Once a Catholic Always a Catholic?

[Baylee]

The thread is literally about (in one form or another) the status of those who are no longer Catholic...

No, it's actually about:

Is this (Once a Catholic Always a Catholic) Catholic teaching? Pius XII clearly states that schism, apostasy and heresy severs one from the Church.  How can they still be Catholic then?

Please provide Catholic teaching to support this "Once a Catholic Always a Catholic" view.

[AlNg]

Actually, one is still a member with occult (private) heresy.

Would that apply to Biden and Pelosi? According to Pius XII: schism, apostasy and heresy severs one from the Church. This appears to be a fuzzy teaching since some say Biden and Pelosi are severed from the Church and will not give them Communion, while others say that they are not severed from the Church and will given them  Communion.

[Michael Wilson]

Both of them have publicly supported the "right" of infanticide and the "right" of sodomy; neither one of them should be considered a Catholic or allowed to receive Holy Communion; unfortunately, after the Archbishop of San Francisco, publicly admonished Mrs. Pelosi to abstain from receiving, until the retracted her views, Pope Francis allowed her to receive Communion at one of his Masses at the Vatican; therefore undermining the Archbishop.
Heresy, schism and apostasy sever one from the Church, because one lacks one of the conditions for membership. However sometimes Churchmen are weak and do not want to contradict powerful men, and therefore do not enforce the Church's teaching. The example of the English hierarchy in the 16th C. Under Henry VIII, is a notorious example, where all the bishops save St. John Fisher signed a declaration stating that the King was the head of the Church in England.
The whole kingdom of England went into schism, and it was not healed until the cession to the throne of King Henry's daughter, Mary. The kingdom was reconciled with Rome, and a new hierarchy was installed, as well as the Catholic religion declared the official religion of the realm. Unfortunately Mary died after only 6 years of reign, and her sister Elizabeth who up to that time pretended to be a Catholic, re-installed heresy in the realm, and England was sundered from the Church until this time.   

[Baylee]

Actually, one is still a member with occult (private) heresy.

Would that apply to Biden and Pelosi? According to Pius XII: schism, apostasy and heresy severs one from the Church. This appears to be a fuzzy teaching since some say Biden and Pelosi are severed from the Church and will not give them Communion, while others say that they are not severed from the Church and will given them Communion.

Occult heresy is unknown to most people save a few.  This means basically no one knows a particular person believes in heresy.  Biden and Pelosi's beliefs are anything but "private" or "occult".  Their beliefs are known to a great many people. In fact, they flaunt them.

[Miriam_M]

Michael has correctly laid out the modern-day politics of the situation, repeating in different ways the historical examples he also gives.

The scandal given by modern politicians is as profound as those in history.  It undermines the moral credibility of the Church; creates and magnifies cynicism among believers, nonbelievers, and antagonists; and disheartens the laity.

Leaders who do not publicly reverse themselves will be held accountable by God for their part in the outcome of souls who are lost by these grave sins of cowardice and cooperation.

[AlNg]

Michael has correctly laid out the modern-day politics of the situation, repeating in different ways the historical examples he also gives.

The scandal given by modern politicians is as profound as those in history.  It undermines the moral credibility of the Church; creates and magnifies cynicism among believers, nonbelievers, and antagonists; and disheartens the laity.

Leaders who do not publicly reverse themselves will be held accountable by God for their part in the outcome of souls who are lost by these grave sins of cowardice and cooperation.

Are these politicians "severed" from the Church? Some say yes and deny Communion. Others say no, and admit to Communion. Severed from the Church is a fuzzy concept as there is disagreement to its application.

[Michael Wilson]

"Who says no?"
"Who says yes?"
Its not like we are not living in the time of the 'great apostasy'.

[Baylee]

Please provide Catholic teaching to support this "Once a Catholic Always a Catholic" view.

When I saw your OP, my first thought was - that's a play.   And sure enough -

Once a Catholic is a play by Mary O'Malley.

Once a Catholic is a comedy first performed at The Royal Court Theatre in London in 1977, directed by Mike Ockrent. It concerns a retrospective view of the values of 1950s Catholic convent schools and the female adolescent response to those values.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once_a_Catholic

Maybe there is no specific Catholic teaching stating this.  Perhaps the people who say it are unconsciously using the term from the play, where it is used in the context of young women who desire liberation being unable to shake off the Catholic indoctrination of their schooldays.

There doesn't appear to be any Church teaching that teaches a Catholic is permanently a member of the Catholic Church. 

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

There doesn't appear to be any Church teaching that teaches a Catholic is permanently a member of the Catholic Church. 

People point to the indelible mark imparted by baptism and use this to suggest that it is impossible to remove oneself from the Church.

