on those who had failed to profess the faith in face of civil persecution. The Montanists, at this time and later, held that apostates could not be absolved from their sin nor restored to membership in the Church, no matter how sincere their repentance. Church authorities of orthodox faith held the contrary view , but were concerned to regulate the manner of reconciliation. Typical of such measures were the decrees of Saint Cyprian and the bishops of A frica, in the Council of Carthage, 251, which were later confirmed by Pope Saint Cornelius and sixty bishops in Rome. It was determined to exclude from all ecclesiastical functions those bishops and priests who had sacrificed to the pagan gods, or who had procured for themselves certificates of sacrifice; to accord com m union to laic libellatici if they had done penance im mediately after their sin; as to the laics who had sacrificed, their cases would be decided individually, and the degree of culpability thus discovered would determine the duration of the penance to be im posed and the time to which reconciliation would be postponed.” This course of action obviously implies a penal system of excommunication, trial, punishment, and authoritative absolution.” Pg. 5
How could they be “restored” to their membership if they were still “members”?
-
Your problem is that you're reducing heresy to sin alone. No, it's more than that. The sin of heresy is 1) a violation of the 10 commandments (i.e. a sin). 2) it's also a HUMAN violation of church law/canon law.
There is no such thing as reducing an offense against God to a sin alone. One mortal sin is the worst thing that could ever enter creation.
What you say about heresy is also said for adultery, abortion, willful murder, sodomy, and so on.
Heresy is a sin, it's the worst sin of all the sins. But that's what it is, a sin.
A heretic rejects the faith, so no, they are no longer a member. And no, they cannot simply go to confession. Because heresy is a two-fold violation - 1) sin against God, 2) violation of canon law.
Then they can never obtain absolution without first taking all the classes meant for catechumens.
If they cannot simply go to confession, then why, in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance as posted below, is there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church?
"...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 Delict of Heresy in Its Commission, Penalization, Absolution : Published in 1932.
“The well-known controversy of Saint Cyprian of Carthage with the Roman authorities turned not merely on the question of rebaptising heretics, but also on the extent of the punishment to be inflicted on those who had failed to profess the faith in face of civil persecution. The Montanists, at this time and later, held that apostates could not be absolved from their sin nor restored to membership in the Church, no matter how sincere their repentance. Church authorities of orthodox faith held the contrary view , but were concerned to regulate the manner of reconciliation. Typical of such measures were the decrees of Saint Cyprian and the bishops of A frica, in the Council of Carthage, 251, which were later confirmed by Pope Saint Cornelius and sixty bishops in Rome. It was determined to exclude from all ecclesiastical functions those bishops and priests who had sacrificed to the pagan gods, or who had procured for themselves certificates of sacrifice; to accord com m union to laic libellatici if they had done penance im mediately after their sin; as to the laics who had sacrificed, their cases would be decided individually, and the degree of culpability thus discovered would determine the duration of the penance to be im posed and the time to which reconciliation would be postponed.” This course of action obviously implies a penal system of excommunication, trial, punishment, and authoritative absolution.” Pg. 5
How could they be “restored” to their membership if they were still “members”?
Not sure what your point is here, but to answer your question, it does not say that the Church held to that, it says that the Montanists heretics held to that. It says that the Church authorities (correctly) held the contrary view.
-
Not sure what your point is here, but to answer your question, it does not say that the Church held to that, it says that the Montanists heretics held to that. It says that the Church authorities (correctly) held the contrary view.
Really?
So this is wrong?:
What does Rev. Eric MacKenzie teach in the 1932 Canon Law Dissertation, "The Delict of Heresy" about how the Church views heretics in terms of their membership status?
In his 1932 dissertation?The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution, Rev. Eric MacKenzie teaches that a baptized person who becomes a formal, manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a member of the Catholic Church. He bases this canonical and theological view on the principle that the act of obstinately denying or doubting a defined truth of the faith separates the heretic from the body of the Church.
MacKenzie's analysis, which reflects the provisions of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, emphasizes several key points regarding a heretic's loss of membership:
- External act required: The heresy must be externalized, meaning it is expressed through words or actions. Simply holding a private, erroneous belief does not constitute a canonical crime.
- Formal heresy is distinct: MacKenzie differentiates between formal and material heretics. A heretic who denies the faith due to "inculpable ignorance" might not incur the canonical crime. However, a formal heretic, who knowingly and persistently denies a defined doctrine, is subject to penal consequences.
- Automatic excommunication: The commission of a formal, external act of heresy incurs an automatic (ipso facto) excommunication. This penalty immediately severs the
- heretic's legal membership in the Church. MacKenzie notes that this is a self-imposed act of separation, rather than one explicitly declared by a juridical authority.
- No longer part of the body: By separating themselves from the Church's faith and unity, heretics also separate themselves from the visible body of the Church. MacKenzie underscores the severity of heresy as an offense against the faith itself, which strikes at the very foundation of the Church's unity.
This canonical perspective from the 1930s is part of a long-standing tradition in Catholic thought, which holds that formal heretics, through their own actions, separate themselves from membership in the Church.
Just an AI bug or something?
-
Stubborn,
I think I can distill your position to, "once a member always a member."
Can you quote a pre-Vatican II theologian that teaches that, (without interpolating your own interpretation), I mean just a verbatim quote that was a source acknowledged to be theologically credible prior to Vatican II?
For me, that would be helpful so I could take your side of the argument seriously.
Thanks!
-
There is no such thing as reducing an offense against God to a sin alone. One mortal sin is the worst thing that could ever enter creation.
What you say about heresy is also said for adultery, abortion, willful murder, sodomy, and so on.
Heresy is a sin, it's the worst sin of all the sins. But that's what it is, a sin.
One is not excommunicated for adultery, or murder, or other sins.
Heresy is a DIFFERENT TYPE OF SIN, which EXTRA PUNISHMENTS, per canon law.
Then they can never obtain absolution without first taking all the classes meant for catechumens.
:facepalm: You only get baptized once; you only go through catechism classes once.
As i've explained to you, and per canon law, a big-time heretic like Martin Luther was summoned to Rome and there was an inquiry into his actions. Then there was a court proceeding. Then he was given a chance to recant. He didn't. Then he was formally excommunicated.
The only way for Luther to get back in "good standing" as a member of the Church was to (simplifying it): a) abjure his heresy in an ecclesiastical court, b) profess his faith in the same court, c) do some type of penance.
This serves as the "test" to see if the heretic is sincere. Then he is considered to be "back in the fold" and a member.
THEN he could go to confession, because he's a member.
If Luther could've gone to confession 100x before, but it would've been invalid. Canon Law "binds" an extra penalty upon heresy/schism that OTHER SINS do not.
If they cannot simply go to confession, then why, in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance as posted below, is there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church?
"...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
Do you not understand this phrase?
As we've been discussing, big-time heretics, i.e. Martin Luther, could NOT get absolution from some random priest in confession. The random priest, PER CANON LAW, IS NOT ABLE to absolve a big-time heretic from MAJOR EXCOMMUNICATIONS and MAJOR CENSURES.
-
Fellows, unless one of you is planning to apostatize, thinks he has a mandate from Our Lord to judge other’s souls, or bind others’ consciences, why continue hijacking nearly all theological (and some non-Theological!) threads to this argument? Traditional bishops can’t even agree. Better to pour your energy into imitating Our Lord. Why not start a thread or a few threads specifically for this and similar topics?
I’m now going to the Women Only section to ask for suggestions regarding sewing a certain style of dress. If any of you men are tailors, (not Taylors unless you are also a tailor), feel free to PM me.
You’re still at it? I got waylaid on the way to Women Only. Apparently it doesn’t matter. Bye!
-
Not sure what your point is here, but to answer your question, it does not say that the Church held to that, it says that the Montanists heretics held to that. It says that the Church authorities (correctly) held the contrary view.
:confused: Are you sure you are reading that right?
"The Montanists, at this time and later, held that apostates could not be absolved from their sin nor restored to membership in the Church, no matter how sincere their repentance. Church authorities of orthodox faith held the contrary view , but were concerned to regulate the manner of reconciliation."
The Church's view was the "contrary" view to that of the heretics.
The heretics believed that those who apostasized COULD NOT regain membership.
The Church held the contrary view that they COULD regain membership.
Thus, how could they regain what they never lost - if your "once a member always a member" thesis was true.
capisce?
-
Yes, Stubborn read it wrong.
-
Yes, Stubborn read it wrong.
I'm not the one reading it wrong.
The Montanists are the heretics. The heretics held that apostates 1) could not be absolved from their sin 2) nor restored to membership in the Church.
The Church authorities held the contrary view. Which means 1) Apostates can be absolved and 2) ipso facto they were already members of the Church.
The Church can never absolve non-members, the Church can only absolve members. It's really not the least bit complicated.
Capisce?
MacKenzie's analysis, which reflects the provisions of the 1917 Code of Canon Law, emphasizes several key points regarding a heretic's loss of membership:
- No longer part of the body: By separating themselves from the Church's faith and unity, heretics also separate themselves from the visible body of the Church. MacKenzie underscores the severity of heresy as an offense against the faith itself, which strikes at the very foundation of the Church's unity.
Of course they've separated themselves from the *visible* body of the Church, this is what happens to heretics and all those who are excommunicated.
Really?
So this is wrong?:
What does Rev. Eric MacKenzie teach in the 1932 Canon Law Dissertation, "The Delict of Heresy" about how the Church views heretics in terms of their membership status?
In his 1932 dissertation?The Delict of Heresy in its Commission, Penalization, Absolution, Rev. Eric MacKenzie teaches that a baptized person who becomes a formal, manifest heretic automatically ceases to be a member of the Catholic Church. He bases this canonical and theological view on the principle that the act of obstinately denying or doubting a defined truth of the faith separates the heretic from the body of the Church.
No, he's not wrong. The baptized person in his description ceases to be a member of the Church once they reach the age of reason, or if they were baptized as a non-Catholic in some other religion.
Can you quote a pre-Vatican II theologian that teaches that, (without interpolating your own interpretation), I mean just a verbatim quote that was a source acknowledged to be theologically credible prior to Vatican II?
No, I cannot. I imagine it's out there somewhere but I'm not going to spend time searching for something that is a basic Catholic principle.
-
As i've explained to you, and per canon law, a big-time heretic like Martin Luther was summoned to Rome and there was an inquiry into his actions. Then there was a court proceeding. Then he was given a chance to recant. He didn't. Then he was formally excommunicated.
I said use yourself as an example, not Luther. The reason I said that is because in this day and age, all the above is simply not gonna happen to any one no matter what the sin is.
So use yourself as an example: You become a manifest heretic, but 10 years from now your conscience is eating you alive and you resolve to repent. What do *you* do? You go to a trad priest and he absolves you. He may or may not have you make an abjuration or profession of faith or whatever, but he *will* absolve you.
All things considered, it is actually quite amazing how easy it is for a Catholic to be absolved vs absolutely impossible for a non-Catholic to be absolved.
Do you not understand this phrase?
:facepalm: No, I don't understand that phrase. [/sarcasm]
How many times do I have to repeat myself? Again, I said: "it depends on the authority [who issued the penalty], the heretic and the censure that is attached to the sin, and if it is reserved to the Holy See, or to the bishop, or whatever other penalties/requirements are part of that censure."
-
I'm not the one reading it wrong.
The Montanists are the heretics. The heretics held that apostates 1) could not be absolved from their sin 2) nor restored to membership in the Church.
The Church authorities held the contrary view. Which means 1) Apostates can be absolved and 2) ipso facto they were already members of the Church.
The Church can never absolve non-members, the Church can only absolve members. It's really not the least bit complicated.
You are either bad-willed or just plain stupid. Nobody said the part in red; you just made it up. :facepalm:
-
No, I cannot. I imagine it's out there somewhere but I'm not going to spend time searching for something that is a basic Catholic principle.
Which, principle is that?
A) The consensus of the theologians that those who fall into public, formal, manifest heresy lose their membership status in the Church?
Or,
B) Your non-sourced opinion that, "Once a member always a member."?
It seems the disagreement is mainly over how someone who was a heretic could "rejoin" the Church.
If someone can go back and forth a million times from being a dead to living member of the Church...then why do you not understand that someone can lose and regain membership status due to loss faith - even while the baptismal character remains?
Faith is the virtue that unites someone to the Mystical Body, without it, they cannot be joined to Her, a public, formal, manifest heretic is ruled to be outside the Church due to their lack of faith - as exhibited by their unwillingness to be corrected by the Church authorities.
Follow the consensus of the theologians on this...
Or,
Stubborn..
I am starting to see why the name fits...
-
I said use yourself as an example, not Luther. The reason I said that is because in this day and age, all the above is simply not gonna happen to any one no matter what the sin is.
So use yourself as an example: You become a manifest heretic, but 10 years from now your conscience is eating you alive and you resolve to repent. What do *you* do? You go to a trad priest and he absolves you. He may or may not have you make an abjuration or profession of faith or whatever, but he *will* absolve you.
All things considered, it is actually quite amazing how easy it is for a Catholic to be absolved vs absolutely impossible for a non-Catholic to be absolved.
No, moron, we're talking about major heretics, not normal people like me. You keep changing the argument so that your example of getting absolution from a priest works. You're a bad-willed idiot.
How many times do I have to repeat myself? Again, I said: "it depends on the authority [who issued the penalty], the heretic and the censure that is attached to the sin, and if it is reserved to the Holy See, or to the bishop, or whatever other penalties/requirements are part of that censure."
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT...MAJOR HERESY from guys like Luther and V2 clerics. THESE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PAPAL PROCESS OF ABJURATION. You keep repeating that priests can remove censures....HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CASES WHERE PRIESTS CAN DO SUCH...WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAJOR CASES OF EXCOMMUNICATION.
You're like a brick wall. I'm done.
-
You are either bad-willed or just plain stupid. Nobody said the part in red; you just made it up. :facepalm:
Your the one who is either bad-willed or just plain stupid. You keep talking in circles. Try to read what is written and understand it as it is written. Not sure what you're even reading half the time.
-
No, moron, we're talking about major heretics, not normal people like me. You keep changing the argument so that your example of getting absolution from a priest works. You're a bad-willed idiot.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT...MAJOR HERESY from guys like Luther and V2 clerics. THESE PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A PAPAL PROCESS OF ABJURATION. You keep repeating that priests can remove censures....HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT CASES WHERE PRIESTS CAN DO SUCH...WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MAJOR CASES OF EXCOMMUNICATION.
You're like a brick wall. I'm done.
No jackass, you're talking about major heretics, either way they cannot be absolved unless they are members, regardless of an abjuration.
Good, go away.
-
Which, principle is that?
A) The consensus of the theologians that those who fall into public, formal, manifest heresy lose their membership status in the Church?
So now they did not lose membership, now they lose their membership status. Got it.
Look, all you gotta do is remember that the Church can never absolve non-members, the Church can only absolve members. It's really not the least bit complicated.
If you can figure out how a non-member can be absolved, please post it.
-
No jackass, you're talking about major heretics, either way they cannot be absolved unless they are members, regardless of an abjuration.
Good, go away.
:facepalm: Heresy makes them non-members, because they reject the faith. The abjuration makes them regain membership, because they have re-accepted the Faith.
Your idea that no one loses membership, ever, is probably a heresy as well. It contradicts multiple popes and saints.
Baptism is only for INITIAL membership. As we've often heard the phrase, "he lost the faith" of sinners/heretics. This is the same as becoming a non-member. :facepalm:
-
No jackass, you're talking about major heretics, either way they cannot be absolved unless they are members, regardless of an abjuration.
Good, go away.
Would you say that to his face? just curious.
-
Try to read what is written and understand it as it is written.
As it is written:
[The Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.
Pope Eugene IV, Cantate Domino
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).
Pope Leo XII, Satis Cognitum
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
...
For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis
-
Would you say that to his face? just curious.
I sure would. Not sure I would if he was an enemy tho, but Pax is just being Pax.
:facepalm: Heresy makes them non-members, because they reject the faith. The abjuration makes them regain membership, because they have re-accepted the Faith.
Your idea that no one loses membership, ever, is probably a heresy as well. It contradicts multiple popes and saints.
Baptism is only for INITIAL membership. As we've often heard the phrase, "he lost the faith" of sinners/heretics. This is the same as becoming a non-member. :facepalm:
This book (pdf attached) was referenced in my pdf of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
Here is an answer to SRC.......
The question as to whether excommunicates cease to be members of the Church has given rise to quite a controversy among theologians. Suarez is of the opinion that persons under ban of excommunication continue to be members of the Church. He states that the Fathers do not teach that excommunicates are placed outside the Church, but rather that they are separated from communication with the Church : that a person can retain his citizenship in a state and yet be deprived of the society
of his fellow-citizens.
Bellarmine maintains that excommunicates cease to be members of the Church. He argues in the first place from the text in Saint Matthew's Gospel : " If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." He draws his second argument from a canon in the Decree of Gratian which reads as follows......
-
I sure would.
No you wouldn't. lol
-
I sure would. Not sure I would if he was an enemy tho, but Pax is just being Pax.
This book (pdf attached) was referenced in my pdf of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
Here is an answer to SRC.......
The question as to whether excommunicates cease to be members of the Church has given rise to quite a controversy among theologians. Suarez is of the opinion that persons under ban of excommunication continue to be members of the Church. He states that the Fathers do not teach that excommunicates are placed outside the Church, but rather that they are separated from communication with the Church : that a person can retain his citizenship in a state and yet be deprived of the society
of his fellow-citizens.
Bellarmine maintains that excommunicates cease to be members of the Church. He argues in the first place from the text in Saint Matthew's Gospel : " If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." He draws his second argument from a canon in the Decree of Gratian which reads as follows......
Ok, so you finally admit that the idea of losing membership is not new, nor is it a creation of some wacko-sedes. :facepalm: Good grief, man. This is the first time in probably 5 years that's you've FINALLY ADMITTED that the idea of lost membership isn't made up.
-
I sure would. Not sure I would if he was an enemy tho, but Pax is just being Pax.
This book (pdf attached) was referenced in my pdf of the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
Pax, I don't think you're going to like this book too much, maybe a little, but that's all.
-
Ok, so you finally admit that the idea of losing membership is not new, nor is it a creation of some wacko-sedes. :facepalm: Good grief, man. This is the first time in probably 5 years that's you've FINALLY ADMITTED that the idea of lost membership isn't made up.
The sedes use the idea to dethrone the pope while entirely ignoring or condemning the other side of the argument. All I've been doing in turn is essentially the same to them. I actually have no dog in this fight, they do. They have got to promote and defend the idea lest the cornerstone gives way.
-
No you wouldn't. lol
Sure I would. If he was an actual enemy I probably would just walk away.
-
Pax, I don't think you're going to like this book too much, maybe a little, but that's all.
:facepalm: I'm not the one with an agenda. If it's a debated issue among theologians, then it's debated.
The point is, the idea that "loss of membership" due to excommunication/heresy/schism is NOT an error.
The secondary point is that your mind-numbing repetition of "it's quite simple" is proven wrong. It's not simple. If it was simple, then highly intellectual theologians like Suarez and St Bellarmine would agree. But they don't. So it's not simple.
Thank you for FINALLY admitting that there's merit to both sides. :facepalm:
-
The sedes use the idea to dethrone the pope while entirely ignoring or condemning the other side of the argument. All I've been doing in turn is essentially the same to them. I actually have no dog in this fight, they do. They have got to promote and defend the idea lest the cornerstone gives way.
Yeah, and i've repeatedly said that their "conclusion" from the idea is wrong. You've been jumping ahead this whole time, anticipating argument #2 (sedeism), instead of just focusing on argument #1 (loss of membership). #2 does not follow from #1.
But the idea of #1 is still important.
-
:facepalm: I'm not the one with an agenda. If it's a debated issue among theologians, then it's debated.
The point is, the idea that "loss of membership" due to excommunication/heresy/schism is NOT an error.
The secondary point is that your mind-numbing repetition of "it's quite simple" is proven wrong. It's not simple. If it was simple, then highly intellectual theologians like Suarez and St Bellarmine would agree. But they don't. So it's not simple.
Thank you for FINALLY admitting that there's merit to both sides. :facepalm:
Its as complicated as you want to make it, and you needlessly make it very complex.
From the above book I attached earlier....
"Excommunication is a medicinal punishment; its primary and immediate purpose is to bring the delinquent back to a sense of duty."
Too many people here believe it's "primary and immediate purpose" is to kick the sinner completely out of the Church.
-
Its as complicated as you want to make it, and you needlessly make it very complex.
From the above book I attached earlier....
"Excommunication is a medicinal punishment; its primary and immediate purpose is to bring the delinquent back to a sense of duty."
Too many people here believe it's "primary and immediate purpose" is to kick the sinner completely out of the Church.
Ok, so again, you're saying +Bellarmine was stupid and he made things overly complex. :facepalm:
-
The sedes use the idea to dethrone the pope while entirely ignoring or condemning the other side of the argument. All I've been doing in turn is essentially the same to them. I actually have no dog in this fight, they do.
So, you consider yourself a defender of the truth out to "turn the tables" on the "belligerent sedes" - eh? More sectarianism - oh goody...
