can layman decide or have opinion that somone left the Church

[andy]

This thread is not about if we currently have the pope or the hierarchy or not. So please do not derail it in this direction. This is about a generic question: does a layman have authority to decide or have opinion that a specific person left the Church?

Inspired by:

do you consider Jorge Mario Bergoglio a catholic, or a member of that Union?

"Jeorge Begoglio member of Catholic Church"? No.

[Stubborn]

That's a pretty generic question, so my reply is presuming that this is someone who believes he is in the Catholic Church or otherwise believes that he has not left the Catholic Church.

I will open by saying that to leave the Catholic Church is a mortal sin, which is why to die in that state will send that someone to hell, reference the dogma EENS on this. So deciding that  someone has left the Church is at the same time deciding that someone has committed a mortal sin.

To reference the catechisms, the catechisms teach that there are three things necessary for a mortal sin, namely, 1) a grievous matter, 2) sufficient reflection, and 3) full consent of the will. This is to say according to these three things that the catechism teaches, if these three things are not present, then there is no mortal sin, hence the person has not left the Church. So per the catechism, it all depends upon whether or not all of these three things are present.

If they are not present, then I don't see how any layman can possibly decide or have an opinion that someone has left the Church.     

[Michael Wilson]

How do we know that a person is a member of the Church? Because he professes and practices the Catholic faith:

9 Q. State distinctly what is necessary to be a member of the Church?
A. To be a member of the Church it is necessary to be baptized, to believe and profess the teaching of Jesus Christ, to participate in the same Sacraments, and to acknowledge the Pope and the other lawful pastors of the Church.

By definition, a person who would openly profess a doctrine contrary to the Catholic faith, would not be a Catholic; why not? Because the Church is a visible society, and there is no other way of establishing its members.
Here Msgr. G. Van Noort, "Dogmatic Theology; Vol. II; Christ's Church" pg. 241:

"Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors-baptism, profession of the same faith, union with hierarchy-pointed out by Pius XII as requiste for membership in the Church (see above, p. 238). The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that, unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church. "For not every sin, however grave and enourmous it be, is such as to sever a man automatically from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy". (M.C.C. 30) By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary's Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely "material" heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a "formal" heretic)......

Why are public heretics; whether material or formal; not members of the Church?
Van Nort, ibid.

If public material heretics remained members of the Church, the visibility and unity of Christ's Church would perish. If these purely material heretics were considered members of the Catholic Church in the strict sense of the term, how would anyone ever locate the Catholic Church? How would the Church be one body? How would it profess one faith? Where would be its visibility? Where its unity?

[Michael Wilson]

Is "deciding that someone has left Catholic Church the "same as deciding that someone has committed a mortal sin"?
Van Noort, op.cit. pg. 243:

Finally there does not appear any reason why occult heretics more than other sinners should be excluded from the body of the Church. Heresy is not the gravest of all mortal sins: hatred of God is greater. Therefore, if other very grave sins do not exclude from the body of the Church, neither does occult heresy. Public heretics are excluded not because of the gravity of their fault, seeing that even material heretics [i.e. innocent] are outside the Church. The reason for their exclusion is the nature of the Church as a society which demands a unity in the profession of the same faith.-Lercher, op.cit. pg. 239, e.

It is a judgement that every Catholic must make and makes every day, whether the statement he hears or reads, is in accord with the Catholic faith; St. Paul tell us to "avoid the heretic"; how can we avoid the heretic if we as Catholics: 1. Don't know our faith 2. Cannot discern between a person who teaches us something that is in in dissonance with the same Catholic faith or not?

[Goldfinch]

This thread is not about if we currently have the pope or the hierarchy or not. So please do not derail it in this direction. This is about a generic question: does a layman have authority to decide or have opinion that a specific person left the Church?

Of course.

If a Catholic were unable to identify who is and who isn't a Catholic, then the very term would be meaningless. We wouldn't be able to avoid heretics, as per Titus 3:10. The Church is a visible society: those who publicly profess heresies are not members of the Church.

[dellery]

Is "deciding that someone has left Catholic Church the "same as deciding that someone has committed a mortal sin"?
Van Noort, op.cit. pg. 243:

Finally there does not appear any reason why occult heretics more than other sinners should be excluded from the body of the Church. Heresy is not the gravest of all mortal sins: hatred of God is greater. Therefore, if other very grave sins do not exclude from the body of the Church, neither does occult heresy. Public heretics are excluded not because of the gravity of their fault, seeing that even material heretics [i.e. innocent] are outside the Church. The reason for their exclusion is the nature of the Church as a society which demands a unity in the profession of the same faith.-Lercher, op.cit. pg. 239, e.