While it is definitely true that the indelible mark is permanent, and many people in hell still bear it, it is not true that one cannot remove himself from the Church.  See Mystici Corporis Christi.

[Catholic Knight]

One of the big problems that I see in Traditionalist circles is that many deny or are unaware of the following Catholic proposition:

The public sin of manifest formal heresy per se (i.e., by its very nature) separates the heretic from the Church.

[dellery]

The thread is literally about (in one form or another) the status of those who are no longer Catholic...

No, it's actually about:

Is this (Once a Catholic Always a Catholic) Catholic teaching? Pius XII clearly states that schism, apostasy and heresy severs one from the Church.  How can they still be Catholic then?

Please provide Catholic teaching to support this "Once a Catholic Always a Catholic" view.

There's no reaching in support of this, it's an error of excessive mercy.

[Miriam_M]

There doesn't appear to be any Church teaching that teaches a Catholic is permanently a member of the Catholic Church. 

People point to the indelible mark imparted by baptism and use this to suggest that it is impossible to remove oneself from the Church.

While it is definitely true that the indelible mark is permanent, and many people in hell still bear it, it is not true that one cannot remove himself from the Church.  See Mystici Corporis Christi.

There are too many behaviors being fused here, i.m.o.

1. One is the conscious, self-severance of an individual from the practice of the faith, with perhaps public announcement or practice of a different religion.

2.A different matter is the unconscious/unaware departure from the faith by Catholics ignorant of the faith due to their own negligence or the negligence of their leaders. Their beliefs, in many cases, not to mention their practice (discipline) may not even be in accord with the most loose interpretations of V2.  These people believe that what they say, affirm, and do are in accord with what they describe as Catholicism.  They may in fact be weekly Mass attendees.

3. A still different matter is the willful repudiation of the faith while remaining "a practicing Catholic"  -- thus, a spirit of disobedience, Cafeteria Catholicism, and/or the obstinate embrace of heresy known to that believer.

Then you have the difference between the individual's perception (above) of those departures and the accusations of other (lay) Catholics that the same individual "is no longer Catholic."  The Church tries to keep the baptized Catholic within the bosom of Mother Church as much and as long as possible, with the hope of reversion, obviously.  Hence, excommunicants are also considered still Catholic, just not fully reintegrated into the community until reversion/repentance makes sanctifying grace again available to them.

To summarize my own position:
What I object to is not any of the above examples of being "not a Catholic," but the  accusation of a person being "not a Catholic," as opposed to the evident behavior and admitted beliefs being not Catholic.  We can make the objective judgment, if we are well catechized ourselves, about the external evidence.  (Not a Catholic belief, not a Catholic behavior, etc.) Going further than that and --outside of that individual's declaration -- assigning non-Catholic status to the individual -- is "above our pay grade," it seems to me.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

1. One is the conscious, self-severance of an individual from the practice of the faith, with perhaps public announcement or practice of a different religion.

This is apostasy, which is mortally sinful and removes oneself from the Church.

2.A different matter is the unconscious/unaware departure from the faith by Catholics ignorant of the faith due to their own negligence or the negligence of their leaders. Their beliefs, in many cases, not to mention their practice (discipline) may not even be in accord with the most loose interpretations of V2.  These people believe that what they say, affirm, and do are in accord with what they describe as Catholicism.  They may in fact be weekly Mass attendees.

This is material heresy, which may or may not be sinful, depending on the reasons for one's ignorance, but it does not remove oneself from the Church.

3. A still different matter is the willful repudiation of the faith while remaining "a practicing Catholic"  -- thus, a spirit of disobedience, Cafeteria Catholicism, and/or the obstinate embrace of heresy known to that believer.

This is formal heresy, which is a mortal sin and does remove oneself from the Church.

Hence, excommunicants are also considered still Catholic, just not fully reintegrated into the community until reversion/repentance makes sanctifying grace again available to them.

I'm pretty sure excommunicants are not considered Catholic.

We can make the objective judgment, if we are well catechized ourselves, about the external evidence.  (Not a Catholic belief, not a Catholic behavior, etc.) Going further than that and --outside of that individual's declaration -- assigning non-Catholic status to the individual -- is "above our pay grade," it seems to me.

When a person's behavior is so outrageous, and that person publicly defies correction for so long, two things happen:

1. The word "Catholic" loses all meaning and we end up in nominalism.

2. Very serious scandal is given.

[Baylee]

There doesn't appear to be any Church teaching that teaches a Catholic is permanently a member of the Catholic Church. 

People point to the indelible mark imparted by baptism and use this to suggest that it is impossible to remove oneself from the Church.