This really does explain your whole mindset and why you would dredge up Suarez's opinion (thanks for that BTW). Did anyone past him really hold it, especially from say 1800 onward? So, it is not the consensus of the theologians if even one theologian held a contrary opinion from 500 years ago! The consensus of the theologians is of little to no value to you? It must feel good and look wonderous to you that you tower above them all in this :facepalm:
I will add that major excommunication for public formal heretics serves a bigger purpose than just reconciling the sinner. It is meant to prevent the spread of the heresy to the simple. It was Suarez himself that was reiterating scripture when he stated, "heresy spreads like cancer." Declaring the public offending heretic as outside the Church is primarily a safety mechanism to preserve the body of the faithful from the spread of the spiritual disease.
While the syllogism of the SVs contains a weakness as Ladislaw pointed out, it doesn't follow that their understanding on the loss of Church membership is flawed. Even if they are DEAD WRONG Your argument just looks really purile.
Thank you for confirming what you are really doing with this whole nonsensical argument - you are not after the truth, but want to "fight" the sedes with their own arguments. Is that what this thread has devolved into, I thought it was about What resistance members believe about heretics being members or not. But, if you "give them an inch" in this, then all your thousands of lines of arguing are really just a total waste of potentially weeks/months of time. It is akin to a gambler who keeps driving himself into more debt, thinking that just walking away would be to much to bear after he has already lost so much, so he creates a fiction in his mind to feed his own delusion.
-
Ok, so again, you're saying +Bellarmine was stupid and he made things overly complex. :facepalm:
I have not and do not say that. You really do have poor reading comprehension. I said YOU talk in circles and make the whole issue over complex. The reason I said that is because that's what you so.
-
So, you consider yourself a defender of the truth out to "turn the tables" on the "belligerent sedes" - eh? More sectarianism - oh goody...
No. You have no clue and should not pretend as if you do. The whole point of me arguing the matter is that there is an eternal risk to sedes that (some) sedes toy with by their dogmatically vacating the Chair. The risk of them being wrong is there whether they choose to acknowledge it or not, most of the more vociferous sedes here are dogmatically certain that they've guessed correctly, that their opinion is fact due the conciliar popes being heretics. In reality I hope they are right because the price is too high for them to have guessed wrong.
-
No. You have no clue and should not pretend as if you do. The whole point of me arguing the matter is that there is an eternal risk to sedes that (some) sedes toy with by their dogmatically vacating the Chair. The risk of them being wrong is there whether they choose to acknowledge it or not, most of the more vociferous sedes here are dogmatically certain that they've guessed correctly, that their opinion is fact due the conciliar popes being heretics. In reality I hope they are right because the price is too high for them to have guessed wrong.
Pretend about what? that the definitions of the theological consensus on heresy and membership are wrong - like you do?
Or no clue about the "sedes being in danger" like you claim?
What possible danger exists for one who says that they are not Popes due to their heresy and wrecking the visible Church VS. one who says they are Popes but calls them heretics and never obeys them i.e. is "subject" to them?
Neither are subject to the actual Pope.
If sedes are wrong they are not subject to the actual Pope.
If resisters are wrong they are not subject to the actual Pope.
If sedes are right they are not subject to the false Pope.
If resisters are wrong they are not subject to the actual Pope.
Both can endlessly point out potential implicit heresy in the beliefs of the other, neither is subject to a living Roman Pontiff.
capsice?
How does conflating your opinion and need to fight/save the sedes from their "error" aid in the pursuit of the knowledge of the Church's teaching on heresy and the loss of membership?
It doesn't.
-
I have not and do not say that. You really do have poor reading comprehension. I said YOU talk in circles and make the whole issue over complex. The reason I said that is because that's what you so.
Bellarmine maintains that excommunicates cease to be members of the Church. He argues in the first place from the text in Saint Matthew's Gospel : " If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." He draws his second argument from a canon in the Decree of Gratian which reads as follows......
Stubborn, please explain to me why my saying that heretics lose membership is complex, while when +Bellarmine says they "cease to be members" is not complex. :popcorn:
-
Would you say that to his face? just curious.
Me, too! (Get it?) :jester:
Jackass! Moron! Just plain stupid! :fryingpan:
I ❤️ intelligent discourse. :laugh1::laugh2:
-
Pretend about what? that the definitions of the theological consensus on heresy and membership are wrong - like you do?
Or no clue about the "sedes being in danger" like you claim?
What possible danger exists for one who says that they are not Popes due to their heresy and wrecking the visible Church VS. one who says they are Popes but calls them heretics and never obeys them i.e. is "subject" to them?
Neither are subject to the actual Pope.
If sedes are wrong they are not subject to the actual Pope.
If resisters are wrong they are not subject to the actual Pope.
If sedes are right they are not subject to the false Pope.
If resisters are wrong they are not subject to the actual Pope.
Both can endlessly point out potential implicit heresy in the beliefs of the other, neither is subject to a living Roman Pontiff.
capsice?
How does conflating your opinion and need to fight/save the sedes from their "error" aid in the pursuit of the knowledge of the Church's teaching on heresy and the loss of membership?
It doesn't.
Think about it.
-
Bellarmine maintains that excommunicates cease to be members of the Church. He argues in the first place from the text in Saint Matthew's Gospel : " If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." He draws his second argument from a canon in the Decree of Gratian which reads as follows......
Stubborn, please explain to me why my saying that heretics lose membership is complex, while when +Bellarmine says they "cease to be members" is not complex. :popcorn:
If you actually ever said they lose their membership, that would be one thing. But you dance up,down and all around, they are but they aren't, they're Catholic but not members and on and on - that is the complexity you bring.
-
Think about it.
:confused: a dogmatic reisister then...
dogmatic sedes say, "If you are wrong you may go to hell for saying Leo is Pope."
dogmatic resisters like Stubborn say, "You may go to hell for saying Leo is NOT Pope."
The only thing that is clear is that one, both, or neither may go to hell for other sins that are entirely unrelated to either "dogma".
But, now please elaborate, because you make the claim that the sedes are in danger of losing their salvation - why do you think that?
What are YOU doing/believing that they don't - that they NEED to - in order to be more secure in their salvation?
-
If you actually ever said they lose their membership, that would be one thing. But you dance up,down and all around, they are but they aren't, they're Catholic but not members and on and on - that is the complexity you bring.
You didn't answer the question.
-
:confused: a dogmatic reisister then...
dogmatic sedes say, "If you are wrong you may go to hell for saying Leo is Pope."
dogmatic resisters like Stubborn say, "You may go to hell for saying Leo is NOT Pope."
The only thing that is clear is that one, both, or neither may go to hell for other sins that are entirely unrelated to either "dogma".
But, now please elaborate, because you make the claim that the sedes are in danger of losing their salvation - why do you think that?
What are YOU doing/believing that they don't - that they NEED to - in order to be more secure in their salvation?
I don't guess. I believe that our knowledge of his sins in no way qualifies us to declare the pope deprived of his office, or never to have been elected.
My position is the default position, i.e. is he is pope because he was elected according to the law, all the cardinals accept him as pope and we must also. I think to paraphrase St. Thomas More is the position Catholic's are supposed to take: "I remain the pope's good subject, but God's first" - per the highest principle in the Church - see my sig.
-
You didn't answer the question.
I said, it's not the least bit complex, certainly not as complex as you make it.
-
Still didn't answer the question. You're really not being honest.
-
Pax, Skid Row, Stubborn, you’re all excommunicated.
Why?
Because I say so.
-
Pax, Skid Row, Stubborn, you’re all excommunicated.
Why?
Because I say so.
So, am I still a member? :jester:
-
I don't guess. I believe that our knowledge of his sins in no way qualifies us to declare the pope deprived of his office, or never to have been elected.
I think his is an unfair simplification of the sedes position, "declare" is a loaded word that has no meaning in this context.
My position is the default position, i.e. is he is pope because he was elected according to the law
Ahhh no...
Even according the the "laws" of JPII neither Francis nor Leo would be validly elected.
Case in point,
1) The gerrymandering of the St. Galen Mafia for Francis and his subsequent admission of this fact prior to his death.
and
2) Because Francis stacked the College with more electors than JPII's laws laid down which stipulates that deviations from the law invalidate the election - Francis never bothered to change it - big problem.
Both carry enough doubt that one such as Dr. Mazza, Brother Bunguglo, Beneplenists, etc. see it as that they are just following the laws as laid down by a valid Pope, and it is rather the Cardinals who have invalidated those elections for the above stated reasons.
So your contention that the "pope was elected according to law". doesn't hold up even according to JPII and the Modernists! And things will only get worse from here because that group will also never allow anyone to forget it.
So while your "default" position would be correct in any normal time, clearly this situation is just as confusing or more than the Western Schism and droves of Catholics followed the wrong guy accepting him as Pope, but Pedro de Luna wasn't Pope after all. St. Vincent declared him a usurper once he saw that Pedro was not willing to submit to the Council - he had believed him to be Pope, then when he asked Pedro on the behalf of the King to step aside so the Council could unite the Church, he STUBBORNLY refused, Vincent who himself had literally dreams and visions and performed countless miracles was never told by God "That man is not the pope!" He simply saw that Pedro was not concerned about the potential for schism and had no real desire for unity. That was enough for Vincent to abandon him and start to preach against his claim - simply facts deduced by the damage Pedro would cause - thats it. Was St. Vincent in "danger" too?
The correct default position "generically speaking", is to acknowledge the papacy as what it is as defined by the pope's themselves and be desirous of submitting to a true Pope whenever/if ever the Church should get one again. The rest is just meaningless semantics used to :fryingpan: with all the puffed up egoism that goes with it.
-
Still didn't answer the question. You're really not being honest.
You asked:
Bellarmine maintains that excommunicates cease to be members of the Church. He argues in the first place from the text in Saint Matthew's Gospel : " If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican." He draws his second argument from a canon in the Decree of Gratian which reads as follows......
Stubborn, please explain to me why my saying that heretics lose membership is complex, while when +Bellarmine says they "cease to be members" is not complex. :popcorn:
It is not complex to me. It is made complex when those who insist they are not members, because they cannot figure out how an excommunicant can receive the Last Rites even when unconscious and dying without any abjuration, and can even receive them from a priest who is also an excommunicant for heresy, schism or apostacy.
To me, this is not complex, but for the others they need to admit that somewhere in there, both parties, excommunicated tho they are, are still validly and licitly doing that which only members can do, namely, administering and receiving the sacraments.
-
Ok, thank you for admitting that you think +Bellarmine makes this issue "too complex".
-
Ok, thank you for admitting that you think +Bellarmine makes this issue "too complex".
You think way, way too highly of your self. +Belarmine does not make it complex - YOU do.
-
Stubborn: It is made complex when those who insist they are not members,
+Bellarmine: "excommunicates cease to be members of the Church."
Stubborn: +Belarmine does not make it complex
:jester: You're not making any sense.
-
Stubborn: It is made complex when those who insist they are not members,
+Bellarmine: "excommunicates cease to be members of the Church."
Stubborn: +Belarmine does not make it complex
:jester: You're not making any sense.
Had you said what +Belarmine said, that would not be complex. But you've got dozens of posts in this thread that go on and on with terms you made up for the occasion.
-
I think his is an unfair simplification of the sedes position, "declare" is a loaded word that has no meaning in this context.
Ahhh no...
Even according the the "laws" of JPII neither Francis nor Leo would be validly elected.
Case in point,
1) The gerrymandering of the St. Galen Mafia for Francis and his subsequent admission of this fact prior to his death.
and
2) Because Francis stacked the College with more electors than JPII's laws laid down which stipulates that deviations from the law invalidate the election - Francis never bothered to change it - big problem.
Both carry enough doubt that one such as Dr. Mazza, Brother Bunguglo, Beneplenists, etc. see it as that they are just following the laws as laid down by a valid Pope, and it is rather the Cardinals who have invalidated those elections for the above stated reasons.
Well, accusations from Bennyvacantists are not reliable. All you posted is just more conspiracy theories.
Either way, the sede debate has gone on since the days when +Sanborn was only a priest, and will go one until this crisis ends, if it does end.
So your contention that the "pope was elected according to law". doesn't hold up even according to JPII and the Modernists! And things will only get worse from here because that group will also never allow anyone to forget it.
Neither does your contention that the pope was not elected according to the law hold up. No proof, only accusations.
-
Well, accusations from Bennyvacantists are not reliable. All you posted is just more conspiracy theories.
Neither does your contention that the pope was not elected according to the law hold up. No proof, only accusations.
Do you deny that Francis himself said in his book that he was pre-selected to be elected in meetings prior to the 2013 conclave?
Do you deny the College of Cardinals contained more electors than JPII's law allowed?
If you do deny, you are denying facts. If you don't deny, but affirm these facts - then that is what is called "proof" or "evidence". It is not "conspiracy theories".
Now more false dichotomy here where you blast everything coming from anyone who holds that Benedict never properly resigned position as "unreliable" in these matters, but with no given proof of your own baseless assertions. :facepalm:
-
Do you deny that Francis himself said in his book that he was pre-selected to be elected in meetings prior to the 2013 conclave?
Do you deny the College of Cardinals contained more electors than JPII's law allowed?
If you do deny, you are denying facts. If you don't deny, but affirm these facts - then that is what is called "proof" or "evidence". It is not "conspiracy theories".
Now more false dichotomy here where you blast everything coming from anyone who holds that Benedict never properly resigned position as "unreliable" in these matters, but with no given proof of your own baseless assertions. :facepalm:
Still no proof. You need to provide proof of what you say, and then you would have to provide proof of those accusations invalidated papal elections.
-
So, am I still a member? :jester:
V2 Answer:—
On one hand, you might be a member; on the other hand, you might not.
It all depends.
Let us be united.
God is 💗!
-
Still no proof. You need to provide proof of what you say, and then you would have to provide proof of those accusations invalidated papal elections.
https://www.fromrome.info/2025/06/25/a-canonical-analysis-of-why-the-conclave-of-may-2025-had-no-valid-result/
(https://www.fromrome.info/2025/06/25/a-canonical-analysis-of-why-the-conclave-of-may-2025-had-no-valid-result/)
Negative. I don't have to do anything of the sort.
I told you these facts lend credence to their legitimate doubt(s).
It is no different than to question the legitimacy of the new rites, new "saints", new devotions, new appointments, annulments, etc. What is the "proof" that these things are invalid? Well, there is lots of doubt isn't there? Doubt based on violations of the law and a myriad of other facts. So, to trample their concerns about "gerrymandering", broken election rules, incorrect form/intention during the resignation etc., is just flat out intellectually dishonest. It only serves one man's agenda - Stubborn's.
From the Benevacantist POV,, there is enough doubt to question if these last 2 elections were valid or not simply based on the VII church not even following their own rules.
I don't have to hold the Benevacantist positions in order to appreciate the cogency of their arguments (even if their arguments are weaker than others).
There are obviously other problems they have i.e., their accepting Vatican II, etc. but that doesn't equate to their arguments/conclusions being mere "conspiracy theories" in regards to the last 2 elections.
-
https://www.fromrome.info/2025/06/25/a-canonical-analysis-of-why-the-conclave-of-may-2025-had-no-valid-result/
(https://www.fromrome.info/2025/06/25/a-canonical-analysis-of-why-the-conclave-of-may-2025-had-no-valid-result/)
Negative. I don't have to do anything of the sort.
I told you these facts lend credence to their legitimate doubt(s).
It is no different than to question the legitimacy of the new rites, new "saints", new devotions, new appointments, annulments, etc. What is the "proof" that these things are invalid? Well, there is lots of doubt isn't there? Doubt based on violations of the law and a myriad of other facts. So, to trample their concerns about "gerrymandering", broken election rules, incorrect form/intention during the resignation etc., is just flat out intellectually dishonest. It only serves one man's agenda - Stubborn's.
From the Benevacantist POV,, there is enough doubt to question if these last 2 elections were valid or not simply based on the VII church not even following their own rules.
I don't have to hold the Benevacantist positions in order to appreciate the cogency of their arguments (even if their arguments are weaker than others).
There are obviously other problems they have i.e., their accepting Vatican II, etc. but that doesn't equate to their arguments/conclusions being mere "conspiracy theories" in regards to the last 2 elections.
Understood, but my main agenda is to demonstrate that the various different vacantist ideas could be, and likely are, wrong, and that Catholics cannot rightly go around promoting the various different sedeisms based on theories and opinions of even the Fathers - who disagree among themselves - as if those opinions are de fide teachings of the Church.
I also understand that in my feeble attempts at pointing things out, that it usually only serves to infuriate sedes and their sympathizers - to some degree at least. Often times they act almost as if going against their opinion is a an offense against the faith, or heresy or blasphemy.
Example - you asked for one theologian, I had no intention of finding one and was definitely not even looking for that, but after all these years happened across one, so I gave you what you asked for, one theologian - did it do any good? No. Turns out that was no where near enough for you - because his opinion is contrary to your opinion.
And so it goes no matter what.
And that's why this debate will continue.
-
Ok, so you agree that heresy is a sin, a mortal sin - the worst of all the sins. The question is, how can a penitent Catholic obtain absolution from the sin of heresy?
1917 Canon 2314
§ 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
1.° Incur by that fact excommunication"
What is excommunication?
Excommunication is a censure attached to certain sins (the sin of heresy in this case) by the (1917) Code of Canon Law.
What is a censure?
From Commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law (pdf attached)....
"1525. A censure is a penalty by which a subject (by Baptism) of the Church is deprived of some spiritual benefits, or of benefits connected with matters spiritual, because of obstinate violation of some law of the Church, until such time as he repents and obtains absolution."
Note that, contrary to popular opinion, per (1917) Canon Law, the censure of excommunication does not mean that one is outside of the Church, what the censure means is said above.
What all of this means, is that the penitent Catholic guilty of the sin of heresy, whether the bishop decides an abjuration is required or not, can do that which only members of the Church can do - walk into the confessional, confess his sin to the priest and be absolved by the priest. This is because in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance, there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church.
Honestly, all any trad needs to do is use themselves as an example, i.e. what would they do if (God forbid) they fell into the sin of heresy and wanted to repent?
This is not evidence that Pope Pius XII's teaching in Mystici Corporis regarding the public sin of heresy means that a Catholic who commits this public remains a member of the Church. Show me one theologian after the promulgation of Mystici Corporis and before Vatican II who holds your position.
-
Manifest/formal heresy has nothing to do with the internal forum.
This is not entirely true. Manifest formal heresy supposes sin before God.
-
Yeah, the whole reason this debate exists is because Sedes use the overly-simplistic argument of "Heresy = loss of membership = loss of office. All happening in the span of 10 seconds."
Then those opposed say, "Well, heretics are still members." (which is true, to a degree).
What the Sedes argue is true (if re-framed), i.e. -- Manifest heresy (i.e. rejection of the faith) = loss of unity with the mystical body = loss of office. But WHEN all this happens, is anyone's guess.
There is no partial membership in the Church. You are either a member or you are not. Period.
-
There is no partial membership in the Church. You are either a member or you are not. Period.
:facepalm: Has nothing to do with my point. Read the whole thread or don't respond.
-
This is not evidence that Pope Pius XII's teaching in Mystici Corporis regarding the public sin of heresy means that a Catholic who commits this public remains a member of the Church. Show me one theologian after the promulgation of Mystici Corporis and before Vatican II who holds your position.
Actually, yes, that's exactly what it is. It is contrary to the whole sede narrative.
From a previous post (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/poll-for-those-who-consider-themselves-part-of-the-resistance/msg1003625/#msg1003625) in this thread:
"The question as to whether excommunicates cease to be members of the Church has given rise to quite a controversy among theologians. Suarez is of the opinion that persons under ban of excommunication continue to be members of the Church. He states that the Fathers do not teach that excommunicates are placed outside the Church, but rather that they are separated from communication with the Church : that a person can retain his citizenship in a state and yet be deprived of the society of his fellow-citizens."
Suarez was after V1 (1548-1617). You asked for a theologian from within about a certain 20 year span of the last century, good luck finding a good one. Suarez is a good one. Now I will play Pax: Are you saying Suarez doesn't know what he is talking about or is a heretic? Is that what you're saying?
-
Actually, yes, that's exactly what it is. It is contrary to the whole sede narrative.
From a previous post (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/poll-for-those-who-consider-themselves-part-of-the-resistance/msg1003625/#msg1003625) in this thread:
"The question as to whether excommunicates cease to be members of the Church has given rise to quite a controversy among theologians. Suarez is of the opinion that persons under ban of excommunication continue to be members of the Church. He states that the Fathers do not teach that excommunicates are placed outside the Church, but rather that they are separated from communication with the Church : that a person can retain his citizenship in a state and yet be deprived of the society of his fellow-citizens."
Suarez was after V1 (1548-1617). You asked for a theologian from within about a certain 20 year span of the last century, good luck finding a good one. Suarez is a good one. Now I will play Pax: Are you saying Suarez doesn't know what he is talking about or is a heretic? Is that what you're saying?
So the teaching of a Pope does not overrule the opinion of a single theologian...who held said opinion 400 years prior to what Pope Pius XII clarified? Do you not think Suarez would have amended his opinion due to it being contradictory to the teaching of a Pope?
-
So the teaching of a Pope does not overrule the opinion of a single theologian...who held said opinion 400 years prior to what Pope Pius XII clarified? Do you not think Suarez would have amended his opinion due to it being contradictory to the teaching of a Pope?