It is a judgement that every Catholic must make and makes every day, whether the statement he hears or reads, is in accord with the Catholic faith; St. Paul tell us to "avoid the heretic"; how can we avoid the heretic if we as Catholics: 1. Don't know our faith 2. Cannot discern between a person who teaches us something that is in in dissonance with the same Catholic faith or not?

After reading Stubborn's posts for several years it's guaranteed he knows the difference between mortal sin and heresy and was using that as a method on how to discern heresy, which was quite obvious because he plainly explained his rationale.

[dellery]

A lay-person may have an opinion on if somebody has left the Church, but he has no authority whatsoever to "decide" this and such a notion is entirely Protestant and denies the rightful, and Apostolic, Authority of the Church's hierarchy.

[Michael Wilson]

Dellery,

After reading Stubborn's posts for several years it's guaranteed he knows the difference between mortal sin and heresy and was using that as a method on how to discern heresy, which was quite obvious because he plainly explained his rationale.

But Stubb is not judging the opinion of another, but their interior disposition (from above):

That's a pretty generic question, so my reply is presuming that this is someone who believes he is in the Catholic Church or otherwise believes that he has not left the Catholic Church.

It is impossible to know what another person believes or holds in their interior forum; but we can know what they say or write or otherwise express exteriorly.

Stubborn posted this in this section:https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=28056.msg577190#msg577190

the catechism holds to be necessary for a Mortal Sin (a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will) have never been present in the conciliar popes - from the popes' point of view that is. Which is to say that according to "the three things" the conciliar popes have never committed the sin of heresy.

How does Stubb know what is going on in the mind of these Popes? He tells us that they have never committed a Mortal sin, despite the many heresies that they have spoken. In other words Stubb is equating heresy with mortal sin; as he is also doing here. He is therefore judging the interior forum of another person.
Apropos to this, Xavier had this observation right after Stubbs:

Well, we cannot and imho need not judge the Internal Forum of other professing Catholics.

Judging whether a statement is heretical or not, does not depend on the interior disposition of the person who expresses it, but on its objective conformity or not to Catholic doctrine.
A person has not authority to officially declare that someone is a heretic; but he can decide whether that someone has expressed a heretical opinion, and can "avoid" that person.

[dellery]

Dellery,

After reading Stubborn's posts for several years it's guaranteed he knows the difference between mortal sin and heresy and was using that as a method on how to discern heresy, which was quite obvious because he plainly explained his rationale.

But Stubb is not judging the opinion of another, but their interior disposition (from above):

That's a pretty generic question, so my reply is presuming that this is someone who believes he is in the Catholic Church or otherwise believes that he has not left the Catholic Church.

It is impossible to know what another person believes or holds in their interior forum; but we can know what they say or write or otherwise express exteriorly.

Stubborn posted this in this section:https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=28056.msg577190#msg577190

the catechism holds to be necessary for a Mortal Sin (a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will) have never been present in the conciliar popes - from the popes' point of view that is. Which is to say that according to "the three things" the conciliar popes have never committed the sin of heresy.

How does Stubb know what is going on in the mind of these Popes? He tells us that they have never committed a Mortal sin, despite the many heresies that they have spoken. In other words Stubb is equating heresy with mortal sin; as he is also doing here. He is therefore judging the interior forum of another person.
Apropos to this, Xavier had this observation right after Stubbs:

Well, we cannot and imho need not judge the Internal Forum of other professing Catholics.

Judging whether a statement is heretical or not, does not depend on the interior disposition of the person who expresses it, but on its objective conformity or not to Catholic doctrine.
A person has not authority to officially declare that someone is a heretic; but he can decide whether that someone has expressed a heretical opinion, and can "avoid" that person.

I'm not going to speak for the man, but I see more clearly what you're saying now.

Of course, we can decide a certain thing is heretical and then avoid the person/people who professes it. We can also have the suspicion, or opinion, that somebody is probably a heretic as well.

[dellery]

We can also have the suspicion, or opinion, that somebody is probably a heretic as well.

TD (Joseph) is informing I'm wrong about this, but I'm not sure if he's got the right context.

Seems like if somebody is acting overtly heretical we can have the opinion or suspicion that they are a heretic, but cannot go around acting on this and declaring that the person is for a fact a heretic. Kind of like privately I think so-and-so is a heretic, but then again, don't have the authority to make this judgement so publicly treat the person as a Catholic in good standing.

Is this incorrect?

[Goldfinch]

We can also have the suspicion, or opinion, that somebody is probably a heretic as well.

TD (Joseph) is informing I'm wrong about this, but I'm not sure if he's got the right context.

