Covet, perhaps I've derailed the thread too much.

 The point I am trying to make, and I'll leave it at that, is that you can lose membership in the Church and be a non-Catholic before you die, through your own fault, by heresy, apostasy, and schism.

A person, formally baptized in the Catholic Church sometime in their life cannot become a non-Catholic.  One can only become a fallen-away Catholic, a non-practicing Catholic, or how ever you want to say it.  Whether you become a heretic, an apostate, or a schismatic you never lose that mark on your soul that you received at baptism.  The point is that is how you will be judged -- as a Catholic.  Remember no one enters heaven but through the Catholic Church.  

Quote from: Recusant Sede

Covet, perhaps I've derailed the thread too much.

 The point I am trying to make, and I'll leave it at that, is that you can lose membership in the Church and be a non-Catholic before you die, through your own fault, by heresy, apostasy, and schism.

A person, formally baptized in the Catholic Church sometime in their life cannot become a non-Catholic.  One can only become a fallen-away Catholic, a non-practicing Catholic, or how ever you want to say it.  Whether you become a heretic, an apostate, or a schismatic you never lose that mark on your soul that you received at baptism.  The point is that is how you will be judged -- as a Catholic.  Remember no one enters heaven but through the Catholic Church.  

The character alone does not make a person a member of the Catholic Church.  Heretics who are baptized outside of the Church receive the character.  In fact, if a heretic openly and knowingly denies the faith when he is baptized, although he will not receive the grace of the sacrament, he will still receive the character.  The point is, every validly baptized person receives the character, but not all those who are validly baptized are members of the Church.

A person baptized as a Catholic, yet who renounces the Church and joins a heretical sect, is no longer a member of the Church.  He is a former Catholic or fallen away Catholic.

Here is a link to the new thread:

http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=38753

Thanks.

.

I am replying only to the bold portion below:

Quote from: covet truth

Quote from: Recusant Sede

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Recusant Sede

Quote from: OHCA

Quote from: Centroamerica

At 28 minutes he says something extremely suspect to me.  He claims that if you were ever once Catholic and leave to join some Protestant 'church' or Orthodox 'church' you remain Catholic, though you have sinned against your Faith.  I would have to listen again, but I am asking if someone can help me understand what he is saying here.
 

The indelible mark of baptism.  I expect the indelible mark has made for a hotter seat for many souls in hell.  Same with holy orders--once a priest always a priest.  These indelible marks provide many graces for souls to get to heaven.  Those who squander these graces and turn their backs on who they are (children of God--Catholics, priests) I expect have much more suffering for it in hell.  One cannot escape the indelible mark of his baptism.

It is true that once you are baptized it leaves an indelible mark on your soul, but it is very false to claim that an heretic or an apostate is still a Catholic. According to Pope Pius XII, you need to be baptized, profess the Catholic Faith and not be cut off be legitimate authority. Neither an heretic nor an apostate profess the Catholic faith. What Father P. Alleges is absolutely false. I heard this error before from a friend of mine who attends an SSPX mass and from other SSPX connected sources. This is a widespread error in SSPX circles.

Think people, if this thinking is correct then Martin Luther died a Catholic!

Yes!!  Martin Luther died a Catholic priest.  Not only that, Martin Luther will be a Catholic priest for all eternity.  Allow that to sink in.

Tell me then:

1) Did Martin Luther die a member of the Catholic Church or the Luthern
church?

2)  Are all validly baptized adults Catholics, no matter if they are members of a Protestant or Schismatic sect?

3) Are children who are validly baptized in a non-Catholic church, members of the Catholic Church?

1) He died as an apostate Catholic priest. That's how he would have been judged unless somehow he repented at the end.  He had the Faith but rejected it.

2) If properly baptized, both matter and form, then it is valid and they are Catholic but not held to the same standard through ignorance.  One can only be validly baptized once.

3) Yes, if proper matter and form have been used.  However, they are not held culpable because they are ignorant of the Truth and are being brought up in a false religion.  

As to validly baptized adults, when they are given the actual grace by God to seek the truth but knowingly do not do so or turn away from it then they will no longer be ignorant and will held accountable.  See why it's so important for the validly baptized to be converted to the True Faith.


I didn't want to de-rail this thread but these are important questions that I hope I have answered correctly.  If I have misspoken in my answers I will stand corrected.  

Not to belabor the point.  But since I am the one who was asked, I will say that, based on what I have been taught, I concur with what Covet says.

There have been many cases of children so-called baptized outside the Church but their baptism was found invalid, even when proper form and matter were used.  The reason is the third element that you didn't mention:  

INTENTION

Form, matter and intention are necessary.  So a protestant minister who pours the water and says the words as he should but has no intention to do what the Church does but only intends to initiate the child (or adult) into his congregation as a kind of registration, does not confer baptism.  Any such candidate should be conditionally baptized when they want to become Catholic.

.

This entire thing is dumb.  There is NO useful information at any level coming from this 30 day blog, no insight into a standardized routine or syllabus, no insight into spiritual formation, no insight into the support network or administrative side, no rebuttal to Fr. Voigt's letter, no explanation for the exile of Mr. Moran....this is STUPID!

On his nineteenth day at Boston, Manuel did send to me...

Nineteen nervous gnashers
Eighteen failed exorcisms,
Seventeen sordid scandals,
Sixteen shortchanged students,
Fifteen fractious confreres,
Fourteen faked photo albums,
Thirteen thwarted theories,
Twelve devils delving,
Eleven Pablos preaching,
Ten leaps of logic,
Nine loan sharks leering,
Eight minds a-melting,
Seven shills a-shilling,
Six priests vacating,
Five folding chairs!
Four scolding words,
Three henchmen,
Two troubled tweets,
and a Pfeiffer in a fig tree!

What is the order of the day like at this seminary? What time is mass?
What about Lauds and Vespers?
Do they say the Divine Office?

That's great -- they practically cut/pasted the schedule from Winona, MN (SSPX seminary) or at least what it used to be 20 years ago.

That's fine and dandy. But do they live up to it? Does that schedule reflect the REALITY at the Boston seminary? It sure wasn't just a few short months ago.

Homeschool parents will tell you that "theory" and "practice" are two completely different things. You have the loftiest plans for your kids on September 1. By December, you'll lucky to bring out the books at all on many days. Another example: weight loss resolutions in America around January 1st. Everyone is gung-ho for a month (plus or minus) and then those brand-new treadmills and exercise bikes to into the rented storage locker "for later".

Of course they're going to put up a REAL seminary's schedule. They think they are a real seminary! Then why doesn't Bishop Williamson respect that seminary? Oh, I know -- for those in Boston, it's because +W is a bad guy; a big fat meanie <extend fat lower lip>.

Well I reject that underlying premise, and I'm taking this "schedule" with a huge grain of salt salt lick.

And let's not forget -- Martin (Manuel Chavez) put himself out there as "reporting from the seminary", and does he confirm this schedule? No, he just pastes the official story or ideal -- what about the reality? What is his answer?

*evade* *dodge*
Did I tell you I can make a wicked banana bread? Life is like a box of chocolates... Did I tell you how rainy it's been lately in Boston?
ZZZZzzzzz.....

I see. I'll take that as a no. No order or regular classes in the seminary. Gotcha.