No, first because Suarez said that the Fathers do not teach that excommunicates are placed outside the Church, so Suarez did not invent the idea from his own imagination - it was taught by the fathers.
Second, because PPXII is teaching about the nature of the sins. He says that the nature of mortal sins themselves result in severing all who are guilty to some degree, but the nature of the particular sins of heresy, schism and Apostasy are such that those who commit them results in them rejecting the true faith for their false faith. That is the nature of those sins.
-
No, first because Suarez said that the Fathers do not teach that excommunicates are placed outside the Church, so Suarez did not invent the idea from his own imagination - it was taught by the fathers.
Second, because PPXII is teaching about the nature of the sins. He says that the nature of mortal sins themselves result in severing all who are guilty to some degree, but the nature of the particular sins of heresy, schism and Apostasy are such that those who commit them results in them rejecting the true faith for their false faith. That is the nature of those sins.
Who cares? Suarez had an opinion. +Bellarmine disagreed. It's a debate.
Stubborn, are you now saying that ALL of the Fathers taught this? If so, you're now claiming that it's a dogma of Tradition and that +Bellarmine is (by ignoring the Fathers) a heretic.
Why can't people just admit that it's a debated issue?
-
Who cares? Suarez had an opinion. +Bellarmine disagreed. It's a debate.
Stubborn, are you now saying that ALL of the Fathers taught this? If so, you're now claiming that it's a dogma of Tradition and that +Bellarmine is (by ignoring the Fathers) a heretic.
Why can't people just admit that it's a debated issue?
Pax, are you saying Suarez said that all of the Fathers taught this? All I did was repeat what he said. If you read what he said, and then what I said, you will see that I copied what he said. So how the heck do you even ask me such a question when neither of us said anything of the sort?
The issue will likely always be debated because the sedes must insist that the phrase "severed from the Body of the Church" from PPXII is indisputable evidence that heretic popes are outside of the Church, therefore are not popes - as if he said it for that very reason.
-
Pax, are you saying Suarez said that all of the Fathers taught this?
No, that's my question. Was it ALL or just some?
-
No, that's my question. Was it ALL or just some?
"He states that the Fathers do not teach that excommunicates are placed outside the Church"
Was it ALL or just some?
-
"He states that the Fathers do not teach that excommunicates are placed outside the Church"
Was it ALL or just some?
Suarez would know that claiming that "all the church fathers" taught something, would mean it's infallible. +Bellarmine would also know this (as well as the other theologians who agreed with +Bellarmine). I find it hard to believe that this was Suarez' claim.
If his claim was "most" or "nearly all" then that means it's a speculation, which means that people can disagree.
-
Suarez would know that claiming that "all the church fathers" taught something, would mean it's infallible. +Bellarmine would also know this (as well as the other theologians who agreed with +Bellarmine). I find it hard to believe that this was Suarez' claim.
If his claim was "most" or "nearly all" then that means it's a speculation, which means that people can disagree.
I don't know what you're reading, because Suarez did not claim that all or most of the Church Fathers taught something, he said that "the Fathers do not teach that excommunicates are placed outside the Church..." This is what he used to form his opinion. Suarez lived from 1548-1617.
St. Robert lived about the same time, from 1542-1621 and what he says disagrees with Suarez. To form his opinion, St. Robert used Scripture (Mat. 18:17), a canon in the Decree of Gratian (canon law) and reason.
That's a summary of what it says in that PDF.
If you read that attachment, it ends up not answering the question at all, but only gives good arguments from both sides. Essentially what it says is that either way, it is up to the Church. Nowhere does it say, imply or otherwise even suggest that priests and laypeople may decide the matter.
-
Actually, yes, that's exactly what it is. It is contrary to the whole sede narrative.
From a previous post (https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/poll-for-those-who-consider-themselves-part-of-the-resistance/msg1003625/#msg1003625) in this thread:
"The question as to whether excommunicates cease to be members of the Church has given rise to quite a controversy among theologians. Suarez is of the opinion that persons under ban of excommunication continue to be members of the Church. He states that the Fathers do not teach that excommunicates are placed outside the Church, but rather that they are separated from communication with the Church : that a person can retain his citizenship in a state and yet be deprived of the society of his fellow-citizens."
Suarez was after V1 (1548-1617). You asked for a theologian from within about a certain 20 year span of the last century, good luck finding a good one. Suarez is a good one. Now I will play Pax: Are you saying Suarez doesn't know what he is talking about or is a heretic? Is that what you're saying?
The reference to Suarez does not seem to speak about excommunication due to public heresy. You seem to be lumping all acts that result in excommunication. What you fail to realize is that the sin of public heresy is of Divine Law. So according to you, Martin Luther died a member of the Church. Correct?
-
The reference to Suarez does not seem to speak about excommunication due to public heresy. You seem to be lumping all acts that result in excommunication. What you fail to realize is that the sin of public heresy is of Divine Law. So according to you, Martin Luther died a member of the Church. Correct?
What you fail to realize is that all sin is against Divine Law, heresy is a sin, the worst of all the sins. What we know for sure is that Fr. Martin Luther died a Catholic priest: "Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech."
The indelible mark of the Sacrament of Baptism on our soul is just as ineradicable as that of Holy Orders.
You read the post you quoted,it says what it says. Read the post immediately prior to this post of yours.
-
Yes, Stubborn isn’t distinguishing between the various reasons for excommunication. If a woman gets an abortion, she’s excommunicated but if she’s still practicing the Faith, she’s still a member. If someone like Martin Luther is excommunicated for heresy AND THEN STOPS PRACTICING THE FAITH, he is obviously not a member anymore. Faith is required for membership, as multiple popes have said.
-
Yes, Stubborn isn’t distinguishing between the various reasons for excommunication. If a woman gets an abortion, she’s excommunicated but if she’s still practicing the Faith, she’s still a member. If someone like Martin Luther is excommunicated for heresy AND THEN STOPS PRACTICING THE FAITH, he is obviously not a member anymore. Faith is required for membership, as multiple popes have said.
That's your opinion. The Fathers did not teach any such thing - per Suarez.
-
:facepalm: Suarez mentions excommunication. Heresy is another matter which he didn’t mention. You’re falsely expanding his comments.
-
What we know for sure is that Fr. Martin Luther died a Catholic priest: "Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech."
The indelible mark of the Sacrament of Baptism on our soul is just as ineradicable as that of Holy Orders.
That's what I was taught.
-
:facepalm: Suarez mentions excommunication. Heresy is another matter which he didn’t mention. You’re falsely expanding his comments.
That's right, he mentions excommunication, all I did was quote what he said.
-
Suarez didn’t say that heretics are still members.
-
Suarez didn’t say that heretics are still members.
So what? Suarez didn't say heretics are not members either. He said the fathers did not teach excommunicates are placed outside of the Church. That is what he based his opinion on.
Since you think he is wrong, maybe you should look into finding out why the fathers did not teach that excommunicates are placed outside of the Church.
-
Yes, Stubborn isn’t distinguishing between the various reasons for excommunication. If a woman gets an abortion, she’s excommunicated but if she’s still practicing the Faith, she’s still a member. If someone like Martin Luther is excommunicated for heresy AND THEN STOPS PRACTICING THE FAITH, he is obviously not a member anymore. Faith is required for membership, as multiple popes have said.
Spend 3 minutes and read the snips below to help you understand it's purpose what excommunication is. The snips are copied from the attached PDF which is the docuмent referenced in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
Snip from the Forward...
Excommunication is the gravest of all canonical punishments ; it separates the delinquent from the communion of the faithful, and, practically speaking, deprives him of all the rights of membership in the Church of Christ. Were its dreadful character better known, no doubt the ends of ecclesiastical penal legislation would be more efficiently attained.
In the early ages the word excommunication was a generic term used to designate all ecclesiastical punishments and remedies. Consequently, the history of the censure of excommunication is very closely connected with that of ecclesiastical punishments in general; at times they are so closely allied that it is impossible to discriminate between them. Hence this work does not contain an exhaustive study of the history of excommunication. An attempt has been made, however, to gather together the salient points in its historical development.
Naturally, more attention has been given to the study of the effects of excommunication because of their practical importance. Excommunication is a medicinal punishment; its primary and immediate purpose is to bring the delinquent back to a sense of duty. The many and grave effects which follow upon the censure of excommunication are well calculated to accomplish this purpose. The effects of excommunication are, as Cerato ( Censurae Vigentes , n. 37) remarks "totidem auxilia ac voces, quibus Pia Mater Ecclesia delinquentem et contumacem ad poenitentiam et ad salutem adducere contendit." (as many aids and voices, with which the Pious Mother Church strives to bring the delinquent and stubborn to repentance and salvation.) - Google Translate
Snip from the first chapter (re: Canon 2257).....
Etymologically, excommunication (Lat. ex, out of, away from ; communicatio, communication) signifies the separation of one from communication with others. In ecclesiastical law, it designates the act of excluding, or the state of being excluded from communication with the faithful, and is defined as a censure by which a person is excluded from the communion of the faithful with the effects which are enumerated in the canons and which cannot be separated.
Generically, therefore, excommunication is a censure, that is, a penalty by which a baptized person, delinquent and contumacious, is deprived of some spiritual goods, or goods annexed to spiritual things, until he ceases to be contumacious and is absolved. A censure is a penalty, that is, a privation of some good, inflicted by legitimate authority for the correction of the delinquent and punishment of the offense. It is a spiritual penalty, not only because it proceeds from a spiritual power and is inflicted for a spiritual purpose, but especially because it deprives one of spiritual goods, although secondarily it deprives one of temporal goods also. Moreover, it is a medicinal penalty, for its primary and immediate purpose is the emendation [correction] of the delinquent.
-
What you fail to realize is that all sin is against Divine Law, heresy is a sin, the worst of all the sins. What we know for sure is that Fr. Martin Luther died a Catholic priest: "Thou art a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech."
The indelible mark of the Sacrament of Baptism on our soul is just as ineradicable as that of Holy Orders.
You read the post you quoted,it says what it says. Read the post immediately prior to this post of yours.
But not all sin is excommunicable. Again, did Martin Luther die a member of the Church?
-
That's what I was taught.
Did Martin Luther die a member of the Church?
-
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, Mystici Corporis Christi, Paragraph 22)
Note in the above quote that Pope Pius XII is speaking about membership in the Church. Those who separate themselves (e.g., public sin of heresy) or have been excluded by excommunication (i.e., perfect excommunication) are NOT members of the Church.
Wake up, Stubborn!
-
Baptism is a Sacrament which cleanses us from Original Sin, makes us Christians, children of God, and heirs of Heaven.
Baptism can be received only once because it places an indelible mark on the soul.
-
Did Martin Luther die a member of the Church?
The truth is that none of us are as good or sincere a disciple of Jesus as we ought to be, so it’s a much better use of our time to look inward and ask, am I living and acting as a genuine disciple of Jesus Christ? Or are there areas of my own life that need amendment?
-
Spend 3 minutes and read the snips below to help you understand it's purpose what excommunication is. The snips are copied from the attached PDF which is the docuмent referenced in the 1917 Code of Canon Law.
Snip from the Forward...
Excommunication is the gravest of all canonical punishments ; it separates the delinquent from the communion of the faithful, and, practically speaking, deprives him of all the rights of membership in the Church of Christ. Were its dreadful character better known, no doubt the ends of ecclesiastical penal legislation would be more efficiently attained.
In the early ages the word excommunication was a generic term used to designate all ecclesiastical punishments and remedies. Consequently, the history of the censure of excommunication is very closely connected with that of ecclesiastical punishments in general; at times they are so closely allied that it is impossible to discriminate between them. Hence this work does not contain an exhaustive study of the history of excommunication. An attempt has been made, however, to gather together the salient points in its historical development.
Naturally, more attention has been given to the study of the effects of excommunication because of their practical importance. Excommunication is a medicinal punishment; its primary and immediate purpose is to bring the delinquent back to a sense of duty. The many and grave effects which follow upon the censure of excommunication are well calculated to accomplish this purpose. The effects of excommunication are, as Cerato ( Censurae Vigentes , n. 37) remarks "totidem auxilia ac voces, quibus Pia Mater Ecclesia delinquentem et contumacem ad poenitentiam et ad salutem adducere contendit." (as many aids and voices, with which the Pious Mother Church strives to bring the delinquent and stubborn to repentance and salvation.) - Google Translate
Snip from the first chapter (re: Canon 2257).....
Etymologically, excommunication (Lat. ex, out of, away from ; communicatio, communication) signifies the separation of one from communication with others. In ecclesiastical law, it designates the act of excluding, or the state of being excluded from communication with the faithful, and is defined as a censure by which a person is excluded from the communion of the faithful with the effects which are enumerated in the canons and which cannot be separated.
Generically, therefore, excommunication is a censure, that is, a penalty by which a baptized person, delinquent and contumacious, is deprived of some spiritual goods, or goods annexed to spiritual things, until he ceases to be contumacious and is absolved. A censure is a penalty, that is, a privation of some good, inflicted by legitimate authority for the correction of the delinquent and punishment of the offense. It is a spiritual penalty, not only because it proceeds from a spiritual power and is inflicted for a spiritual purpose, but especially because it deprives one of spiritual goods, although secondarily it deprives one of temporal goods also. Moreover, it is a medicinal penalty, for its primary and immediate purpose is the emendation [correction] of the delinquent.
blah, blah, blah. We're not talking about excommunication, but MAJOR HERESY, i.e. Martin Luther.
Stubborn, you keep "moving the goalposts"; you're dishonest.
-
But not all sin is excommunicable. Again, did Martin Luther die a member of the Church?
Right. All heretics are excommunicated. But not all excommunicates are heretics.
Stubborn knows this, but he has an agenda to defend. He's not interested in the truth but in defending his position (anti-sedevacantism). Which is why he's fixated on 'excommuncation' in order to mess up the thread and confuse. I've debated with him enough. He's close-minded on certain topics and anti-intellectual.
-
Yes, Stubborn isn’t distinguishing between the various reasons for excommunication. If a woman gets an abortion, she’s excommunicated but if she’s still practicing the Faith, she’s still a member. If someone like Martin Luther is excommunicated for heresy AND THEN STOPS PRACTICING THE FAITH, he is obviously not a member anymore. Faith is required for membership, as multiple popes have said.
Excommunication is like a parent keeping an adult child at arms length from the rest of the family for fear the bad example will infect the others. It doesn't mean the child is not a family member. It means he's not welcome until he mends his ways.
A "vitando" excommunication means the person is never welcome back. Again, he's still a member.
A non-practicing Catholic is just that, non-practicing. It does not mean he is not a member. It means he is less likely to get to Heaven.
Baptism makes a person a Christian, a child of God, an heir of Heaven and places an indelible mark on his soul. A baptised person is a member of the Church and always will be.
Don't get lost in the thicket.
-
blah, blah, blah. We're not talking about excommunication, but MAJOR HERESY, i.e. Martin Luther.
Stubborn, you keep "moving the goalposts"; you're dishonest.
blah blah blah
You make zero sense because you have zero idea what you are even talking about. Post again when you learn what MAJOR HERESY is.
-
The truth is that none of us are as good or sincere a disciple of Jesus as we ought to be, so it’s a much better use of our time to look inward and ask, am I living and acting as a genuine disciple of Jesus Christ? Or are there areas of my own life that need amendment?
Sure. Divert.
-
Sure. Divert.
O.k. I'll start at the beginning....
-
1. One who is separated from the Church is not a member of the Church. He goes from being Catholic to non-Catholic.
2. The separation takes place at the very instant the sin is committed.
3. The proposition is independent of its application to a particular case.
Wrong.
Baptism makes a person a Christian, a child of God, an heir of Heaven and places an indelible mark on his soul. A baptised person is a member of the Church and always will be.
-
"The public sin of manifest formal heresy by its very nature separates the heretic from the Church." (Your poll)
I would hope people would affirm this to be true...
Separating a family member from the family to avoid the family member from possibly spiritually infecting other family members does not make the family member not a family member.
Once a family member, always a family member.
-
So, it's really the wrong question, as nearly everyone agrees with the propostion ... with the key being when "formal" heresy can be discerned, when it's "manifest" and to whom ... and of course the term "sin" is a bit tricky as bleeds into the internal forum, and then the term "public and manifest" overlap and are redundant, so the proposition remains a bit murky.
Many R&R would likely agree that the Conciliar papal claimants are manifest heretics, but would dispute the "formal" part.
Murking the water....
Once baptised, always baptised and a member of the Church. Period.
-
I don't think so because your #1 and #2 merely state that the sin of heresy was being committed. Certainly all heresies are in direct contradiction to what the Church teaches, but for the sake of argument, your #s 1 and 2 were coming out of the mouth of an infidel, a prot minister, or a prot child for that matter. In these cases, I don't think we can say with certainty that they are speaking manifest heresy.
Instead of saying "One who knowingly...." You could have phrased it: "A Catholic who knowingly..." in this way it would have been more clear I think that the person was guilty of the sin of heresy.
But all non-Catholics, all of those outside of the Church, all non-members cannot receive the sacraments. So if this Catholic guilty of the sin of heresy, per the OP is ipso facto outside of the Church, then he cannot simply go to confession and be absolved as if he is a member of the Church, again, this is per the OP.
In reality, manifest heresy is a mortal sin, for this particular sin the Church attaches a censure, the censure of excommunication. In confession, in the traditional formula for absolution, the priest first removes the censure, then absolves the sinner. This is true for all of us trads each time we go to confession.
And that's why a Catholic who has committed the sin of heresy is still a member because he can simply walk into the confession like only Catholics can do and leave absolved, whereas non-Catholics cannot.
PPXII was of course right. The excommunicated Catholic cannot partake with the community of the Church, he has excommunicated or severed himself from that due to his sin of public heresy.
This means those who are excommunicated are forbidden from taking part in the communal life of the Church, they cannot receive communion or any of the sacraments until their sin is forgiven, they cannot be a sponsor, they cannot sing in the choir, be an usher etc. etc,. The nature of the sin of heresy makes one position themselves in direct opposition to God, the Church, her teachings, her doctrines, her magisterium and all things Catholic. They have effectively severed themselves from the Church by their sin of heresy. But if they were ever Catholic, they are still a Catholic - guilty of the sin of public heresy - and need to go to confession, which again, is something only Catholics can do.
Exactly 100% true.
-
"They have effectively severed themselves from the Church by their sin of heresy. But if they were ever Catholic, they are still a Catholic - guilty of the sin of public heresy - and need to go to confession, which again, is something only Catholics can do."
What? You are essentially saying that Pope Pius XII's teaching in Mystici Corporis means that Catholics who are guilty of the public sin of heresy remain members of the Church. Yep. They do not go from being Catholic to non-Catholic. From where did you get this interpretation?
-
There is nothing stopping anybody at all from walking into a confessional and confessing their sins. Simply being in a confessional with a priest does not necessarily mean someone is Catholic. Hypothetically, a jew, Protestant, Hindu, etc. could do that. But they cannot receive absolution (the sacrament) because they are not Catholic. My point is, a heretic must abjure his heresy before being absolved of his sins. That is what allows a former heretic, someone who was outside of the Church, but is no longer, to receive absolution.
>Heretic enters confessional. *No sacrament at this point
>Heretic abjures his heresy and confesses other sins if necessary. It is evident he is no longer a heretic *No sacrament at this point
>Censure is lifted, former heretic is now a member of the Church again *Still no sacrament at this point
>Former heretic receives absolution *The Sacrament is effected, which only Catholics can receive
I really cannot agree with [Fr. Wathen's]"once a Catholic always a Catholic" and "heretics are still members of the Church" ideas. It seems incredibly novel to me and flies in the face of what the popes have taught:
Look up canon law. The idea is not novel to Fr. Wathen.
-
That the one guilty of the sin of heresy severs himself is the exact point. He severs himself from membership in the Church by the very act of the public sin of heresy.
No, he doesn’t sever himself from membership in the Church, just as the wayward adult child I've mentioned doesn't.
-
This is basic Catholicism, it is not complicated. It really is not the least bit complicated.
Exactly.
-
Ok, so you agree that heresy is a sin, a mortal sin - the worst of all the sins. The question is, how can a penitent Catholic obtain absolution from the sin of heresy?
1917 Canon 2314
§ 1. All apostates from the Christian faith and each and every heretic or schismatic:
1.° Incur by that fact excommunication"
What is excommunication?
Excommunication is a censure attached to certain sins (the sin of heresy in this case) by the (1917) Code of Canon Law.
What is a censure?
From Commentary on the 1917 Code of Canon Law (pdf attached)....
"1525. A censure is a penalty by which a subject (by Baptism) of the Church is deprived of some spiritual benefits, or of benefits connected with matters spiritual, because of obstinate violation of some law of the Church, until such time as he repents and obtains absolution."
Note that, contrary to popular opinion, per (1917) Canon Law, the censure of excommunication does not mean that one is outside of the Church, what the censure means is said above.
What all of this means, is that the penitent Catholic guilty of the sin of heresy, whether the bishop decides an abjuration is required or not, can do that which only members of the Church can do - walk into the confessional, confess his sin to the priest and be absolved by the priest. This is because in the traditional formula of absolution in the Sacrament of Penance, there is a general absolution from the censures of the Church.