While it is definitely true that the indelible mark is permanent, and many people in hell still bear it, it is not true that one cannot remove himself from the Church.  See Mystici Corporis Christi.

There are too many behaviors being fused here, i.m.o.

1. One is the conscious, self-severance of an individual from the practice of the faith, with perhaps public announcement or practice of a different religion.

2.A different matter is the unconscious/unaware departure from the faith by Catholics ignorant of the faith due to their own negligence or the negligence of their leaders. Their beliefs, in many cases, not to mention their practice (discipline) may not even be in accord with the most loose interpretations of V2.  These people believe that what they say, affirm, and do are in accord with what they describe as Catholicism.  They may in fact be weekly Mass attendees.

3. A still different matter is the willful repudiation of the faith while remaining "a practicing Catholic"  -- thus, a spirit of disobedience, Cafeteria Catholicism, and/or the obstinate embrace of heresy known to that believer.

Then you have the difference between the individual's perception (above) of those departures and the accusations of other (lay) Catholics that the same individual "is no longer Catholic."  The Church tries to keep the baptized Catholic within the bosom of Mother Church as much and as long as possible, with the hope of reversion, obviously.  Hence, excommunicants are also considered still Catholic, just not fully reintegrated into the community until reversion/repentance makes sanctifying grace again available to them.

To summarize my own position:
What I object to is not any of the above examples of being "not a Catholic," but the  accusation of a person being "not a Catholic," as opposed to the evident behavior and admitted beliefs being not Catholic.  We can make the objective judgment, if we are well catechized ourselves, about the external evidence.  (Not a Catholic belief, not a Catholic behavior, etc.) Going further than that and --outside of that individual's declaration -- assigning non-Catholic status to the individual -- is "above our pay grade," it seems to me.

That doesn't seem to be what you're getting at here:

As to membership specifically in the Catholic Church, we all know --or should know-- that is permanent.  I know there's been a lot of talk in sede forums, including on SD, that apostasy "makes one not Catholic," but if it did, apostasy would not be a sin but a canonical break with the bosom of the Church, thereafter relieving us of responsibility to Church law.  Rather, apostasy makes one a mortally sinful Catholic, not a "non-Catholic."  If we apostasize, even for a short time, we have to confess it; if we embrace heresy, we have to confess it because we are still Catholic.

https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=30844.msg618660#msg618660

[Miriam_M]

1. One is the conscious, self-severance of an individual from the practice of the faith, with perhaps public announcement or practice of a different religion.

This is apostasy, which is mortally sinful and removes oneself from the Church.

2.A different matter is the unconscious/unaware departure from the faith by Catholics ignorant of the faith due to their own negligence or the negligence of their leaders. Their beliefs, in many cases, not to mention their practice (discipline) may not even be in accord with the most loose interpretations of V2.  These people believe that what they say, affirm, and do are in accord with what they describe as Catholicism.  They may in fact be weekly Mass attendees.

This is material heresy, which may or may not be sinful, depending on the reasons for one's ignorance, but it does not remove oneself from the Church.

3. A still different matter is the willful repudiation of the faith while remaining "a practicing Catholic"  -- thus, a spirit of disobedience, Cafeteria Catholicism, and/or the obstinate embrace of heresy known to that believer.

This is formal heresy, which is a mortal sin and does remove oneself from the Church.

Hence, excommunicants are also considered still Catholic, just not fully reintegrated into the community until reversion/repentance makes sanctifying grace again available to them.

I'm pretty sure excommunicants are not considered Catholic.

We can make the objective judgment, if we are well catechized ourselves, about the external evidence.  (Not a Catholic belief, not a Catholic behavior, etc.) Going further than that and --outside of that individual's declaration -- assigning non-Catholic status to the individual -- is "above our pay grade," it seems to me.

When a person's behavior is so outrageous, and that person publicly defies correction for so long, two things happen:

1. The word "Catholic" loses all meaning and we end up in nominalism.

2. Very serious scandal is given.

You apparently failed to absorb this statement in my post:

What I object to is not any of the above examples of being "not a Catholic," ....

Bolded added. Font enlarged for text distinction.
My point is only that the various divergences from Catholicity may be objective facts, but making absolute judgments about individuals -- not principles, individuals -- is beyond our role as lay Catholics.

So just because men who are tasked with making absolute judgments and redirecting wayward sheep are asleep on the job does not mean that we as laypeople can usurp their unused authority and make pronouncements for them.  I bring this up because it's a real problem among traditionalists -- in their perception by non-trads and in the effort toward evangelization (conversion).  It's a turn-off to others, no matter how softly or indirectly delivered.  I've been in this position myself and have endangered friendships because of it.