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.    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?

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) 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, 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.

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.

  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.  

 

  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.

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.

  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.

  Both of you are wrong. Pope Pius XII:

Nice to see you back QVD, hope all is well.  

You're a mess.

Yes, he is.