Honestly, all any trad needs to do is use themselves as an example, i.e. what would they do if (God forbid) they fell into the sin of heresy and wanted to repent?
I find it really hard to believe that a traditional Catholic doesn't know these things.
-
(Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis Christi, Paragraph 22)
Note in the above quote that Pope Pius XII is speaking about membership in the Church. Those who separate themselves (e.g., public sin of heresy) or have been excluded by excommunication (i.e., perfect excommunication) are NOT members of the Church.
Wake up, Stubborn!
Decet Romanum Pontificem (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10decet.htm)
Papal Bull of Excommunication of Martin Luther and his followers
Pope Leo X - 1521
The above link is the decree of excommunication of Luther, find in it where he was expelled outside of the Church. It's not in there - because he wasn't - because Excommunication does not mean expelled from the Church, it means what I already posted, which Pax blah blah'd. He'd rather argue.
-
Because a censure is a low level canon law punishment, which (most) priests are allowed to forgive. An excommunication is the highest level, and there are various levels of these too. A person like Martin Luther (or the current Pope Leo, or Cardinal Dolan...really bad heretics), who have the highest excommunication penalty, they CANNOT be forgiven these canon law penalties by a simple priest, in confession. No, per canon law, it requires a formal process. A formal hearing. Or...it would require such AND THEN it would require a papal forgiveness or by a bishop or some roman official. After the heretic recants his heresy (abjuration), THEN he goes to confession.
He's explained it several times to you:
"it depends on the authority [who issued the penalty], the heretic and the censure that is attached to the sin, and if it is reserved to the Holy See, or to the bishop, or whatever other penalties/requirements are part of that censure."
-
Maybe this is all too simple, I don't know.
It IS simple. That's why young children can receive Communion.
-
If a heretic is a major, public, heretic, then he incurs 2 penalties - 1) the sin of heresy and 2) the penalties of the Church, which is excommunication.
A heretic must FIRST be forgiven/reconciled BY THE CHURCH (i.e. through the formal process) and THEN he can be reconciled to God (through confession).
God will not forgive in confession, a heretic who has not humbled himself before the Church (....except in danger of death).
Excommunication means a person is 'severed from the Church' (spiritually, due to their sin and also due to canon law). Some popes use the term 'lose membership'. Some saints use the term 'outside the church' (excommunication LITERALLY means to "deprive one of membership").
The error of those who debate this topic is a lack of distinguishment.
An excommunicated catholic is, by definition, 'not a member' of the Church.
A heretic, by definition, is 'not a member' of the Church.
But...a hindu is also 'not a member' of the Church.
Is a hindu's lack of membership the same as a heretic's lack of membership? Of course not.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Excommunication means a person is excluded from receiving blessings, graces, and sacraments. It does not make them lose their membership.
Just like the wayward family member example I've used in this thread, who does not become a non-family-member because he is excluded from family activities.
-
I don't know where you come up with the stuff you're saying, but I can show you where I come up with what I'm saying.....by definition (see attached from pre-V2 Catholic Dictionary), it begins: "Excommunication is an ecclesiastical censure which excludes a person from the communion of the faithful with consequent disabilities and deprivations."
Note that it does not say that they are no longer members.
I already said: "Among other important aspects, the "formal process" proves to the confessor that the heretic really wants to repent and be absolved."
Basically the rest of your whole post says what I already said.
But the heresies and conditions pertaining to Luther cannot be compared to the conciliar popes anyway. Whereas the popes all believe that their heresies are actual Church teachings, Luther flat out told the Church to go to hell and that she was wrong. Luther hated everything about the faith, the Church, and the pope - and preached against pretty much all things Catholic on purpose - and he was still a Catholic priest. Guaranteed he faced God as a Catholic priest and in hell, to his everlasting shame, he will remain a Catholic priest forever, because: "Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek."
Exactly.
-
Heresy doesn’t take away the priesthood. That has nothing to do with the discussion.
Huh?!?!
How can heresy make you a non-member of the Church (your statement in this thread), yet not take away holy orders?
What you are saying is that a heretical Catholic priest is still a Catholic priest but not a member of the Church.
You are so confused....
-
I find it really hard to believe that a traditional Catholic doesn't know these things.
I think it's just that they do not want to know because it contradicts their own opinion.
-
I think it's just that they do not want to know because it contradicts their own opinion.
Must be something like that...
Truth is Truth, no matter what we want to believe differently.
-
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Excommunication means a person is excluded from receiving blessings, graces, and sacraments. It does not make them lose their membership.
Just like the wayward family member example I've used in this thread, who does not become a non-family-member because he is excluded from family activities.
Pax is stuck on the formal process of abjuration, yet his formula for the penitent heretic never even considers that first, there must be the formal process of excommunication, it's as if that is something that is not even remotely necessary. For him, apparently priests and laypeople are the ones that decide whether heretics and popes (of all people) are members or not.
-
For him, apparently priests and laypeople are the ones that decide whether heretics and popes (of all people) are members or not.
Such gall....
I wouldn't want that job if it came to me on a silver platter.
-
Sure. Divert.
Learn basic catechism, then put it to practice in your own life. Your job in life is to get yourself to Heaven. Period. It's not complicated. That's why Pope st pius X lowered the age of first communion.
-
A "vitando" excommunication means the person is never welcome back. Again, he's still a member.
A non-practicing Catholic is just that, non-practicing. It does not mean he is not a member. It means he is less likely to get to Heaven.
Baptism makes a person a Christian, a child of God, an heir of Heaven and places an indelible mark on his soul. A baptised person is a member of the Church and always will be.
:facepalm: St Bellarmine would disagree. He's already been quoted. You can disagree with +Bellarmine (he's not infallible), but don't act like EVERY theologian (or the Church) has decided the matter. They haven't.
-
No, he doesn’t sever himself from membership in the Church, just as the wayward adult child I've mentioned doesn't.
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).
Pope Leo XII, Satis Cognitum
Baptism + Faith = a member. When a person rejects the Faith, they are no longer a member. They can regain membership, by conversion, but sins of heresy, schism, etc make one a non-member. So says Pope Leo XII
-
Pax is stuck on the formal process of abjuration, yet his formula for the penitent heretic never even considers that first, there must be the formal process of excommunication,
1) Many excommunications are "ipso facto", if you know what that means.
2) I've never denied that a formal process is necessary.
3) I've mentioned about 8,000x that we are talking about MARTIN LUTHER, but you refuse to stick on this example. He had a formal process; something I don't deny. :facepalm:
-
:facepalm: St Bellarmine would disagree. He's already been quoted. You can disagree with +Bellarmine (he's not infallible), but don't act like EVERY theologian (or the Church) has decided the matter. They haven't.
Theologians don't have to agree. They are not the Church.
The Church HAS decided the matter. Go check out Canon law and the Baltimore catechism. Stubborn got you started:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/poll-for-those-who-consider-themselves-part-of-the-resistance/msg1003408/#msg1003408
-
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).
Pope Leo XII, Satis Cognitum
Baptism + Faith = a member. When a person rejects the Faith, they are no longer a member. They can regain membership, by conversion, but sins of heresy, schism, etc make one a non-member. So says Pope Leo XII
You are so confused....
Separating a family member from the family to avoid the family member from possibly spiritually infecting other family members does not make that family member not a family member.
Once a family member, always a family member.
Similarly, once baptised, always a Catholic. He may become a non-practicing Catholic, a heretic Catholic, or a schismatic Catholic, but he is still a Catholic.
I encourage you to go back to basic Catechism. Our Lord purposely did not make His Church complicated. He wants everyone saved.
-
When a person rejects the Faith, they are no longer a member. They can regain membership, by conversion, but sins of heresy, schism, etc make one a non-member. So says Pope Leo XII
Let me correct this for you:
When a baptised Catholic rejects the Faith, he sins. He can loose the sin by going to confession and doing the penance he is told to do.
Q. 49. Say the Apostles’ Creed.
A. I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified; died, and was buried. He descended into hell: the third day He arose again from the dead: He ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of God, the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.
Q. 50. What is a creed?
A. A creed is a summary or list of the chief truths we believe or profess to believe. It is a compendium of doctrine.
-
You are so confused....
Separating a family member from the family to avoid the family member from possibly spiritually infecting other family members does not make that family member not a family member.
Once a family member, always a family member.
Similarly, once baptised, always a Catholic. He may become a non-practicing Catholic, a heretic Catholic, or a schismatic Catholic, but he is still a Catholic.
I encourage you to go back to basic Catechism. Our Lord purposely did not make His Church complicated. He wants everyone saved.
It all depends on how you define member, moron.
I (and +Bellarmine and others) define it as: baptized + holds the faith.
If you want to simply define a member as "baptized" then by all means, go ahead. Just realize that's a very BROAD definition, with no distinctions.
According to your definition then, there are 2 possible categories:
a. Member, union with the Church (i.e. holds the faith)
b. Member, not in union (rejects the faith)
Category "b" is what Leo XII is referring to. That's what this WHOLE THREAD IS REFERRING TO. :facepalm: Members who are not in union with the Church (i.e. heretics).
Why don't you try to understand what other people are saying, before just arguing endlessly?
-
It all depends on how you define member, moron.
I (and +Bellarmine and others) define it as: baptized + holds the faith.
If you want to simply define a member as "baptized" then by all means, go ahead. Just realize that's a very BROAD definition, with no distinctions.
According to your definition then, there are 2 possible categories:
a. Member, union with the Church (i.e. holds the faith)
b. Member, not in union (rejects the faith)
Category "b" is what Leo XII is referring to. That's what this WHOLE THREAD IS REFERRING TO. :facepalm: Members who are not in union with the Church (i.e. heretics).
Why don't you try to understand what other people are saying, before just arguing endlessly?
Sticks and stone may break my bones, but words will never hurt me.... :laugh1:
I read the entire thread.
The Church has defined "member" to be a baptised Catholic. Period. Opinions don't matter.
If you want to discuss a member (baptised Catholic) who is "not in union with the Catholic Faith", then YOU need to specify such.
You can't just say a heretic is not a member of the Church because, according to the Church, a heretic may or may not be a member of the Church.
-
The Church has defined "member" to be a baptised Catholic. Period. Opinions don't matter.
False. The Church says baptism BEGINS one's membership.
Multiple popes have further broken this down into being 'one of the faithful' and those who are not 'faithful' (i.e. not in union with the Church).
I read the entire thread.
No you didn't. I made this distinction between membership and 'being one of the faithful' multiple times.
p.s. This distinction is only meant to serve the point of the conversation. +Bellarmine rejects the distinction and says that heretics aren't members. So go tell +Bellarmine he's wrong.
-
1) Many excommunications are "ipso facto", if you know what that means.
2) I've never denied that a formal process is necessary.
3) I've mentioned about 8,000x that we are talking about MARTIN LUTHER, but you refuse to stick on this example. He had a formal process; something I don't deny. :facepalm:
1) Ipso facto for Luther (and everyone else) STILL requires the Church to officially impose the censure on him, just as they (wrongfully) did with Fr. Feeney. Nothing in Fr. Feeney's decree about him being outside of the Church either.
2) You simply ignore it, always implying that we or anyone can definitively decide on the matter.
3) So where in the official decree of excommunication of Luther, Decet Romanum Pontificem, (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10decet.htm) does it say anything about him no longer being a member, being expelled from the Church, or simply is now outside of the Church? Do you suppose they forgot that part, or did they leave it out on purpose?
-
1) Ipso facto for Luther (and everyone else) STILL requires the Church to officially impose the censure on him, just as they (wrongfully) did with Fr. Feeney. Nothing in Fr. Feeney's decree about him being outside of the Church either.
2) You simply ignore it, always implying that we or anyone can definitively decide on the matter.
3) So where in the official decree of excommunication of Luther, Decet Romanum Pontificem, (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10decet.htm) does it say anything about him no longer being a member, being expelled from the Church, or simply is now outside of the Church? Do you suppose they forgot that part, or did they leave it out on purpose?
1. I'm not talking about any other case, other than Luther, because his is clear cut. Yes, they officially declared him excommunicated and a heretic (2 different things).
2. I've not ignored it, moron. I keep saying we're talking about Luther, WHO HAD A FORMAL PROCESS.
3. Go read Pope Leo's statement again. When one is a heretic, they are no longer 'part of the faithful' and are 'outside communion' with the Church.
I say this means they aren't a member. You say they are still a member. It's debatable.
What's not debatable is that they aren't "part of the faithful" (i.e. because they rejected the faith). If you're not part of the Faithful, you're outside of the Church. If you want to still call them members, then it's a game of semantics.
-
False. The Church says baptism BEGINS one's membership.
Wrong.
Baltimore catechism:
"Baptism is a Sacrament which cleanses us from Original Sin, makes us Christians, children of God, and heirs of Heaven."
Period. End of story.
-
Wrong.
Baltimore catechism:
"Baptism is a Sacrament which cleanses us from Original Sin, makes us Christians, children of God, and heirs of Heaven."
Period. End of story.
:facepalm: We've moved on, if you want to go back and read the thread.
Heretics do not have "catholic communion" (the word used by Pope Leo). You can be a member, but still be "outside catholic communion". Thus, membership is reduced to being baptized.
-
:facepalm: We've moved on, if you want to go back and read the thread.
Heretics do not have "catholic communion" (the word used by Pope Leo). You can be a member, but still be "outside catholic communion". Thus, membership is reduced to being baptized.
:facepalm: Both of you are wrong. 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.”
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI
Heretics are neither members of the Church nor are they any part of the “Catholic communion”.
Why is this simple concept so difficult for people to understand?
-
:facepalm: Both of you are wrong. 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.”
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI
Heretics are neither members of the Church nor are they any part of the “Catholic communion”.
Why is this simple concept so difficult for people to understand?
Read the whole thread before you butt in.
-
:facepalm: We've moved on, if you want to go back and read the thread.
Heretics do not have "catholic communion" (the word used by Pope Leo). You can be a member, but still be "outside catholic communion". Thus, membership is reduced to being baptized.
You FINALLY got it. Took you long enough!
Etymologically, excommunication (Lat. ex, out of, away from ; communicatio, communication) signifies the separation of one from communication with others. In ecclesiastical law, it designates the act of excluding, or the state of being excluded from communication with the faithful, and is defined as a censure by which a person is excluded from the communion of the faithful with the effects which are enumerated in the canons and which cannot be separated.
-
1. I'm not talking about any other case, other than Luther, because his is clear cut. Yes, they officially declared him excommunicated and a heretic (2 different things).
2. I've not ignored it, moron. I keep saying we're talking about Luther, WHO HAD A FORMAL PROCESS.
3. Go read Pope Leo's statement again. When one is a heretic, they are no longer 'part of the faithful' and are 'outside communion' with the Church.
I say this means they aren't a member. You say they are still a member. It's debatable.
What's not debatable is that they aren't "part of the faithful" (i.e. because they rejected the faith). If you're not part of the Faithful, you're outside of the Church. If you want to still call them members, then it's a game of semantics.
:facepalm: We've moved on, if you want to go back and read the thread.
Heretics do not have "catholic communion" (the word used by Pope Leo). You can be a member, but still be "outside catholic communion". Thus, membership is reduced to being baptized.
You're a mess.
-
1. I'm not talking about any other case, other than Luther, because his is clear cut. Yes, they officially declared him excommunicated and a heretic (2 different things).
Yes, heresy is the sin, excommunicate is the censure attached to that sin by the Church. As I posted previously...
"A censure is a penalty, that is, a privation of some good, inflicted by legitimate authority for the correction of the delinquent and punishment of the offense."
2. I've not ignored it, moron. I keep saying we're talking about Luther, WHO HAD A FORMAL PROCESS.
Yes, you most certainly did completely and totally ignore it.
3. Go read Pope Leo's statement again. When one is a heretic, they are no longer 'part of the faithful' and are 'outside communion' with the Church.
Well duh.
I say this means they aren't a member. You say they are still a member. It's debatable.
What's not debatable is that they aren't "part of the faithful" (i.e. because they rejected the faith). If you're not part of the Faithful, you're outside of the Church. If you want to still call them members, then it's a game of semantics.
"...A recent example of this was given by the Holy Office on November 8, 1922. In declaring two persons vitandi, the Holy Office stated that they were altogether expelled from the bosom of the Holy Church of God, "e gremio Sanctae Dei Ecclesiae penitus ejici." ["To be completely cast out of the bosom of the Holy Church of God."]
It must be remembered, of course, that all validly baptized persons can be said to be members of the Church, at least in the sense that per se they are subject to the laws of the Church. It would seem, too, that no notorious excommunicate retains full and perfect membership in the body of the Church, for such a one deprived, even in the external forum, of canonical communion which is one of the requisites for full and perfect membership in the body of the Church.
Perhaps, after all, the foregoing controversy is one merely of words. Practically speaking, excommunicates are deprived of all the blessings and rights which accompany membership in the Church of Christ. Hence the question whether they are really deprived of membership in the Church seems to be one of theory and of little practical import."
-
:facepalm: Both of you are wrong. Pope Pius XII:
Nice to see you back QVD, hope all is well.
-
You FINALLY got it. Took you long enough!
Etymologically, excommunication (Lat. ex, out of, away from ; communicatio, communication) signifies the separation of one from communication with others. In ecclesiastical law, it designates the act of excluding, or the state of being excluded from communication with the faithful, and is defined as a censure by which a person is excluded from the communion of the faithful with the effects which are enumerated in the canons and which cannot be separated.
I didn't reply to Pax right away because I thought i was seeing double...
-
You're a mess.
Yes, he is.
-
Nice to see you back QVD, hope all is well.
Thanks Stubborn, I am very well. I just wanted to take a year off from the forum. Even though I disagree with you on a few serious issues regarding the Faith, I always found you as a gentleman and a kind person on the natural level. 😀
-
:facepalm: You guys are so driven by bias and so bunkered-down into one, myopic, self-centered position that you don’t understand the concept of me playing devil's advocate, in order to further the conversation. You don’t have the brain cells (or the charity) to try to understand the other point of view. Instead of debating to learn or debating for a consensus, you guys just “die on the hill” of your own making. Never once have either of you attempted to address either Pope Leo’s or Pope Pius statements, but just ignore them repeatedly. Shame on me, for arguing with you for as long as I have. What a waste of time.
-
I didn't reply to Pax right away because I thought i was seeing double...
lol, I know, he's been doing that throughout this thread but apparently doesn't realize it.
-
.
-
:facepalm: You guys are so driven by bias and so bunkered-down into one, myopic, self-centered position that you don’t understand the concept of me playing devil's advocate, in order to further the conversation. You don’t have the brain cells (or the charity) to try to understand the other point of view. Instead of debating to learn or debating for a consensus, you guys just “die on the hill” of your own making. Never once have either of you attempted to address either Pope Leo’s or Pope Pius statements, but just ignore them repeatedly. Shame on me, for arguing with you for as long as I have. What a waste of time.
Well Pax, you are debating while using multiple different meanings of excommunication, even in the case of Luther. I addressed PPXII's statement way back in this thread somewhere, as for Pope Leo XII's........
(1) "the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium...... (2) “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic.”
(1) The key word there is "communion." He says that a member is outside of Catholic communion, which is not outside of the Church. He then says they are "alien to the Church" which can mean "estranged."
(2) Here he is not talking about heretics, rather, he is specifically addressing all those who simply disbelieve that heresies are heresies: “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies)." He says these cannot call themselves a Catholic. He then finishes by saying anyone who does believe in any one of those heresies is not a Catholic.
I think this has been addressed already from that Canon Law reference ("Excommunication") I've been quoting......
It must be remembered, of course, that all validly baptized persons can be said to be members of the Church, at least in the sense that per se they are subject to the laws of the Church. It would seem, too, that no notorious excommunicate retains full and perfect membership in the body of the Church, for such a one deprived, even in the external forum, of canonical communion which is one of the requisites for full and perfect membership in the body of the Church.
-
:facepalm: You guys are so driven by bias and so bunkered-down into one, myopic, self-centered position that you don’t understand the concept of me playing devil's advocate, in order to further the conversation. You don’t have the brain cells (or the charity) to try to understand the other point of view. Instead of debating to learn or debating for a consensus, you guys just “die on the hill” of your own making. Never once have either of you attempted to address either Pope Leo’s or Pope Pius statements, but just ignore them repeatedly. Shame on me, for arguing with you for as long as I have. What a waste of time.
trying to understand "another point of view" is liberalism in a nutshell. God's Truth is all that matters.
-
Decet Romanum Pontificem (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/leo10/l10decet.htm)
Papal Bull of Excommunication of Martin Luther and his followers
Pope Leo X - 1521
The above link is the decree of excommunication of Luther, find in it where he was expelled outside of the Church. It's not in there - because he wasn't - because Excommunication does not mean expelled from the Church, it means what I already posted, which Pax blah blah'd. He'd rather argue.
So Pope Stubborn has overruled Pope Pius XII!
-
Theologians don't have to agree. They are not the Church.
The Church HAS decided the matter. Go check out Canon law and the Baltimore catechism. Stubborn got you started:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/poll-for-those-who-consider-themselves-part-of-the-resistance/msg1003408/#msg1003408
Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis gave us who are members of the Church. Go read it here:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/poll-for-those-who-consider-themselves-part-of-the-resistance/msg1004927/#msg1004927
-
:facepalm: Both of you are wrong. 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.”
