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. 
 

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.   

  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

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"

"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.

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.

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

  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.