Material Heretics Might Not Be Members of the Church

[RobertJS]

They are both relevant for the same converstation. These are two examples of treating dangerous Catholics somewhat like non-Catholics before the Church declares they are no longer Catholics.

Who are the "dangerous Catholics" today?

You will have to conscientiously decide for yourself. Any type of association that is a serious danger of being perverted in morals or doctrine.

Harken back again to the example of the followers of St. Athanasius. The Arian clergy only had one subtle philosophical error against the Trinity, which didn't mean every single priest would preach it at Mass. All the Arian Masses and Sacraments were valid, yet the followers of St. Athanasius didn't seek out priests who did not preach the error....they entirely shunned the Arian churches, and suffered inconveniences and risk by attending Mass in the mountains. The point: they considered this situation enough of a danger to decide their course of action. This is for our example today.

So what groups are dangerous today? If you can't name them, isn't it because you are just playing politics?

I can name those whom my conscience says are dangerous enough to stay away from. For one, I am a sedevacantist. But this thread is designed for principles, not about my own conscience in applying them to the current situation.

[Norwich24]

They are both relevant for the same converstation. These are two examples of treating dangerous Catholics somewhat like non-Catholics before the Church declares they are no longer Catholics.

Who are the "dangerous Catholics" today?

You will have to conscientiously decide for yourself. Any type of association that is a serious danger of being perverted in morals or doctrine.

Harken back again to the example of the followers of St. Athanasius. The Arian clergy only had one subtle philosophical error against the Trinity, which didn't mean every single priest would preach it at Mass. All the Arian Masses and Sacraments were valid, yet the followers of St. Athanasius didn't seek out priests who did not preach the error....they entirely shunned the Arian churches, and suffered inconveniences and risk by attending Mass in the mountains. The point: they considered this situation enough of a danger to decide their course of action. This is for our example today.

So what groups are dangerous today? If you can't name them, isn't it because you are just playing politics?

I can name those whom my conscience says are dangerous enough to stay away from. For one, I am a sedevacantist. But this thread is designed for principles, not about my own conscience in applying them to the current situation.

So the identity of those who are dangerous is to be kept to oneself? Are they just dangerous to you and nobody else?

[RobertJS]

They are both relevant for the same converstation. These are two examples of treating dangerous Catholics somewhat like non-Catholics before the Church declares they are no longer Catholics.

Who are the "dangerous Catholics" today?

You will have to conscientiously decide for yourself. Any type of association that is a serious danger of being perverted in morals or doctrine.

Harken back again to the example of the followers of St. Athanasius. The Arian clergy only had one subtle philosophical error against the Trinity, which didn't mean every single priest would preach it at Mass. All the Arian Masses and Sacraments were valid, yet the followers of St. Athanasius didn't seek out priests who did not preach the error....they entirely shunned the Arian churches, and suffered inconveniences and risk by attending Mass in the mountains. The point: they considered this situation enough of a danger to decide their course of action. This is for our example today.

So what groups are dangerous today? If you can't name them, isn't it because you are just playing politics?

I can name those whom my conscience says are dangerous enough to stay away from. For one, I am a sedevacantist. But this thread is designed for principles, not about my own conscience in applying them to the current situation.

So the identity of those who are dangerous is to be kept to oneself? Are they just dangerous to you and nobody else?

I said, "this thread".

Start another thread and you can make what you want of the focus.

[Norwich24]

They are both relevant for the same converstation. These are two examples of treating dangerous Catholics somewhat like non-Catholics before the Church declares they are no longer Catholics.

Who are the "dangerous Catholics" today?

You will have to conscientiously decide for yourself. Any type of association that is a serious danger of being perverted in morals or doctrine.

Harken back again to the example of the followers of St. Athanasius. The Arian clergy only had one subtle philosophical error against the Trinity, which didn't mean every single priest would preach it at Mass. All the Arian Masses and Sacraments were valid, yet the followers of St. Athanasius didn't seek out priests who did not preach the error....they entirely shunned the Arian churches, and suffered inconveniences and risk by attending Mass in the mountains. The point: they considered this situation enough of a danger to decide their course of action. This is for our example today.

So what groups are dangerous today? If you can't name them, isn't it because you are just playing politics?

I can name those whom my conscience says are dangerous enough to stay away from. For one, I am a sedevacantist. But this thread is designed for principles, not about my own conscience in applying them to the current situation.

So the identity of those who are dangerous is to be kept to oneself? Are they just dangerous to you and nobody else?

I said, "this thread".

Start another thread and you can make what you want of the focus.

Who are the "dangerous" Catholics, Robert? Why are you afraid to tell us?

[RobertJS]

Norwich, as I already touched upon, start another thread on that (in the sedevacantist section), because it doesn't belong here. I am trying to keep the rules of the forum. Then you can see how "afraid" I am.