MYSTICI CORPORIS CHRISTI
Heretics are neither members of the Church nor are they any part of the “Catholic communion”.
Why is this simple concept so difficult for people to understand?
Those what I read in this post:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/poll-for-those-who-consider-themselves-part-of-the-resistance/msg1004927/#msg1004927
It's incredible that these people are still arguing against Pope Pius XII.
-
So Pope Stubborn has overruled Pope Pius XII!
"find in it where he was expelled outside of the Church"
-
Pope Pius XII in Mystici Corporis gave us who are members of the Church. Go read it here:
https://www.cathinfo.com/sspx-resistance-news/poll-for-those-who-consider-themselves-part-of-the-resistance/msg1004927/#msg1004927
I'll stick with Canon Law and the Baltimore catechism.
-
I'll stick with Canon Law and the Baltimore catechism.
Was Pius XII not a pope?
-
I'll stick with Canon Law and the Baltimore catechism.
Was not Pius XII a true pope?
-
"find in it where he was expelled outside of the Church"
Pope Pius XII taught who are members of the Church and Pope Stubborn overruled him!
-
Pope Pius XII taught who are members of the Church and Pope Stubborn overruled him!
Meanwhile Catholic Knight knows better than Suarez.
-
Meanwhile Catholic Knight knows better than Suarez.
Pope Pius XII knows better than Suarez.
-
Pope Pius XII knows better than Suarez.
Agreed.
-
Agreed.
But Pope Stubborn knows better than Pope Pius XII.
-
But Pope Stubborn knows better than Pope Pius XII.
Pope Catholic Knight knows less than Pope Pius XII.
-
Pope Catholic Knight knows less than Pope Pius XII.
Stubborn, are we to take these words to mean exactly what they say?
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, Mystici Corporis
-
Stubborn, are we to take these words to mean exactly what they say?
I do. I also understand Suarez's position and agree with Suarez's "Once a Catholic always a Catholic." IOW, as he said in your quote, mortal sinners separate themselves from the unity of the Body. The Church is not the one who does the separating.
-
I do. I also understand Suarez's position and agree with Suarez's "Once a Catholic always a Catholic." IOW, as he said in your quote, mortal sinners separate themselves from the unity of the Body. The Church is not the one who does the separating.
So you agree that someone who doesn't profess the true faith is not a member of the Church?
-
So you agree that someone who doesn't profess the true faith is not a member of the Church?
If that person was never Catholic, I agree. If that person professed the true faith then committed the sin of heresy, that person is a Catholic with the sin of heresy on his soul. Should he decide to repent, he can go to confession and be absolved, something only members can do. The nature of the sin makes this unlikely.
One must accept that heresy is a sin, the worst of all the sins, but that is what heresy is, a sin, one that Catholics can always be absolved of in confession.
-
If that person was never Catholic, I agree. If that person professed the true faith then committed the sin of heresy, that person is a Catholic with the sin of heresy on his soul. Should he decide to repent, he can go to confession and be absolved, something only members can do. The nature of the sin makes this unlikely.
One must accept that heresy is a sin, the worst of all the sins, but that is what heresy is, a sin, one that Catholics can always be absolved of in confession.
OK, regardless of whether you hold any particular heretic to be Catholic or not, Pope Pius XII teaches that membership in the Church is limited only those who:
1) Are baptized
And
2) Profess the true Faith
And
3) Have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body
Or
4) Have not been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed
So, if any one of the four things is lacking a person is not a member of the Church.
Do you agree with this?
-
Pope Catholic Knight knows less than Pope Pius XII.
I am not the one contradicting Pope Pius XII; Pope Stubborn is.
-
OK, regardless of whether you hold any particular heretic to be Catholic or not, Pope Pius XII teaches that membership in the Church is limited only those who:
1) Are baptized
And
2) Profess the true Faith
And
3) Have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body
Or
4) Have not been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed
So, if any one of the four things is lacking a person is not a member of the Church.
Do you agree with this?
As long as #1 and #2 is present, that person is a member of the Church.
#3 is the definition of excommunication: "Excommunication is the gravest of all canonical punishments ; it separates the delinquent from the communion of the faithful, and, practically speaking, deprives him of all the rights of membership in the Church of Christ." Still a member.
#4 is the censure of excommunication decreed by a Church authority. Still a member.
You have a conundrum, which is why you simply ignore it.....your conundrum is: If a Catholic committed the sin of heresy, that person is a Catholic with the sin of heresy on his soul. Should he decide to repent, he can go to confession and be absolved, something only members can do. The nature of the sin makes this unlikely.
One must accept that heresy is a sin, the worst of all the sins, but that is what heresy is, a sin, one that Catholics can always be absolved of in confession.
All you gotta do is use yourself as an example, it is not complicated. You would need to explain how you (only using you for the purpose of an example only, no insult intended), a Catholic with the sin of heresy on your soul, can go to confession at all, and also be absolved of the sin of heresy if you are not a member of the Church.
I expect you will continue to ignore this, but there it is regardless.
-
As long as #1 and #2 is present, that person is a member of the Church.
Except that is not what Pope Pius XII teaches.
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
Broken down into the four factors Pope Pius XII gives:
#1
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized...
#2
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who [...] profess the true faith...
#3
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who [...] have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body...
#4
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have [...] not been [...] excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed
If even ONE of these is lacking, someone is not a member of the Church. That is what Pope Pius XII teaches. So what you say regarding #3 and #4 simply does not follow.
You say as long as #1 and #2 are present a person is a member of the Church. Do you believe that heretics and schismatics "profess the true Faith"(#2)?
You have a conundrum, which is why you simply ignore it.....your conundrum is: If a Catholic committed the sin of heresy, that person is a Catholic with the sin of heresy on his soul. Should he decide to repent, he can go to confession and be absolved, something only members can do. The nature of the sin makes this unlikely.
All you gotta do is use yourself as an example, it is not complicated. You would need to explain how you (only using you for the purpose of an example only, no insult intended), a Catholic with the sin of heresy on your soul, can go to confession at all, and also be absolved of the sin of heresy if you are not a member of the Church.
I expect you will continue to ignore this, but there it is regardless.
No, I have not ignored it. I actually responded to it and I do not believe I received a reply.
Stubborn, does or does not a heretic have to abjure his heresy before being able to receive absolution?
Does or does not a heretic have any censures/penalties/etc. against him lifted (not a sacrament) after having abjured his heresy and prior to receiving absolution of his sins (a sacrament)?
-
No, I have not ignored it. I actually responded to it and I do not believe I received a reply.
Stubborn, does or does not a heretic have to abjure his heresy before being able to receive absolution?
Does or does not a heretic have any censures/penalties/etc. against him lifted (not a sacrament) after having abjured his heresy and prior to receiving absolution of his sins (a sacrament)?
I found where you responded, and I replied to your response, which answers the questions in this post.
-
I found where you responded, and I replied to your response, which answers the questions in this post.
Well, I'm not seeing it. This is what I posted:
>Heretic enters confessional. *No sacrament at this point*
>Heretic abjures his heresy and confesses other sins if necessary. It is evident he is no longer a heretic *No sacrament at this point*
>Censure is lifted, former heretic is now a member of the Church again *Still no sacrament at this point*
>Former heretic receives absolution *The Sacrament is effected, which only Catholics (/members of the Church) can receive*
Does or does not Pope Pius XII teach:
1) Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized...
2) Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who [...] profess the true faith...
3) Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who [...] have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body...
4) Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have [...] not been [...] excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed
And do you believe that heretics and schismatics "profess the true Faith"(#2)?
-
Well, I'm not seeing it. This is what I posted:
>Heretic enters confessional. *No sacrament at this point*
>Heretic abjures his heresy and confesses other sins if necessary. It is evident he is no longer a heretic *No sacrament at this point*
>Censure is lifted, former heretic is now a member of the Church again *Still no sacrament at this point*
>Former heretic receives absolution *The Sacrament is effected, which only Catholics (/members of the Church) can receive
Replace the word "heretic" with what a heretic is: "Sinner." Hopefully that will clear it up for you.
Otherwise, a Catholic guilty of the sin of heresy could not receive the Last Rites, which they can even when unconscious and dying without any abjuration, and can even receive them from a priest who is also an excommunicant for heresy, schism or apostacy. Clear now?
1) Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized...
2) Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who [...] profess the true faith...
3) Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who [...] have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body...
4) Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have [...] not been [...] excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed
And do you believe that heretics and schismatics "profess the true Faith"(#2)?
Schismatics: it is possible that Schismatics profess the true faith - The problem with Schismatics is that they refuse to submit to the authority of the pope or to hold communion with members of the Church subject to him. Schism differs from heresy and Apostasy, but schism very often leads to heresy and Apostasy.
Heretics: No. Heretics profess things contrary to the true faith.
-
Replace the word "heretic" with what a heretic is: "Sinner." Hopefully that will clear it up for you.
No, because we are not talking about any sin whatsoever. A fornicator, for instance, is not separated from the Church due to that sin. There is no censure that needs to be lifted prior to absolution of sins. A fornicator can walk into a confessional, confess his sin, and immediately receive absolution. A heretic cannot do that.
Otherwise, a Catholic guilty of the sin of heresy could not receive the Last Rites, which they can even when unconscious and dying without any abjuration, and can even receive them from a priest who is also an excommunicant for heresy, schism or apostacy. Clear now?
Where do you get this?
Canon 731
§ 1. As all the Sacraments of the New Law, instituted by Christ our Lord, are the principal means
of sanctification and salvation, the greatest diligence and reverence is to be observed in
opportunely and correctly administering them and receiving them.
§ 2. It is forbidden that the Sacraments of the Church be ministered to heretics and schismatics,
even if they ask for them and are in good faith, unless beforehand, rejecting their errors, they are
reconciled with the Church.
On The Subject Of Extreme Unction
Canon 942
This sacrament is not to be conferred on those who are impenitent, persevering contumaciously
in manifest mortal sin; if there is doubt about this, it should be conferred under condition.
Canon 943
Nevertheless, [the sacrament] should be absolutely conferred on those infirm who, when they
were in possession of their faculties, had at least implicitly asked [for it] or who seemed to ask [for
it], even if later they lost their senses or the use of reason.
Heretics: No. Heretics profess things contrary to the true faith.
Okay, so you do agree that heretics are not members of the Church?
-
No, because we are not talking about any sin whatsoever. A fornicator, for instance, is not separated from the Church due to that sin. There is no censure that needs to be lifted prior to absolution of sins. A fornicator can walk into a confessional, confess his sin, and immediately receive absolution. A heretic cannot do that.
Yes, like the heretic, the fornicator is separated from the Church because being in Mortal Sin he has separated himself from God. Remember, Christ and the Church are one.
Separation from God, hence the Church, is one of the effects of mortal sin. The distinction you're not making is that the Church attaches a censure of excommunication to certain mortal sins, heresy is one of them. As I posted previous, in the traditional formula for absolution, the priest first lifts the censure then forgives the sin. The formula includes the lifting of censures for a reason, it's not in there by mistake.
Where do you get this?
From Trent, Session 14, Chapter 7:
"...But it is consonant to the divine authority, that this reservation of cases have effect, not merely in external polity, but also in God's sight. Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution."
Okay, so you do agree that heretics are not members of the Church?
Personally, I think anyone who preaches heresy makes it blatantly obvious that they are not members of the Church, most of the time they even boast that they want nothing whatsoever to do with the Catholic Church, that it is evil etc., but if the heretic was ever a Catholic and if he dies in that state, that guy will face God as a Catholic with, God forbid, the sin of losing the faith and the sin of heresy on his soul.
-
Yes, like the heretic, the fornicator is separated from the Church because being in Mortal Sin he has separated himself from God. Remember, Christ and the Church are one.
Separation from God, hence the Church, is one of the effects of mortal sin. The distinction you're not making is that the Church attaches a censure of excommunication to certain mortal sins, heresy is one of them. As I posted previous, in the traditional formula for absolution, the priest first lifts the censure then forgives the sin. The formula includes the lifting of censures for a reason, it's not in there by mistake.
A fornicator is not outside the Church due to that sin. Pope Pius XII teaches that not every sin, however grave it may be, severs a man from the Body of the Church. Fornication, for instance, is a sin of the flesh. It is not a rejection of Church Dogma , a rejection of the unity of the Church, or an act of apostasy
Pope Pius XII teaches that heresy, schism, and apostasy OF THEIR OWN NATURE sever a man from Body of the Church. And if we look at the four criteria that Pope Pius XII gives for Church membership, we see that those three sins make up criteria #2 and #3.
2) Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who [...] profess the true faith...
3) Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who [...] have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body.
Heretics and apostates, and in practice basically all schismatics do not profess the true Faith. A fornicator can.
Heretics, apostates, and schismatics have separated themselves from the unity of the Body by the very nature of their sin. A fornicator doesn't
Pope Pius XII even uses the same wording for crying out loud!
"not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy"
3) "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who [...] have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body"
A fornicator, again, is not denying a Church dogma, renouncing the faith, or rejecting the unity of the Church. Any one of the four criteria Pius XII laid out for Church membership is not lacking in him. He may have lost "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"
that is why the the Church attaches a censure to those sins..because it makes it clear that lost membership is a result of the sin. And of course the lifting of the censure is there for a reason, it is what formally declares a former member of the Church to be a member once again
23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet.20 For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. 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.
24. Let every one then abhor sin, which defiles the mystical members of our Redeemer; but if anyone unhappily falls and his obstinacy has not made him unworthy of communion with the faithful, let him be received with great love, and let eager charity see in him a weak member of Jesus Christ. For, as the Bishop of Hippo remarks, it is better “to be cured within the Church’s community than to be cut off from its body as incurable members.” 21 “As long as a member still forms part of the body there is no reason to despair of its cure; once it has been cut off, it can be neither cured nor healed.” 22
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis
From Trent, Session 14, Chapter 7:
"...But it is consonant to the divine authority, that this reservation of cases have effect, not merely in external polity, but also in God's sight. Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution."
Penitents, Stubborn. Penitents. An unconscious heretic who never gave indication of penitence is NOT a penitent. Are you serious?
Personally, I think anyone who preaches heresy makes it blatantly obvious that they are not members of the Church, most of the time they even boast that they want nothing whatsoever to do with the Catholic Church, that it is evil etc., but if the heretic was ever a Catholic and if he dies in that state, that guy will face God as a Catholic with, God forbid, the sin of losing the faith and the sin of heresy on his soul.
Okay, thank you. Heretics are not members of the Church. Yes, they will be judged with the indelible mark of Baptism on their soul
What do you make of those validly baptised as infants in heretical sects? They were made Catholic by their baptism, but adhere to their false sect when they reach the age of reason. Are they still Catholic?
-
From Trent, Session 14, Chapter 7:
"...But it is consonant to the divine authority, that this reservation of cases have effect, not merely in external polity, but also in God's sight. Nevertheless, for fear lest any may perish on this account, it has always been very piously observed in the said Church of God, that there be no reservation at the point of death, and that therefore all priests may absolve all penitents whatsoever from every kind of sins and censures whatever: and as, save at that point of death, priests have no power in reserved cases, let this alone be their endeavour, to persuade penitents to repair to superior and lawful judges for the benefit of absolution."
And even putting aside that administering the sacrament to unconscious, unrepentant heretics, schismatics, etc is forbidden as per Canons 731, 942, and 943, it would only be allowed to be administered conditionally..meaning that if the heretic, schismatic, etc was unrepentant no censure would be lifted, they would not be a member of the Church, and no sacrament would be effected
-
A fornicator is not outside the Church due to that sin. Pope Pius XII teaches that not every sin, however grave it may be, severs a man from the Body of the Church. Fornication, for instance, is a sin of the flesh. It is not a rejection of Church Dogma , a rejection of the unity of the Church, or an act of apostasy
Pope Pius XII teaches that heresy, schism, and apostasy OF THEIR OWN NATURE sever a man from Body of the Church. And if we look at the four criteria that Pope Pius XII gives for Church membership, we see that those three sins make up criteria #2 and #3.
I did not say a fornicator is outside the Church, I said "Yes, like the heretic, the fornicator is separated from the Church." And I told you why, seems you reject the reason I gave you, which is what the Church teaches.
Do you understand that heresy is a sin, and do you deny that all mortal sin separates us from God, therefore the Church?
that is why the the Church attaches a censure to those sins..because it makes it clear that lost membership is a result of the sin. And of course the lifting of the censure is there for a reason, it is what formally declares a former member of the Church to be a member once again
The Church does not censure non-members.
Penitents, Stubborn. Penitents. An unconscious heretic who never gave indication of penitence is NOT a penitent. Are you serious?
The exception is in reserved cases, read what Trent said again. Who said he never gave indication of penitence?
Okay, thank you. Heretics are not members of the Church. Yes, they will be judged with the indelible mark of Baptism on their soul
What do you make of those validly baptised as infants in heretical sects? They were made Catholic by their baptism, but adhere to their false sect when they reach the age of reason. Are they still Catholic?
As St. Thomas said: "Baptism without faith is of no value." They are not members after the age of reason if they remain adhering to their false sect.
-
I did not say a fornicator is outside the Church, I said "Yes, like the heretic, the fornicator is separated from the Church."
:laugh1: No. Apples to oranges.
Do you understand that heresy is a sin, and do you deny that all mortal sin separates us from God, therefore the Church?
:laugh1: Again, no. All mortal sin does not separate us from the Church, in the same way as heresy, schism, or apostasy. Just stop. It's embarrassing.
The Church does not censure non-members.
She censures FIRST, then they become non-members.
-
I did not say a fornicator is outside the Church, I said "Yes, like the heretic, the fornicator is separated from the Church." And I told you why, seems you reject the reason I gave you, which is what the Church teaches.
You now have a conundrum Stubborn
Pius XII teaches that those who separate themselves from the unity of the Body are not members of the Church at all
If you are going to say that a fornicator is separated from the Church..or in other words, "separated from the unity of the Body"...you must also admit that he loses membership in the Church, and is therefore outside the Church.
But that is not what Pope Pius XII teaches. If that were the case, a fornicator could not receive absolution of his sins..as Pope Eugene IV teaches at the Council of Florence that
the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation
Do you understand that heresy is a sin, and do you deny that all mortal sin separates us from God, therefore the Church?
Of course all mortal sin separates us from God...but as Pius XII teaches, not all mortal sin separates us from the Church..as separation from the Unity of the Body means one is not a member of the Church.
The Church does not censure non-members.
But it does, to those who by the very nature of their sin have lost membership (e.g. all heretics must have censure lifted)
A heretic loses membership when they commit the sin of heresy, there may or may not be a formal decree against him after the fact. That would mean the Church declaring a censure against someone who is a non-member
The exception is in reserved cases, read what Trent said again. Who said he never gave indication of penitence?
The word "penitent" is what gives indication. A heretic, schismatic, etc. who gives no indication of penitence is not a penitent.. obviously. Again, if there was doubt about whether or not he was penitent, the sacrament would be administered conditionally..meaning if he was not penitent, there would be no censure lifted, he would not be a member of the Church, and no sacrament would be effected
As St. Thomas said: "Baptism without faith is of no value." They are not members after the age of reason if they remain adhering to their false sect.
Not members, okay. But I asked if they are Catholic. Are they?
-
:laugh1: No. Apples to oranges.
And this from Mr. Distinction himself :facepalm:
:laugh1: Again, no. All mortal sin does not separate us from the Church, in the same way as heresy, schism, or apostasy. Just stop. It's embarrassing.
She censures FIRST, then they become non-members.
Learn the basic catechism. :facepalm:
-
Fornicators lose membership in the Church....Stubborn, come on. This is nonsense.
-
A dead member of the Church is a Catholic in mortal sin who has lost sanctifying grace but has not rejected the Faith. He remains a member of the Church in body but not in soul until he repents.
-
You now have a conundrum Stubborn
Pius XII teaches that those who separate themselves from the unity of the Body are not members of the Church at all
If you are going to say that a fornicator is separated from the Church..or in other words, "separated from the unity of the Body"...you must also admit that he loses membership in the Church, and is therefore outside the Church.
But that is not what Pope Pius XII teaches. If that were the case, a fornicator could not receive absolution of his sins..as Pope Eugene IV teaches at the Council of Florence that
Quote
the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation
This is pretty incredible. Yes, "a fornicator is separated from the Church..or in other words, "separated from the unity of the Body." Because of their sin, they separate themselves from Christ, which is the Church, which means they have separated themselves from the unity of the Body, whats more they make themselves an enemy of Christ and they cannot partake of the sacraments (except Penance).
But no, "you must also admit that he [fornicator] loses membership in the Church, and is therefore outside the Church." Again,as I said above.
"If that were the case, a fornicator could not receive absolution of his sins..as Pope Eugene IV teaches at the Council of Florence that...the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation"
Then neither could a Catholic with the sin of heresy on his soul.
Of course all mortal sin separates us from God...but as Pius XII teaches, not all mortal sin separates us from the Church..as separation from the Unity of the Body means one is not a member of the Church.
One cannot be separated from God, and at the same time united with the Church because the two are one. Such a thing is impossible, because the two are one.
" ...the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing". - Pope Pius XII Humani Generis
The word "penitent" is what gives indication. A heretic, schismatic, etc. who gives no indication of penitence is not a penitent.. obviously. Again, if there was doubt about whether or not he was penitent, the sacrament would be administered conditionally..meaning if he was not penitent, there would be no censure lifted, he would not be a member of the Church, and no sacrament would be effected
The problem you have, is the priest who is absolving the penitent is a heretic.
Not members, okay. But I asked if they are Catholic. Are they?
No, because they never were, as St. Thomas said: "Baptism without faith is of no value."
-
Fornicators lose membership in the Church....Stubborn, come on. This is nonsense.
You have a reading comprehension problem, I never said any such thing.
-
You have a reading comprehension problem, I never said any such thing.
Here's what you said:
Do you understand that heresy is a sin, and do you deny that all mortal sin separates us from God, therefore the Church?
My response:
1. Yes, heresy is a sin.
2. Yes, all mortal sin separates us from God.
3. No, not all moral sin separates us from the Church. Only certain mortal sins.
-
Here's what you said:
Do you understand that heresy is a sin, and do you deny that all mortal sin separates us from God, therefore the Church?
My response:
1. Yes, heresy is a sin.
2. Yes, all mortal sin separates us from God.
3. No, not all moral sin separates us from the Church. Only certain mortal sins.
How are you able to separate God from the Church when the two are one?
-
The pope can bind and loose. The Church is made up of divine and human parts. The Church is the bride of Christ. They are one, in a spiritual sense, but still distinct.
-
The pope can bind and loose. The Church is made up of divine and human parts. The Church is the bride of Christ. They are one, in a spiritual sense, but still distinct.
Nope. They are one and the same thing.
This is repeated by PPXII in a few of his encyclicals, it's even the title of the often quoted:
Mystici Corporis (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm)
The Mystical Body of Christ, the Church (https://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius12/p12mysti.htm)
Which, on a side note, is why it is altogether ridiculous, even asinine to be concerned with and doubt the Church's indefectibility, as at least one poster on CI has even dubbed himself an "indefectibilist." :facepalm:
-
They aren’t the same thing. :facepalm: Christ is the head; the church is the body. The head is not the same as the body.
-
This is pretty incredible. Yes, "a fornicator is separated from the Church..or in other words, "separated from the unity of the Body." Because of their sin, they separate themselves from Christ, which is the Church, which means they have separated themselves from the unity of the Body, whats more they make themselves an enemy of Christ and they cannot partake of the sacraments (except Penance).
There is no way for you to reconcile what you are saying with what Pius XII taught:
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have [...] not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body...
Mystici Corporis
If a fornicator is separated from the unity of the Body due to that sin, then he is not a member of the Church. That is the only conclusion to what you are saying
But no, "you must also admit that he [fornicator] loses membership in the Church, and is therefore outside the Church." Again,as I said above.
See above
If that were the case, a fornicator could not receive absolution of his sins..as Pope Eugene IV teaches at the Council of Florence that...the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation"
Then neither could a Catholic with the sin of heresy on his soul.
A heretic must abjure his heresy and have censure absolved (not a sacrament) before being absolved of his sins (sacrament). There is so such requirement for a fornicator
One cannot be separated from God, and at the same time united with the Church because the two are one. Such a thing is impossible, because the two are one.
" ...the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing". - Pope Pius XII Humani Generis
You fail to even attempt to reconcile what you believe with what Pius XII teaches. I would say a fornicator (or other mortal sinner save for heretics, schismatics, etc.) is a dead member, still attached. Not separated..unlike a heretic, apostates, or schismatic..like Pius XII teaches
The problem you have, is the priest who is absolving the penitent is a heretic.
So we are talking about the minister of the sacrament, not the recipient? If a heretic, schismatic, or apostate priest can effect the sacrament of Extreme Unction it would be because the salvation of souls is supreme law of the Church..not because he is a member (he isn't, as per Pius XII)
No, because they never were, as St. Thomas said: "Baptism without faith is of no value."
Huh? You're saying infants validly baptised in heretical/schismatic sects are not Catholics?
Trent, On Baptism:
CANON IV.-If any one saith, that the baptism which is even given by heretics in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing what the Church doth, is not true baptism; let him be anathema.
CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that little children, for that they have not actual faith, are not, after having received baptism, to be reckoned amongst the faithful; and that, for this cause, they are to be rebaptized when they have attained to years of discretion; or, that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted, than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be bapized in the faith alone of the Church; let him be anathema.
Pope Clement VI, Super quibusdam, Sept. 20, 1351: “…We ask: In the first place whether you and the Church of the Armenians which is obedient to you, believe that all those who in baptism have received the same Catholic faith, and afterwards have withdrawn and will withdraw in the future from the communion of this same Roman Church, which one alone is Catholic, are schismatic and heretical, if they remain obstinately separated from the faith of this Roman Church. In the second place, we ask whether you and the Armenians obedient to you believe that no man of the wayfarers outside the faith of this Church, and outside the obedience of the Pope of Rome, can finally be saved.”
Pope Leo XIII, Nobilissima Gallorum Gens:
The Church, guardian of the integrity of the Faith-which, in virtue of its authority, deputed from God its Founder, has to call all nations to the knowledge of Christian lore, and which is consequently bound to watch keenly over the teaching and upbringing of the children placed under its authority by baptism
-
They aren’t the same thing. :facepalm: Christ is the head; the church is the body. The head is not the same as the body.
" ...the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing". - Pope Pius XII Humani Generis
-
" ...the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing". - Pope Pius XII Humani Generis
:laugh2: Never said they weren't the same. I said that Christ is separate from the REST of his Mystical Body.
Christ + Church = Mystical Body
Christ without the Church = protestantism
Getting back to the point, before you confused things, is the truth that one can be separated from Christ (though sin) but not separated from the Church.
Pius XII literally says that NOT ALL SINS separate from the Church.
For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.
-
If you are going to conflate Christ and His Church, we can take that to its logical conclusion as well.
If Christ and the Church are absolutely one and the same, then there can be no sin whatsoever in the Church..as Christ is obviously sinless. We can't draw the line at mortal sin either, because even venial sin is a terrible offense against infinite Good..there is no sin in Christ..and if the Church is Christ with no distinction, then no member can sin
If, as Stubborn claims, all sin ('all' because, again, if the Church is Christ, venial or mortal sin cannot be in the Church, or Christ) separates someone from Unity with the Body, and as Pius XII teaches one who is separated from unity with the Body is not a member of the Church, then that would leave the Church with how many members, exactly? 30? 10? 1? None?
-
There is no way for you to reconcile what you are saying with what Pius XII taught:
If a fornicator is separated from the unity of the Body due to that sin, then he is not a member of the Church. That is the only conclusion to what you are saying
You are equating being separated with being outside. The pope uses the words "separate themselves" for a reason....it does not mean outside or he would have said "put themselves outside."
A heretic must abjure his heresy and have censure absolved (not a sacrament) before being absolved of his sins (sacrament). There is so such requirement for a fornicator
Censures get lifted, sins get absolved. This occurs in all confessions in the traditional formula every time the priest administers the absolution for a reason. What do YOU think that reason is?
You fail to even attempt to reconcile what you believe with what Pius XII teaches. I would say a fornicator (or other mortal sinner save for heretics, schismatics, etc.) is a dead member, still attached. Not separated..unlike a heretic, apostates, or schismatic..like Pius XII teaches
Again, he is talking about sin, he is speaking of the effects of the nature of sin, here in particular he mentions the nature of the sins of heresy, schism and apostacy. "For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church..." That is the nature of those sins. Not every sin, however grave they may be, have that same nature. He does not say that no other sins do not have the same nature, because they all do.
Next, all sin severs, but does so spiritually. If one's head gets severed there's no healing it, but spiritually, because it was part of the body, it can be reattached through confession.
So we are talking about the minister of the sacrament, not the recipient? If a heretic, schismatic, or apostate priest can effect the sacrament of Extreme Unction it would be because the salvation of souls is supreme law of the Church..not because he is a member (he isn't, as per Pius XII)
What? So Trent teaches that a non-Catholic priest can absolve someone in danger of death? Balderdash I say.
Huh? You're saying infants validly baptised in heretical/schismatic sects are not Catholics?
No, I never said that - you are falsely saying I said that.
-
:laugh2: Never said they weren't the same. I said that Christ is separate from the REST of his Mystical Body.
Christ + Church = Mystical Body
Christ without the Church = protestantism
Getting back to the point, before you confused things, is the truth that one can be separated from Christ (though sin) but not separated from the Church.
Pius XII literally says that NOT ALL SINS separate from the Church.
For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.
That's right, PPXII literally says that, what he does *not* say is: No sins separate from the Church except heresy, schism and apostasy which is how you guys are reading it.
-
:laugh2: Never said they weren't the same. I said that Christ is separate from the REST of his Mystical Body.
Nope, that is impossible.
" ...the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing"
-
Again, he is talking about sin, he is speaking of the effects of the nature of sin, here in particular he mentions the nature of the sins of heresy, schism and apostacy. "For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church..." That is the nature of those sins. Not every sin, however grave they may be, have that same nature. He does not say that no other sins do not have the same nature, because they all do.
No, you're forgetting the first phrase "Not every sin...however grave...has the nature...to sever..."
Not all sins are equal. That's the point. No amount of mental gymnastics from you, changes what he said.
-
No, you're forgetting the first phrase "Not every sin...however grave...has the nature...to sever..."
Not all sins are equal. That's the point. No amount of mental gymnastics from you, changes what he said.
What he does *not* say is: No sins separate from the Church except heresy, schism and apostasy which is how you guys are reading it.
-
What he does *not* say is: No sins separate from the Church except heresy, schism and apostasy which is how you guys are reading it.
:laugh2: No, he doesn't say it EXACTLY like that. He phrases it differently but it still means the same thing. It's called the english language. There are multiple ways to write the same thing. :laugh2:
You: 'every sin...'
Pius XII: 'not every sin'
You couldn't be more opposite to what he said.
-
You are equating being separated with being outside. The pope uses the words "separate themselves" for a reason....it does not mean outside or he would have said "put themselves outside."
If you are not a member, you are not a part of. If you are not a member you cannot be inside. If you are separated from, you are not a member. If you are separated from, you cannot be a part of, or inside.
As Pius XII teaches, "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have [...] not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body..."
You are trying to make a distinction when there is none to be made
Censures get lifted, sins get absolved. This occurs in all confessions in the traditional formula every time the priest administers the absolution for a reason. What do YOU think that reason is?
The censure is lifted, the heretic is now a member again. The reason is evident. A non-member cannot partake in the sacraments.
Again, he is talking about sin, he is speaking of the effects of the nature of sin, here in particular he mentions the nature of the sins of heresy, schism and apostacy. "For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church..." That is the nature of those sins. Not every sin, however grave they may be, have that same nature. He does not say that no other sins do not have the same nature, because they all do.
Don't even know what you're talking about at this point. Pius XII teaches that heresy, schism, apostasy by their nature separate someone from the Church..unlike other grave sins
Next, all sin severs, but does so spiritually. If one's head gets severed there's no healing it, but spiritually, because it was part of the body, it can be reattached through confession.
Right...but not all sin separates someone from the Church..like heresy, apostasy, schism as Pius XII teaches
What? So Trent teaches that a non-Catholic priest can absolve someone in danger of death? Balderdash I say.
I didn't say that, I said if that could happen. I'm not sure if it can happen. What I do know is that unrepentant, unconscious heretics cannot receive Extreme Unction..because they are not penitents, and not members of the Church
No, I never said that - you are falsely saying I said that.
I say: What do you make of those validly baptised as infants in heretical sects? They were made Catholic by their baptism, but adhere to their false sect when they reach the age of reason. Are they still Catholic?
You say: As St. Thomas said: "Baptism without faith is of no value." They are not members after the age of reason if they remain adhering to their false sect.
I say: Not members, okay. But I asked if they are Catholic. Are they?
You say: No, because they never were, as St. Thomas said: "Baptism without faith is of no value."
I say: Huh? You're saying infants validly baptised in heretical/schismatic sects are not Catholics?
You say: No, I never said that - you are falsely saying I said that
As they say: Make it make sense
-
:laugh2: No, he doesn't say it EXACTLY like that. He phrases it differently but it still means the same thing. It's called the english language. There are multiple ways to write the same thing. :laugh2:
You: 'every sin...'
Pius XII: 'not every sin'
You couldn't be more opposite to what he said.
No, "Not every sin" means what it says, you are insisting he means "no other sin." Which is why you, "the distinction man" fails to make the proper distinction.
-
No, "Not every sin" means what it says, you are insisting he means "no other sin." Which is why you, "the distinction man" fails to make the proper distinction.
You're trying to make a distinction, with no conclusion and no facts.
You're arguing that Pius XII meant that OTHER sins are similar to heresy, schism or apostasy. But he doesn't list those. Nor does he make a reference to a list that exists. Your distinction fails.
You have no proof that this distinction is valid. Making a distinction without an explanation is illogical.
-
If you are not a member, you are not a part of. If you are not a member you cannot be inside. If you are separated from, you are not a member. If you are separated from, you cannot be a part of, or inside.
As Pius XII teaches, "Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have [...] not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body..."
You are trying to make a distinction when there is none to be made
One who the Church Excommunicates is a separated member. You fail to make this distinction.
The censure is lifted, the heretic is now a member again. The reason is evident. A non-member cannot partake in the sacraments.
Nope. You still don't have it. Tell that same thing to a heretic priest administering extreme unction.
I say: What do you make of those validly baptised as infants in heretical sects? They were made Catholic by their baptism, but adhere to their false sect when they reach the age of reason. Are they still Catholic?
You say: As St. Thomas said: "Baptism without faith is of no value." They are not members after the age of reason if they remain adhering to their false sect.
I say: Not members, okay. But I asked if they are Catholic. Are they?
You say: No, because they never were, as St. Thomas said: "Baptism without faith is of no value."
I say: Huh? You're saying infants validly baptised in heretical/schismatic sects are not Catholics?
You say: No, I never said that - you are falsely saying I said that
As they say: Make it make sense
As baptized infants they were Catholics until they attain the age of reason. Then they need to be raised in the faith in order to be Catholic. If they were never raised in the faith FROM THE AGE OF REASON, then never were Catholic - since the age of reason. That's what I meant.
It should be obvious to you that baptized infants are Catholic but as infants, not obliged to have the faith.
-
One who the Church Excommunicates is a separated member. You fail to make this distinction.
That's not what Pius XII said. He said those who have separated themselves, are NOT members.
Nope. You still don't have it. Tell that same thing to a heretic priest administering extreme unction.
Canon law does not make the heretic priest a member. Canon Law simply allows the sacrament to be licit FOR THIS ONE PARTICULAR ACT.
This is because a heretic priest still has sacramental powers, even if not a member.
-
You're trying to make a distinction, with no conclusion and no facts.
You're arguing that Pius XII meant that OTHER sins are similar to heresy, schism or apostasy. But he doesn't list those. Nor does he make a reference to a list that exists. Your distinction fails.
You have no proof that this distinction is valid. Making a distinction without an explanation is illogical.
PPXII said: "For not every sin." That is what he means. Live with it. It does not matter how badly you want what he said to mean "For no other sin," simply accept that he would have said that if that's what he meant.
-
PPXII said: "For not every sin." That is what he means. Live with it. It does not matter how badly you want what he said to mean "For no other sin," simply accept that he would have said that if that's what he meant.
:laugh1: There are various ways to write the same thing. You're insane. Go ask 10 other people what that ENTIRE sentence means, and get back to us.
-
:laugh1: There are various ways to write the same thing. You're insane. Go ask 10 other people what that ENTIRE sentence means, and get back to us.
I already know what it means, you should too. But don't ask 10 other people or you'll get 10 different answers LOL
-
That's not what Pius XII said. He said those who have separated themselves, are NOT members.
Canon law does not make the heretic priest a member. Canon Law simply allows the sacrament to be licit FOR THIS ONE PARTICULAR ACT.
This is because a heretic priest still has sacramental powers, even if not a member.
Amazing.
-
One who the Church Excommunicates is a separated member. You fail to make this distinction.
"Separated member": Not actually a thing
What Pius XII taught: "Members"
What he didn't teach: "Separated members"
The only distinction to be made is between members and non-members. You are literally just making things up
Nope. You still don't have it. Tell that same thing to a heretic priest administering extreme unction.
Tell what? If I don't get it, please explain it to me..because I truly do not understand what you are trying to say
As baptized infants they were Catholics until they attain the age of reason. Then they need to be raised in the faith in order to be Catholic. If they were never raised in the faith FROM THE AGE OF REASON, then never were Catholic - since the age of reason. That's what I meant.
It should be obvious to you that baptized infants are Catholic but as infants, not obliged to have the faith
Okay, I agree. But I (understandably, I think) read "they never were" to simply mean "they never were"
-
Amazing.
It's not amazing, because it makes a distinction between the sacramental power (i.e. from the Church) and the status of a person (i.e. their soul). You are lumping it all together.
Sacraments are of divine origin (from Christ). The Church can 'bind or loose' (canon law/papal decisions).
An atheist (non-member) can validly baptize, just like a heretic priest (non-member) can absolve sins.
-
"Separated member": Not actually a thing... You are literally just making things up
Yep.
Tell what? If I don't get it, please explain it to me..because I truly do not understand what you are trying to say
He doesn't want to admit that heretics lose membership, so he keeps switching the argument from 'catholic' to 'member' and back again, to avoid the issue.
-
Yep.
He doesn't want to admit that heretics lose membership, so he keeps switching the argument from 'catholic' to 'member' and back again, to avoid the issue.
If I had to guess, it is because of the Conciliar pope problem. For whatever reason he holds that there is absolutely no possibility of them not being true popes.
They clearly do not "profess the faith", which Pius XII taught was necessary for Church membership. But how can a Pope not be a member of the Church? Or not be Catholic?
In order to square that circle, he must come up with two novel theories:
1)It is impossible to cease to be Catholic
2)It is impossible to lose membership in the Church..you just become a "separated member"...separated from the Church...but somehow still a part of...and somehow still inside...
Instead of applying what Pius XII really taught to the Conciliar popes, he is forced (in order to maintain that they are true popes) to work backwards from the assumption they are true popes to create a novel understanding of what Pius XII taught
-
If I had to guess, it is because of the Conciliar pope problem. For whatever reason he holds that there is absolutely no possibility of them not being true popes.
As I already explained, a Catholic guilty of the sin of heresy is exactly that. Full stop.
As I already explained, excommunication does not mean expulsion from the Church. Excommunication is very well explained from the book I quoted it from. Personally, I liken excommunication to something like a mother with two sons who are always fighting because one of them won't stop agitating the other one, so she separates them until the agitator behaves. Probably a poor allegory, but hopefully you get the jist.
Heresy is a sin to which the Church attaches the censure of excommunication. In order for that sin to be forgiven, the censure of excommunication must first be lifted in order for that sin to be forgiven via the absolution from the priest. At no point was the excommunicant non-member. Non-members are not permitted to even set foot in confession.
I posted Trent who teaches that in Reserved cases, i.e. in an emergency, an excommunicated heretic, schismatic, apostate priest administers the Last Sacraments both validly and licitly, which under your rules is an absolute impossibility.
-
As I already explained, a Catholic guilty of the sin of heresy is exactly that. Full stop.
As I already explained, excommunication does not mean expulsion from the Church. Excommunication is very well explained from the book I quoted it from. Personally, I liken excommunication to something like a mother with two sons who are always fighting because one of them won't stop agitating the other one, so she separates them until the agitator behaves. Probably a poor allegory, but hopefully you get the jist.
Heresy is a sin to which the Church attaches the censure of excommunication. In order for that sin to be forgiven, the censure of excommunication must first be lifted in order for that sin to be forgiven via the absolution from the priest. At no point was the excommunicant non-member. Non-members are not permitted to even set foot in confession.
I posted Trent who teaches that in Reserved cases, i.e. in an emergency, an excommunicated heretic, schismatic, apostate priest administers the Last Sacraments both validly and licitly, which under your rules is an absolute impossibility.
:facepalm: This entire post is full of generalities, because once specific cases are discussed, then your argument falls apart. You are an agenda-driven and lacking integrity.
-
As I already explained, a Catholic guilty of the sin of heresy is exactly that. Full stop.
As I already explained, excommunication does not mean expulsion from the Church. Excommunication is very well explained from the book I quoted it from. Personally, I liken excommunication to something like a mother with two sons who are always fighting because one of them won't stop agitating the other one, so she separates them until the agitator behaves. Probably a poor allegory, but hopefully you get the jist.
As per Pius XII, someone who does not "profess the faith" is not a member. A "separated member", by definition, is no member at all. It has been separated from, it is outside of. That is what Pope Pius XII taught.
You are acting like a BODer right now. The same decree that you would readily assent to concerning EENS, that admits no exception to EENS, declares heretics and schismatics to be outside the Church. No exception. It is to be taken to mean exactly what it says:
[The Church] firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.