[Norwich24]

Norwich, as I already touched upon, start another thread on that (in the sedevacantist section), because it doesn't belong here. I am trying to keep the rules of the forum. Then you can see how "afraid" I am.

Ah, the "rules of the forum" dodge! If you wanted to answer, you'd just answer.

[flameburns623]

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8104.0

I don't know why I had to do it, but there's your alternative thread, Norwich24.

How hard was that?

[Norwich24]

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8104.0

I don't know why I had to do it, but there's your alternative thread, Norwich24.

How hard was that?

Didn't I already respond in the other thread before you wrote this? Anyway, THIS thread is about "material heretics" and their relation to the Church. The confusion is regarding the term "material heretic" which some people believe refers to Catholics who might hold a material heresy due to ignorance or a misunderstanding. If one believes a "material heretic" is a Catholic defined as above, and those "material heretics" can be considered "somewhat non-Catholic" then real Catholics can and must refuse communion with these heretics.

My question to Robert has EVERYTHING to do with this thread. It's definitely not "off-topic" and it's not a sedevacantist issue.

[flameburns623]

http://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=8104.0

I don't know why I had to do it, but there's your alternative thread, Norwich24.

How hard was that?

Didn't I already respond in the other thread before you wrote this? Anyway, THIS thread is about "material heretics" and their relation to the Church. The confusion is regarding the term "material heretic" which some people believe refers to Catholics who might hold a material heresy due to ignorance or a misunderstanding. If one believes a "material heretic" is a Catholic defined as above, and those "material heretics" can be considered "somewhat non-Catholic" then real Catholics can and must refuse communion with these heretics.

My question to Robert has EVERYTHING to do with this thread. It's definitely not "off-topic" and it's not a sedevacantist issue.

No.

I posted this immediately after I created the thread and before there was so much as a single post replying.

And the person to whom you addressed your question told you, repeatedly, that he felt the question was off topic and that he was not comfortable responding in this thread. The rules specifically precludeexclude derailing a thread: it seems benighted not to respect in Christian charity the efforts of another to do the right thing when asked to do so, especially when asked repeatedly.

But: NOW you are derailing the thread by debating whether or not you are derailing the thread.  I'm wondering if there is something about the original topic you don't want us to discuss?

Don't answer that. Just let's get back to talking about the topic. If my efforts to keep peace were helpful, you're welcome. If not, I am sorry. 

We'll let the moderators handle it from here. 

[Norwich24]

I just explained why it wasn't "off-topic." The entire thread spent much time in the sedevacantist section of the forum but was moved for some reason.

It's funny that you and Robert should be suggesting some kind of moderation of the thread on the very thread itself! Isn't that totally "off-topic" and a distraction itself?

[Geremia]

I just explained why it wasn't "off-topic." The entire thread spent much time in the sedevacantist section of the forum but was moved for some reason.

I started it on this sub-forum and didn't intend it to be a discussion on sedevacantism.

[tradical]

This is why this topic seems problematic to me. It becomes a problem of the intelligentsia rather than being as little children. As if we didn't have enough to worry about for the issue of salvation, now we have to wonder if not being smart enough, or not knowing enough, is gonna condemn us?

Man alive.

If a passage from someone like Van Noort seems intimidating, remember that as a theologian he is merely trying to draw out all the logical conclusions from what God has revealed and what Catholics are therefore supposed to believe.

The basic principle, though, is one any Catholic can understand: to be a member of the Church, you need baptism and faith. If you publicly deny or doubt an article of the faith, you take yourself outside the Church.

Simple people who possess only a rudimentary understanding of Catholic doctrine often know more than enough to distinguish truth from error and even come up with astonishingly profound insights -- a phenomenon I've seen time and again during my life as a priest.

To be a member of the Church it is not sufficient to just be baptized and have faith. In addition there is the Unity of Government - submission to the Pope.

[tradical]

Although I may have missed it but the distinction that appears to be lacking in all the above commentary (theological and otherwise) is that there are two types of material heretics.

baptized Catholics who lapse into material heresy

baptized non-Catholic who likewise lapse into material heresy.

Their conditions and dispositions are somewhat different.

p3

[Geremia]

Although I may have missed it but the distinction that appears to be lacking in all the above commentary (theological and otherwise) is that there are two types of material heretics.

baptized Catholics who lapse into material heresy

baptized non-Catholic who likewise lapse into material heresy.

Those are those who are bona fide outside the Church. St. Augustine discusses this in the beginning of the quote of the OP.

[Geremia]

To be a member of the Church it is not sufficient to just be baptized and have faith. In addition there is the Unity of Government - submission to the Pope.

Heretics who deny the papacy don't have the faith, because, as Leo XIII wrote, if you don't have the faith in its entirely, you don't have it at all. It's all or nothing; you're either faithful or a heretic.

Also, what if there is no pope at the time someone is baptized? That person still belongs to the Church, no?
(I think you mean "papacy," not necessarily "pope"?)