Pope Eugene IV, Bull of Union with the Copts
Council of Florence
Pope Pius XII using the SAME WORDING concerning who is and is not a MEMBER:
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. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican. 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
As per Popes Eugene IV and Pius XII, heretics:
Are outside the Church
Do not profess the true Faith
Are not "joined" to the Catholic Church
Have separated themselves from the unity of the Body
Are not members of the Church
Pope Leo XIII, in Satis Cognitum, quoting St Augustine twice, who teaches that one can cease to be Catholic:
Another head like to Christ must be invented – that is, another Christ if besides the one Church, which is His body, men wish to set up another. “See what you must beware of – see what you must avoid – see what you must dread. It happens that, as in the human body, some member may be cut off a hand, a finger, a foot. Does the soul follow the amputated member? As long as it was in the body, it lived; separated, it forfeits its life. So the Christian is a Catholic as long as he lives in the body: cut off from it he becomes a heretic – the life of the spirit follows not the amputated member” (S. Augustinus, Sermo cclxvii., n. 4).
...
The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, and alien to the Church, whoever would recede in the least degree from any point of doctrine proposed by her authoritative Magisterium. Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodore :, drew up a long list of the heresies of their times. St. Augustine notes that other heresies may spring up, to a single one of which, should any one give his assent, he is by the very fact cut off from Catholic unity. “No one who merely disbelieves in all (these heresies) can for that reason regard himself as a Catholic or call himself one. For there may be or may arise some other heresies, which are not set out in this work of ours, and, if any one holds to one single one of these he is not a Catholic” (S. Augustinus, De Haeresibus, n. 88).
Heresy is a sin to which the Church attaches the censure of excommunication. In order for that sin to be forgiven, the censure of excommunication must first be lifted in order for that sin to be forgiven via the absolution from the priest. At no point was the excommunicant non-member. Non-members are not permitted to even set foot in confession.
Yup, the censure is lifted. The non-member is now a member again. The former non-member, who is now a member, can receive the sacraments. The lifting of a censure is not a sacrament. Absolution of sins is. The non-member cannot receive absolution until he becomes a member again. I don't have a problem with this, you seem to.
I posted Trent who teaches that in Reserved cases, i.e. in an emergency, an excommunicated heretic, schismatic, apostate priest administers the Last Sacraments both validly and licitly, which under your rules is an absolute impossibility.
Because the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church. If a heretic, schismatic, etc. priest can effect the sacraments, it is for the benefit of the penitent, not because the priest is a member of the Church, or a Catholic.
You agree that a heretic who was validly baptised in a heretical sect as an infant and holds to the heretical sect when he reaches the age of reason is a non-Catholic, outside the Church, not a member. That same non-Catholic, who is outside the Church, and not a member can validly and licitly baptised someone in danger of death..because the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church. Again, you seem to have a problem with this. I don't
-
Because the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church. If a heretic, schismatic, etc. priest can effect the sacraments, it is for the benefit of the penitent, not because the priest is a member of the Church, or a Catholic.
This ^^ is absurd and makes no sense actually. According to your reasoning, that heretic priest is no more than an atheist layman booted out of the Church to begin with, as such he could no more administer a valid sacrament than you can - because as a heretic he is no longer a member, no longer a Catholic and no longer even a priest. Heresy made him lose it all - to the detriment of the penitent.
In reality, per Trent, the censured priest administers the sacrament just as validly and licitly as a non-censured priest, because once a Catholic priest, always a Catholic priest - "Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek."
-
:facepalm: This entire post is full of generalities, because once specific cases are discussed, then your argument falls apart. You are an agenda-driven and lacking integrity.
No, it's full of distinctions, which have become at least an inconvenience for you.
-
This ^^ is absurd and makes no sense actually. According to your reasoning, that heretic priest is no more than an atheist layman booted out of the Church to begin with, as such he could no more administer a valid sacrament than you can - because as a heretic he is no longer a member, no longer a Catholic and no longer even a priest. Heresy made him lose it all - to the detriment of the penitent.
In reality, per Trent, the censured priest administers the sacrament just as validly and licitly as a non-censured priest, because once a Catholic priest, always a Catholic priest - "Thou art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchizedek."
Of course he is still a priest. I never said otherwise.
Take the "Orthodox" for example. From your reasoning, they are not Catholic. They are outside the Church. They are not members. From the age of reason they clung to their schism and heresy. You said it yourself, they are not Catholic and are not members of the Church. Yet they can still validly, yet illicitly, confect holy orders and the Eucharist.
-
Of course he is still a priest. I never said otherwise.
Take the "Orthodox" for example. From your reasoning, they are not Catholic. They are outside the Church. They are not members. From the age of reason they clung to their schism and heresy. You said it yourself, they are not Catholic and are not members of the Church. Yet they can still validly, yet illicitly, confect holy orders and the Eucharist.
I think you know that theirs is a different case altogether. As I quoted directly from Trent for the reference we are discussing, they said what they said.
-
I think you know that theirs is a different case altogether. As I quoted directly from Trent for the reference we are discussing, they said what they said.
Why is it a different case? Can you explain? You will find pre-V2 theologians saying it is permissible for Catholics in danger of death to approach EO priests for valid and licit confession. The priest is not Catholic, he is outside the Church. But the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church. Hence the permission. Trent says "all priests". EO priests are priests
-
Why is it a different case? Can you explain? You will find pre-V2 theologians saying it is permissible for Catholics in danger of death to approach EO priests for valid and licit confession. The priest is not Catholic, he is outside the Church. But the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church. Hence the permission. Trent says "all priests". EO priests are priests
It's not a different case, it's just Stubborn has issues (either purposefully or not) with principles and applying them to real life.
-
Why is it a different case? Can you explain? You will find pre-V2 theologians saying it is permissible for Catholics in danger of death to approach EO priests for valid and licit confession. The priest is not Catholic, he is outside the Church. But the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church. Hence the permission. Trent says "all priests". EO priests are priests
Yes, in danger of death is the only time that the Church permits receiving sacraments from EO priests because Church has never invalidated their Orders / sacraments for some reason, do you know why that is?
But you make a good point. I'll look into it more later or tomorrow when I have the time.
-
Yes, in danger of death is the only time that the Church permits receiving sacraments from EO priests because Church has never invalidated their Orders / sacraments for some reason, do you know why that is?
But you make a good point. I'll look into it more later or tomorrow when I have the time.
I'm not sure whether or not the Church *could* invalidate their orders or liturgy. So long as they profess those parts of the faith and properly administer those sacraments I don't think they could simply be declared invalid..for better or for worse.
If it were possible, I at least think it would already have been done so
-
I'm not sure whether or not the Church *could* invalidate their orders or liturgy. So long as they profess those parts of the faith and properly administer those sacraments I don't think they could simply be declared invalid..for better or for worse.
If it were possible, I at least think it would already have been done so
So far, I have only found it expressed clearly in the NO canon law (https://canonlaw.ninja/?nums=844). The link takes you directly to the pertinent canon which essentially says that non-catholics can both administer and receive the sacraments "Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it" - big surprise.
I found this from 1948 (https://isidore.co/misc/Res pro Deo/TheCatholicArchive_OCRed/Image_and_OCR_layers/The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, 1948.pdf)where heretical and schismatic priests can do the job, and it differentiates between a Catholic priest and a schismatic priest (scroll down), which suggests heretics and schismatics are non-Catholic. Then again, he also quotes Suarez saying similar to what I previously quoted lol
The link has this lol.......
"Some go even further in presuming the good faith of schismatics. The late Bishop Neveu (4- 1946), Administrator Apostolic of Moscow though at the time he resided in Paris, issued the following statement in an instruction to the Army Chaplains:
“In virtue of his baptism every Orthodox becomes a member of the One and Universal Church. He therefore belongs de jure to the Catholic Church as long as he does not commit a formal act of schism, a mortal sin that is punished with excommunication, for excommunication is never incurred but for a mortal sin. When I am in the presence of an Orthodox Christian, I know that there are nine presumptions against one that this Christian has not committed the sin of schism. As it is morally certain that this Christian has not committed a mortal sin punishable with excommunication, and as I, as a Catholic priest, cannot affirm a priori that this baptized Christian is delinquens et con tumax (can. 2241), nor that he has committed a delictum ex ternum, grave, consummatum, cuм contumacia coniunctum (can. 2242, §1), which alone is punished with censure, I have no right to suppose, without strong evidence, that he is severed from the communion of the faithful.”
It goes on to say....
"The use of the words “all priests” makes the [Trent] canon very general, and according to the literal sense no one who has the sacerdotal character is excluded. This refers not only to priests of the Catholic Church but also to heretical and schismatical priests."
"...Whoever has been validly ordained to the priesthood, no matter how unbecomingly he may have subsequently fulfilled his sacred office, can validly and licitly grant absolution in danger of death, with the single exception of the restriction made in canon 884 regarding licitness. However, the Holy Office has given a particular response in this matter. A schismatic priest can absolve licitly in danger of death only if there is no Catholic priest present. The decision given in this response of the Holy Office is repeated by the authors."
-
I'm not sure whether or not the Church *could* invalidate their orders or liturgy. So long as they profess those parts of the faith and properly administer those sacraments I don't think they could simply be declared invalid..for better or for worse.
If it were possible, I at least think it would already have been done so
I don't know either but I think She could invalidate them. I mean, the Sacraments belong to Holy Mother and no one else, She has total say-so over them.
-
I don't know either but I think She could invalidate them. I mean, the Sacraments belong to Holy Mother and no one else, She has total say-so over them.
I suspect, though I will have to look into it more, the reason why the Church cannot just declare EO sacraments to be invalid is because the Sacraments are still the Church's..just stolen, if you will. The proper matter, form, And intention are still present. They do not "belong" to the EO, they just confect them illicitly.
An example of an infant baptised in a heretical sect again, it's a valid baptism, a sacrament of the Church. The infant is numbered as one of the faithful. Those who administer it mortally sin because they have tried to take the sacrament as their own, but it still belongs to the Church
*If* the Church could just declare EO sacraments invalid, I can only think of two reasons why She has not done so:
For the sake of the faithful in danger of death
And/or
To avoid the mess that would be invalid EO holy orders if the EO were ever to return to the Church
But I do suspect it is the former, that the Sacraments are still the Church's but have been "stolen", and cannot just be declared invalid
I'll have to respond to your first post later
-
No, the Church couldn't invalidate a sacrament from "region A" in the world, unless there is factually a reason to do so (i.e. like the Anglicans).
But the orthodox still have valid ministers, and use valid matter/form = valid sacraments.
The Anglicans changed the matter/form, ergo, the Church eventually declared their sacraments invalid. But the determining factor was the change in matter/form.
Yes, the Church owns the sacraments, but also their matter/form don't change. So if it's properly said, it's valid.
-
So far, I have only found it expressed clearly in the NO canon law (https://canonlaw.ninja/?nums=844). The link takes you directly to the pertinent canon which essentially says that non-catholics can both administer and receive the sacraments "Whenever necessity requires or a genuine spiritual advantage commends it" - big surprise.
I found this from 1948 (https://isidore.co/misc/Res pro Deo/TheCatholicArchive_OCRed/Image_and_OCR_layers/The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, 1948.pdf)where heretical and schismatic priests can do the job, and it differentiates between a Catholic priest and a schismatic priest (scroll down), which suggests heretics and schismatics are non-Catholic. Then again, he also quotes Suarez saying similar to what I previously quoted lol
The link has this lol.......
"Some go even further in presuming the good faith of schismatics. The late Bishop Neveu (4- 1946), Administrator Apostolic of Moscow though at the time he resided in Paris, issued the following statement in an instruction to the Army Chaplains:
“In virtue of his baptism every Orthodox becomes a member of the One and Universal Church. He therefore belongs de jure to the Catholic Church as long as he does not commit a formal act of schism, a mortal sin that is punished with excommunication, for excommunication is never incurred but for a mortal sin. When I am in the presence of an Orthodox Christian, I know that there are nine presumptions against one that this Christian has not committed the sin of schism. As it is morally certain that this Christian has not committed a mortal sin punishable with excommunication, and as I, as a Catholic priest, cannot affirm a priori that this baptized Christian is delinquens et con tumax (can. 2241), nor that he has committed a delictum ex ternum, grave, consummatum, cuм contumacia coniunctum (can. 2242, §1), which alone is punished with censure, I have no right to suppose, without strong evidence, that he is severed from the communion of the faithful.”
It goes on to say....
"The use of the words “all priests” makes the [Trent] canon very general, and according to the literal sense no one who has the sacerdotal character is excluded. This refers not only to priests of the Catholic Church but also to heretical and schismatical priests."
"...Whoever has been validly ordained to the priesthood, no matter how unbecomingly he may have subsequently fulfilled his sacred office, can validly and licitly grant absolution in danger of death, with the single exception of the restriction made in canon 884 regarding licitness. However, the Holy Office has given a particular response in this matter. A schismatic priest can absolve licitly in danger of death only if there is no Catholic priest present. The decision given in this response of the Holy Office is repeated by the authors."
Ok, but you agree that EO priests are priests, insofar as they received valid holy orders and posses the sacerdotal character of the priesthood?
And do you still agree that they are not Catholic and not members of the Church?
If so, can you exactly explain the difference between an "Orthodox" priest who is not a Catholic, and a heretic priest who was a Catholic, and as you believe still is a Catholic?
If your primary objection to the idea that a Catholic priest who becomes a heretic ceases to be Catholic is that he is still a priest, still has the "sacerdotal character", and therefore must still be Catholic..it doesn't follow that you believe the EO, or at least EO priests, are not Catholic..as they have the sacerdotal character as well
And can you also exactly explain why infants baptised in heretical sects, who became Catholic and members of the Church through their baptism, can cease to be Catholic and members of the Church when they reach the age of reason?
I understand that you will say, "because they never had 'actual faith'"..but why exactly do you believe that possessing "actual faith", for any amount of time, renders someone unable to cease to be Catholic? I'm sure you will agree that it is possible to cease to posses actual faith, but why do you believe that ceasing to be Catholic does not naturally follow from this?
-
Ok, but you agree that EO priests are priests, insofar as they received valid holy orders and posses the sacerdotal character of the priesthood?
And do you still agree that they are not Catholic and not members of the Church?
If so, can you exactly explain the difference between an "Orthodox" priest who is not a Catholic, and a heretic priest who was a Catholic, and as you believe still is a Catholic?
If your primary objection to the idea that a Catholic priest who becomes a heretic ceases to be Catholic is that he is still a priest, still has the "sacerdotal character", and therefore must still be Catholic..it doesn't follow that you believe the EO, or at least EO priests, are not Catholic..as they have the sacerdotal character as well.
My primary objection is that, with the exception of baptism, the Church does not permit ministers that are outside of the Church to validly/licitly administer her sacraments, period. Any more than She permits her ministers to administer her sacraments to those outside the Church. Otherwise the next thing you know the prots everywhere will be hearing/going to confession, ordaining priests, administering the Last Rites, consecrating hosts etc. all claiming validity because they use Catholic sacraments. They would defile the sacraments to no end, which of course is no way to preserve and protect them.
We all know that the Church is the sole owner of the sacraments, she is the only one who makes the rules governing their use, rituals, etc., because they're hers and nobody else's. She is the only one who protects and has preserved the sacraments, which are absolutely necessary for salvation, since the time of the Apostles. So while I accept the EO are in schism, I also trust Holy Mother when she trusts the EO as she trusts her own ministers to not defile or abuse her sacraments.
So on that account, we can argue that the EO are still in some way, some how connected members, even though I personally do not believe they are members, I believe they are definitely outside the Church, but there's an argument that can be made that their schism did not sever them completely from the Church - because She gives them permission to use her sacraments. It's tough for me to swallow, but it is what it is and I accept it because Holy Mother says so - good enough for me.
And can you also exactly explain why infants baptised in heretical sects, who became Catholic and members of the Church through their baptism, can cease to be Catholic and members of the Church when they reach the age of reason?
I understand that you will say, "because they never had 'actual faith'"..but why exactly do you believe that possessing "actual faith", for any amount of time, renders someone unable to cease to be Catholic? I'm sure you will agree that it is possible to cease to posses actual faith, but why do you believe that ceasing to be Catholic does not naturally follow from this?
St. Thomas says it best imo: "Baptism without faith is of no value. Indeed, it must be known that no one is acceptable before God unless he have faith."
We all know that an infant or one baptized before the age of reason cannot have faith in anything, yet through baptism, they can have Original Sin removed and the Blessed Trinity living within them because they have no sin, even without the faith....because they have not attained the age of reason.
Once they attain the age of reason, they learn about the faith, to love it and grow in it, make their first communion etc., they are Catholic, members of the Catholic Church. Should by any means they ever lose the faith but later want it back, unlike those never Catholic, they have the Church and her sacraments to come back to. It's really just that simple.
We have a new poster and there are others who tell of being born Catholic or NO catholic, either left the Church or was Catholic in name only, lived like pagans etc., but something in their conscience bugged them to rediscover the faith and return to the Church. They always seem to "return," it's not their first time, which it would be if they were never Catholic at all.
I like how Trent's catechism puts it: "Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted". Although they belong to her only as deserters, it says that they still belong to her - in spite of their purposely (or not) trying to get out of it.
-
My primary objection is that, with the exception of baptism, the Church does not permit ministers that are outside of the Church to validly/licitly administer her sacraments, period.
No, you're mixing up the ideas of legality and validity. As you say, "once a priest, always a priest." The Church cannot take away the priesthood from a guy who decides to run off to the orthodox. She can make it illegal/illicit, but She cannot take away validity, if the priest says the sacrament properly.
-
No, you're mixing up the ideas of legality and validity. As you say, "once a priest, always a priest." The Church cannot take away the priesthood from a guy who decides to run off to the orthodox. She can make it illegal/illicit, but She cannot take away validity, if the priest says the sacrament properly.
She makes it legal/licit/valid, in the process she presumes the schismatic EO priest is a valid priest, even though she has no control whatsoever over the ordination rituals.
If the priest is no longer a member due to schism like the EO, the Church has no jurisdiction over those priests, therefore cannot actually tell them to provide the sacraments to a Catholic in an emergency, or to NOT provide the sacraments to a pagan, or how to administer them. She simply trusts the schismatic priest to not in any way defile the sacraments, knowing there is nothing to stop him from administering intentionally invalid sacraments if he wants - maybe due to being in schism the EO priest has a deep disdain for all Catholics. I mean, it just seems very odd (to me), for the Church to hand over her sacraments to schismatics.
IOW, the Church trusts her sacraments to a schismatic non-member EO priest, but not for Prot ministers?
-
There is no room for walking back a heretical act? It’s just manifest and presto….. your not longer Catholic without the possibility of reconciliation?
-
My primary objection is that, with the exception of baptism, the Church does not permit ministers that are outside of the Church to validly/licitly administer her sacraments, period. Any more than She permits her ministers to administer her sacraments to those outside the Church.
I don't think we see eye-to-eye on what exactly the Church's "permission" means. You are correct that the Church does not "permit" non-Catholics to administer the sacraments (save for Baptism in danger of death, and possibly EO priests confession in danger of death). We can even say the Church forbids, condemns, proscribes, etc. all other usage of the sacraments concerning non-Catholics. But what the Church doesn't do is declare them invalid, so long as proper matter, form, and intention is present. And there is a reason for that
Otherwise the next thing you know the prots everywhere will be hearing/going to confession, ordaining priests, administering the Last Rites, consecrating hosts etc. all claiming validity because they use Catholic sacraments. They would defile the sacraments to no end, which of course is no way to preserve and protect them.
But this is exactly what the Orthodox have been doing for 1000 years. All illicit and mortally sinful. That cannot be pleasing to God. But the Church has never declared their administering of baptism, the Liturgy, chrismation, holy orders invalid. I would think if the Church had a way to prevent this from happening, besides forbidding, condemning, etc., She would have done so.
If you are going to say that the Church just "permits" the EO to have the Sacraments because She "trusts" them, you will also have to explain then why the Church "permits" Protestant baptisms to be valid..even those administered by heretics to heretics (adults). That is illicit, and both parties sin mortally and commit sacrilege. That is the definition of "defilement" of the sacraments. No grace is received through it! If the Church could simply "invalidate" these baptisms, why wouldn't She do so? Why not permit baptism in cases where it would be licit (e.g. danger of death, recipient professes the Faith and wishes to be baptized into the Church), but declare invalid those baptisms of adult heretics, where it would just be sacrilege?
We all know that the Church is the sole owner of the sacraments, she is the only one who makes the rules governing their use, rituals, etc., because they're hers and nobody else's. She is the only one who protects and has preserved the sacraments, which are absolutely necessary for salvation, since the time of the Apostles. So while I accept the EO are in schism, I also trust Holy Mother when she trusts the EO as she trusts her own ministers to not defile or abuse her sacraments.
Except the EO do abuse the sacraments every time they administer them. It has been 1000 years of illicit, mortally sinful sacraments from them. They administer them and receive them against the Churches law, in mortal sin. That is sacrilege.
The sacraments are the Church's because Our Lord divinely instituted them and entrusted them to his Mystical Body. You will agree what the Church cannot do is "mess" with the sacraments. The Church has no right to change the form and matter, because they were divinely instituted by Christ, not the Church.
So, those heretics/schismatics who administer baptism, holy orders, Holy Eucharist in the way Our Lord instituted, with the intention at least of doing what the Church does..the Church has no right to declare these invalid. To do so would be to change what Our Lord once declared. But She can, and does, declare them illicit, condemned, mortally sinful, etc.
So on that account, we can argue that the EO are still in some way, some how connected members, even though I personally do not believe they are members, I believe they are definitely outside the Church, but there's an argument that can be made that their schism did not sever them completely from the Church - because She gives them permission to use her sacraments. It's tough for me to swallow, but it is what it is and I accept it because Holy Mother says so - good enough for me.
The Church does not give permission to the EO to use the Sacraments. The EO do so illicitly. They "steal" the Sacraments of the Church. The Church actual condemns these sacraments, but that is all She can do because they are still valid. "Giving permission" but also declaring the sacraments illicit, mortally sinful, etc. cannot coexist
I'll respond to the rest later
-
As an example of what I mean, take Pope Leo XIII and the Anglican orders for instance. Pope Leo XIII declared their orders invalid because there were defects in form and intention. The orders were not invalid because Pope Leo XIII declared them so, Leo XIII declared them so because they were invalid. He just confirmed that was the case. It's like a declaration of annulment for marriages. They didn't exist in the first place
-
I don't think we see eye-to-eye on what exactly the Church's "permission" means. You are correct that the Church does not "permit" non-Catholics to administer the sacraments (save for Baptism in danger of death, and possibly EO priests confession in danger of death). We can even say the Church forbids, condemns, proscribes, etc. all other usage of the sacraments concerning non-Catholics. But what the Church doesn't do is declare them invalid, so long as proper matter, form, and intention is present. And there is a reason for that
I understand all that, but to trust EO schismatics to even have valid sacraments (except baptism) is what I do not understand. I mean, we don't know that NO ordinations are valid, so for all the Church knows, the schismatic ordinations have long ago been revised into being invalid. If they did not tell the Church of the revision, how would she know?
If you are going to say that the Church just "permits" the EO to have the Sacraments because She "trusts" them, you will also have to explain then why the Church "permits" Protestant baptisms to be valid..even those administered by heretics to heretics (adults). That is illicit, and both parties sin mortally and commit sacrilege. That is the definition of "defilement" of the sacraments. No grace is received through it! If the Church could simply "invalidate" these baptisms, why wouldn't She do so? Why not permit baptism in cases where it would be licit (e.g. danger of death, recipient professes the Faith and wishes to be baptized into the Church), but declare invalid those baptisms of adult heretics, where it would just be sacrilege?
Baptism is different, always has been because validity of the sacrament has never depended upon the validity of the minister.
So, those heretics/schismatics who administer baptism, holy orders, Holy Eucharist in the way Our Lord instituted, with the intention at least of doing what the Church does..the Church has no right to declare these invalid. To do so would be to change what Our Lord once declared. But She can, and does, declare them illicit, condemned, mortally sinful, etc.
You're missing the point, which is, how does the Church know their ordinations are valid when any time in the last 100 years or whatever they could have revised them to the point of ordaining invalid / doubtful priests like the NO did. Or, similar to the NO, all or even half of the bishops "ad lib" half the ordination ceremony for the last 50-100 years, to the point they aren't priests at all.
I mean, we *are* talking about people that belong to a religion who purposely and deliberately left the Catholic Church, not a community of devout, saintly, Catholic monks who spend their lives praying in a monastery abiding by all things Catholic.
I know of a husband and wife who were trads since at least the 70s that just recently joined the Orthodox church, not sure which one tho, but they had to renounce their baptisms and be baptized again in that church in order to join them. So these schismatics are not our friends any more than prots are, and IMO, their sacraments, including their priestly ordinations, are at best extremely dubious - - again, that is only IMO.
-
There is no room for walking back a heretical act? It’s just manifest and presto….. your not longer Catholic without the possibility of reconciliation?
That's the impression you get reading some of the posts, but for the average Catholic who commits the sin of heresy and wants to repent, all he has to do is go to confession, just the same as any other Catholic.
-
I understand all that, but to trust EO schismatics to even have valid sacraments (except baptism) is what I do not understand. I mean, we don't know that NO ordinations are valid, so for all the Church knows, the schismatic ordinations have long ago been revised into being invalid. If they did not tell the Church of the revision, how would she know?
The Orthodox churches have hierarchies with councils, decrees, etc. If they were going to change formulas for ordinations and/or consecrations, or declare that their belief in these Sacraments has changed, that is just something that would "get out there". And I see no reason for them to do that covertly, but even if they did it's not likely that it is something that would remain secret either. Regardless, they don't care what the Church thinks.
Baptism is different, always has been because validity of the sacrament has never depended upon the validity of the minister.
I'm speaking primarily of "permission" here. If the Church just "permits" EO to "have" the sacraments..but has the power to declare them invalid at will..there is every reason for Her to do so in the case of an adult being validly baptised into a heretical sect. That is sacrilege. But She never has
You're missing the point, which is, how does the Church know their ordinations are valid when any time in the last 100 years or whatever they could have revised them to the point of ordaining invalid / doubtful priests like the NO did. Or, similar to the NO, all or even half of the bishops "ad lib" half the ordination ceremony for the last 50-100 years, to the point they aren't priests at al
We don't need to confine it to 100 years. The fact of the matter is that the Church has never declared EO orders invalid, and has treated them as valid because matter, form, and intention are all present. If the EO have changed their belief in the sacrament, or made changes to their formulas, in such a way that would invalidate them since the last Catholic Pope [sic] reigned, then one of the next Catholic popes [sic] will declare them invalid. But that evidently was not the case at least up until Pope Pius XII.
I know of a husband and wife who were trads since at least the 70s that just recently joined the Orthodox church, not sure which one tho, but they had to renounce their baptisms and be baptized again in that church in order to join them. So these schismatics are not our friends any more than prots are, and IMO, their sacraments, including their priestly ordinations, are at best extremely dubious - - again, that is only IMO.
Yes, I believe there is a minority of more "conservative" Orthodox groups will re-baptize those who join them. I'm not sure of the particulars, but AFAIK that has never been the majority practice among the Orthodox. I do actually think the Orthodox are worse than the Protestants, precisely because their orders, confirmation (I think they call it chrismation), and liturgy, are valid, but "stolen" from the Church. I do not think, and I do not think you will find any theologians who do, that the Orthodox orders are dubious. The Church has always held them to be valid
To return to what you said about "permission":
So on that account, we can argue that the EO are still in some way, some how connected members, even though I personally do not believe they are members, I believe they are definitely outside the Church, but there's an argument that can be made that their schism did not sever them completely from the Church - because She gives them permission to use her sacraments. It's tough for me to swallow, but it is what it is and I accept it because Holy Mother says so - good enough for me.
The Church does not give permission to the EO to use the Sacraments. The EO do so illicitly. They "steal" the Sacraments of the Church. The Church actual condemns these sacraments, but that is all She can do because they are still valid. "Giving permission" but also declaring the sacraments illicit, mortally sinful, etc. cannot coexist
If you could understand this point I don't think there would be anything "tough to swallow".
-
There is no room for walking back a heretical act? It’s just manifest and presto….. your not longer Catholic without the possibility of reconciliation?
Of course there is. You renounce your heresy, have any censure, penalty, excommunication, etc. that was incurred absolved, and then you can receive absolution of your sins
-
She makes it legal/licit/valid, in the process she presumes the schismatic EO priest is a valid priest, even though she has no control whatsoever over the ordination rituals.
If the priest is no longer a member due to schism like the EO, the Church has no jurisdiction over those priests, therefore cannot actually tell them to provide the sacraments to a Catholic in an emergency, or to NOT provide the sacraments to a pagan, or how to administer them. She simply trusts the schismatic priest to not in any way defile the sacraments, knowing there is nothing to stop him from administering intentionally invalid sacraments if he wants - maybe due to being in schism the EO priest has a deep disdain for all Catholics. I mean, it just seems very odd (to me), for the Church to hand over her sacraments to schismatics.
IOW, the Church trusts her sacraments to a schismatic non-member EO priest, but not for Prot ministers?
A man who is ordained has sacramental power, if he uses it, whether he becomes agnostic, atheist, or even satanic. When such a person absolves another of sin, the power still comes from the Church, even if that priest doesn't practice the Faith anymore. It speaks to the power of grace, which is above and beyond the sinfulness of the person.
-
You're missing the point, which is, how does the Church know their ordinations are valid when any time in the last 100 years or whatever they could have revised them to the point of ordaining invalid / doubtful priests like the NO did. Or, similar to the NO, all or even half of the bishops "ad lib" half the ordination ceremony for the last 50-100 years, to the point they aren't priests at all.
If someone converts from Orthodoxy, the only sacraments which aren't re-done are baptism/marriage, same as protestantism, because these sacraments don't require valid ministers.
You're right, the Church doesn't know *exactly* if the orthodox sacraments are valid, but that's beside the point. Because any converts are treated as if all their communions, confessions, ordinations are invalid. So even if the Church doesn't declare them 100% invalid (like the Anglicans' rites), She still treats them as positively doubtful, which is, in effect, invalid. Because any converts receive them all again.
-
To return to what you said about "permission":
The Church does not give permission to the EO to use the Sacraments. The EO do so illicitly. They "steal" the Sacraments of the Church. The Church actual condemns these sacraments, but that is all She can do because they are still valid. "Giving permission" but also declaring the sacraments illicit, mortally sinful, etc. cannot coexist
If you could understand this point I don't think there would be anything "tough to swallow".
You're still not getting it.
You say the EO administer valid sacraments illicitly, this is wrong. And in danger of death, they do not steal the sacraments, the Church rewards schismatics the use of her sacraments just the same as she does for her own.
As I posted previous, p (https://isidore.co/misc/Res pro Deo/TheCatholicArchive_OCRed/Image_and_OCR_layers/The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, 1948.pdf)er this source from 1948 (https://isidore.co/misc/Res pro Deo/TheCatholicArchive_OCRed/Image_and_OCR_layers/The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, 1948.pdf), the Church says they administer the sacraments both validly and licitly in danger of death etc, it says:
"...Whoever has been validly ordained to the priesthood, no matter how unbecomingly he may have subsequently fulfilled his sacred office, can validly and licitly grant absolution in danger of death, with the single exception of the restriction made in canon 884 regarding licitness. However, the Holy Office has given a particular response in this matter. A schismatic priest can absolve licitly in danger of death only if there is no Catholic priest present. The decision given in this response of the Holy Office is repeated by the authors."
I argue that because they can absolve both validly and licitly, though they've severed themselves, they are still in some way, some how connected members. I do not believe they are members, I believe they are definitely outside the Church, but there's an argument that can be made there for them somehow not being completely severed members, which means they are in some way still members of the Church.
Now consider Trent's catechism quote here: "Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted."
Although they belong to her only as deserters, it says that they still belong to her - in spite of their purposely (or not) trying to get out of it.
-
A man who is ordained has sacramental power, if he uses it, whether he becomes agnostic, atheist, or even satanic. When such a person absolves another of sin, the power still comes from the Church, even if that priest doesn't practice the Faith anymore. It speaks to the power of grace, which is above and beyond the sinfulness of the person.
I would rephrase that, I would say "IF a man is ordained." I would say that the schism occurred almost 1000 years ago, when validity of ordinations, sacraments etc., were not in question at all. But 1000 years is a long time for nothing to have changed in a schismatic religion, particularly considering all that has happened in these last 60 years.
-
You're still not getting it.
You say the EO administer valid sacraments illicitly, this is wrong. And in danger of death, they do not steal the sacraments, the Church rewards schismatics the use of her sacraments just the same as she does for her own.
As I posted previous, p (https://isidore.co/misc/Res pro Deo/TheCatholicArchive_OCRed/Image_and_OCR_layers/The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, 1948.pdf)er this source from 1948 (https://isidore.co/misc/Res pro Deo/TheCatholicArchive_OCRed/Image_and_OCR_layers/The Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, Rev. Ignatius J. Szal, 1948.pdf), the Church says they administer the sacraments both validly and licitly in danger of death etc, it says:
"...Whoever has been validly ordained to the priesthood, no matter how unbecomingly he may have subsequently fulfilled his sacred office, can validly and licitly grant absolution in danger of death, with the single exception of the restriction made in canon 884 regarding licitness. However, the Holy Office has given a particular response in this matter. A schismatic priest can absolve licitly in danger of death only if there is no Catholic priest present. The decision given in this response of the Holy Office is repeated by the authors."
I argue that because they can absolve both validly and licitly, though they've severed themselves, they are still in some way, some how connected members. I do not believe they are members, I believe they are definitely outside the Church, but there's an argument that can be made there for them somehow not being completely severed members, which means they are in some way still members of the Church.
Now consider Trent's catechism quote here: "Heretics and schismatics are excluded from the Church, because they have separated from her and belong to her only as deserters belong to the army from which they have deserted."
Although they belong to her only as deserters, it says that they still belong to her - in spite of their purposely (or not) trying to get out of it.
No, it's not wrong.
How can an EO priest validly and licitly absolve sins in danger of death?
It's because he is a priest, and for the benefit of the Catholic penitent.
How is he a priest?
Because he was ordained a priest
How was he ordained a priest?
An EO Bishop ordained him
That ordination was valid, but illicit. The Church gave no permission for that and actually forbids such ordinations.
The only reason why an EO could absolve sins in danger of death in the first place is because he was illicitly ordained, against the Church's wishes.
The principle is the same for why a Protestant, who you admit is not Catholic and not a member of the Church, can validly and licitly baptize someone wishing to be Catholic in danger of death. Generally, the Protestants baptisms are valid but illicit. In the case of someone wishing to be Catholic in danger of death, the baptism is valid and licit..this is allowed for the salvation of souls.
Are you going to change your opinion on Protestants too?
Because if you say this about EOs:
I argue that because they can absolve both validly and licitly, though they've severed themselves, they are still in some way, some how connected members
The same can be applied to Protestants, or even pagans/atheists!:
I argue that because they can absolve baptize both validly and licitly, though they've severed themselves, they are still in some way, some how connected members
-
The principle is the same for why a Protestant, who you admit is not Catholic and not a member of the Church, can validly and licitly baptize someone wishing to be Catholic in danger of death. Generally, the Protestants baptisms are valid but illicit. In the case of someone wishing to be Catholic in danger of death, the baptism is valid and licit..this is allowed for the salvation of souls.
No, the principle is not the same because the validity of the sacrament of baptism does not depend on the validity of the minister. IOW, baptism has always been unique, the only exception to the rule, whereas prots have to steal our sacraments, the schismatics are told they can use them just as if they were members.
-
No, the principle is not the same because the validity of the sacrament of baptism does not depend on the validity of the minister. IOW, baptism has always been unique, the only exception to the rule, whereas prots have to steal our sacraments, the schismatics are told they can use them just as if they were members.
The fact that one must have holy orders in order to absolve sins is neither here-nor-there concerning what we are discussing. The Church permits atheists or pagans to validly and licitly administer baptism just as if they were members as well. The only sacrament that Protestants can steal is baptism, because they do not have valid orders. The only sacrament that schismatics are potentially "told they can use" (I don't even think they are "told", it's just that a Catholic might be able to approach an EO priest in danger of death) is the absolution of a Catholic in danger of death. They are not told they can use any others, but they do anyway
You claim that because EO priests can validly/licitly absolve sins of Catholics in danger of death they are somehow "members but not really members but united to the Church somehow" because the Church gives permission to absolve
But the only reason that they could potentially absolve Catholics in danger of death is because they illicitly received holy orders in the first place The Church did not give permission for these ordinations to happen, She condemns such ordinations
So, you are basically saying that EO priests became somehow united to the Church against the will of the Church, by virtue of their illicit/schismatic ordinations.
The fact of the matter is that the EO steal holy orders, they steal confirmation/chrismation, and they steal the Holy Eucharist. Again, the only reason why an EO priest can potentially absolve Catholics in danger of death is because he received stolen holy orders, stolen sacraments. The Church did not give permission for them to ordain, consecrate bishops, or confect the Holy Eucharist..but they do these things anyways. Just because they might be able to absolve a Catholic in danger of death does not mean they are united to the Church, because the principle is the same as an atheist administering baptism to someone in danger of death who wishes to be Catholic. It is for the salvation of souls.
-
The fact that one must have holy orders in order to absolve sins is neither here-nor-there concerning what we are discussing.
It is everything.
-
It is everything.
Yes, in order to validly absolve sins, of course. Please consider the rest of my post:
The only sacrament that schismatics are potentially "told they can use" (I don't even think they are "told", it's just that a Catholic might be able to approach an EO priest in danger of death) is the absolution of a Catholic in danger of death. They are not told they can use any others, but they do anyway
You claim that because EO priests can validly/licitly absolve sins of Catholics in danger of death they are somehow "members but not really members but united to the Church somehow" because the Church gives permission to absolve
But the only reason that they could potentially absolve Catholics in danger of death is because they illicitly received holy orders in the first place The Church did not give permission for these ordinations to happen, She condemns such ordinations
So, you are basically saying that EO priests became somehow united to the Church against the will of the Church, by virtue of their illicit/schismatic ordinations.
The fact of the matter is that the EO steal holy orders, they steal confirmation/chrismation, and they steal the Holy Eucharist. Again, the only reason why an EO priest can potentially absolve Catholics in danger of death is because he received stolen holy orders, stolen sacraments. The Church did not give permission for them to ordain, consecrate bishops, or confect the Holy Eucharist..but they do these things anyways. Just because they might be able to absolve a Catholic in danger of death does not mean they are united to the Church, because the principle is the same as an atheist administering baptism to someone in danger of death who wishes to be Catholic. It is for the salvation of souls.
-
I would rephrase that, I would say "IF a man is ordained." I would say that the schism occurred almost 1000 years ago, when validity of ordinations, sacraments etc., were not in question at all. But 1000 years is a long time for nothing to have changed in a schismatic religion, particularly considering all that has happened in these last 60 years.
:facepalm: Neither Pope St Pius X nor Pius XII ever questioned the orthodox sacramental validity.
Whether they are valid all the time is irrelevant. The discussion presumes they are, because we’re discussing WHY they are valid. Don’t change the topic.
-
I think the problem is in comparing orthodox and Protestants. The 2 groups are incomparable. The orthodox THINK they are Catholic, they WANT to be Catholic, they ACT like Catholics. That’s why their sacraments are valid. They aren’t against Catholicism, they are just against Rome. They are like 60-70% Catholic.
Prottys don’t think, want or act like Catholicism in any way. They don’t pretend to have sacraments (other than baptism and even then, not all Protestant sects believe it’s necessary). Nor do they even believe in sacraments. Prottys are about 2% Catholic.
-
:facepalm: Neither Pope St Pius X nor Pius XII ever questioned the orthodox sacramental validity.
Whether they are valid all the time is irrelevant. The discussion presumes they are, because we’re discussing WHY they are valid. Don’t change the topic.
:facepalm: Neither Pope St. Pius X nor Pius XII were alive for V2 either. You believe the EO were untouched by the revolution of V2, I am not sure.
-
We can set aside whether or not the EO have, since the end of Pope Pius XII's reign or V2, made any changes to their ordination/consecration formulas, or to what they believe about those orders, that would render them invalid.
What is relevant is that the the Church has, at least up until PXII, held their orders to be valid. What is also relevant is that those orders, which the Church held to be valid, were illicit. They were valid but illicit. The Church did not "give permission" to the EO to perform them, the EO stole them. How can this "unite them in some way" to the Church if they perform these sacraments against the will of the Church
The validity of their orders is why you will find theologians saying that it would be licit for a Catholic in danger of death to approach them for absolution of sins. This is the only time you can say that the Church "gives permission" to the EO in particular to confect the sacraments. But it probably is not even correct to say that the Church "gives permission" to the EO, the letter from the Holy Office gave permission to Catholics to approach EO in danger of death. Besides, the EO don't care what the Church says. They validly yet illicitly confect the Eucharist, holy orders, and Chrismation all the time.
-
We can set aside whether or not the EO have, since the end of Pope Pius XII's reign or V2, made any changes to their ordination/consecration formulas, or to what they believe about those orders, that would render them invalid.
What is relevant is that the the Church has, at least up until PXII, held their orders to be valid. What is also relevant is that those orders, which the Church held to be valid, were illicit. They were valid but illicit. The Church did not "give permission" to the EO to perform them, the EO stole them. How can this "unite them in some way" to the Church if they perform these sacraments against the will of the Church
The validity of their orders is why you will find theologians saying that it would be licit for a Catholic in danger of death to approach them for absolution of sins. This is the only time you can say that the Church "gives permission" to the EO in particular to confect the sacraments. But it probably is not even correct to say that the Church "gives permission" to the EO, the letter from the Holy Office gave permission to Catholics to approach EO in danger of death. Besides, the EO don't care what the Church says. They validly yet illicitly confect the Eucharist, holy orders, and Chrismation all the time.
I'm talking the whole time about when there is danger of death. For this discussion, neither the Church nor I care what they do any other time. The Church says that we can receive the sacraments from the EO and that they administer the sacrament validly and licitly in danger of death and as long as no Catholic priest is available. I get it that this presumes validity of the schismatic priest - it's a sticking point for me, but I accept it.
Personally, I don't know the difference between an Eastern Orthodox and Russian Orthodox, or an Ethiopian Orthodox, or a Malankara Orthodox for that matter.