Seems like if somebody is acting overtly heretical we can have the opinion or suspicion that they are a heretic, but cannot go around acting on this and declaring that the person is for a fact a heretic. Kind of like privately I think so-and-so is a heretic, but then again, don't have the authority to make this judgement so publicly treat the person as a Catholic in good standing.

Is this incorrect?

If that were correct, we could never avoid heretics (as per Titus 3:10) until they were formally excommunicated by the Church.

We know that's not the case and it would lead to absurd situations. You'd have to treat people who publicly deny Church teaching as believers.

[dellery]

If that were correct, we could never avoid heretics (as per Titus 3:10) until they were formally excommunicated by the Church.

We know that's not the case and it would lead to absurd situations. You'd have to treat people who publicly deny Church teaching as believers.

In this case one would be judging the heretical thing and avoiding the individual holding it, not the individual themselves. We've already established this.

To simplify the question: May one have an opinion, or suspicion, on another's intent and interior disposition if their actions support the opinion, and, or suspicion.

To be clear here, I have no idea what the answer is.

[Stubborn]

Is "deciding that someone has left Catholic Church the "same as deciding that someone has committed a mortal sin"?
Van Noort, op.cit. pg. 243:

Finally there does not appear any reason why occult heretics more than other sinners should be excluded from the body of the Church. Heresy is not the gravest of all mortal sins: hatred of God is greater. Therefore, if other very grave sins do not exclude from the body of the Church, neither does occult heresy. Public heretics are excluded not because of the gravity of their fault, seeing that even material heretics [i.e. innocent] are outside the Church. The reason for their exclusion is the nature of the Church as a society which demands a unity in the profession of the same faith.-Lercher, op.cit. pg. 239, e.

It is a judgement that every Catholic must make and makes every day, whether the statement he hears or reads, is in accord with the Catholic faith; St. Paul tell us to "avoid the heretic"; how can we avoid the heretic if we as Catholics: 1. Don't know our faith 2. Cannot discern between a person who teaches us something that is in in dissonance with the same Catholic faith or not?

It is as Fr. Wathen states: "We can judge for our own sake that a heresy has been publicly pronounced, that is not questionable. That's just a matter of observing what has been said, and we can judge that matter as easily as we can judge the pronouncements of a protestant minister. I mean, if a protestant minster says something that is contrary to the faith, it's not crime or anything for us to say, "That's heresy". It does not matter who says it, if it's contrary to the faith, its heresy".

But this is not what the OP asks, per the OP, there is no mention of heresy, what he is doing is posing a simple question, namely, if we have the authority to decide or opine someone has left the Church.

Far as that goes, faithful Catholics may well know that someone has committed the mortal sin of heresy, but this knowledge in no way qualifies anyone to decide, much less declare that someone has left the Church.

[Stubborn]

Is "deciding that someone has left Catholic Church the "same as deciding that someone has committed a mortal sin"?
Van Noort, op.cit. pg. 243:

Finally there does not appear any reason why occult heretics more than other sinners should be excluded from the body of the Church. Heresy is not the gravest of all mortal sins: hatred of God is greater. Therefore, if other very grave sins do not exclude from the body of the Church, neither does occult heresy. Public heretics are excluded not because of the gravity of their fault, seeing that even material heretics [i.e. innocent] are outside the Church. The reason for their exclusion is the nature of the Church as a society which demands a unity in the profession of the same faith.-Lercher, op.cit. pg. 239, e.

It is a judgement that every Catholic must make and makes every day, whether the statement he hears or reads, is in accord with the Catholic faith; St. Paul tell us to "avoid the heretic"; how can we avoid the heretic if we as Catholics: 1. Don't know our faith 2. Cannot discern between a person who teaches us something that is in in dissonance with the same Catholic faith or not?

After reading Stubborn's posts for several years it's guaranteed he knows the difference between mortal sin and heresy and was using that as a method on how to discern heresy, which was quite obvious because he plainly explained his rationale.

You're right dellery, yes, I know the difference. I know how to discern heresy, which, formal heresy is a mortal sin.

Fr. Hesse:
A) Objective heresy: "According to the Church, salvation is attainable outside the Church".
B) Formal heresy: "I don't care what the Church teaches, the Church is wrong, I say salvation is attainable outside the Church".

What I was attempting to do was to stay exactly on topic, the OP made no mention of heresy so neither did I, rather, the OP said: "This is about a generic question: does a layman have authority to decide or have opinion that a specific person left the Church?" Plainly my answer is, no. Of course while we may opine as much, we lack authority, which is to say that any opinion or decision has no binding effect at all, not even upon our own selves, and not even as regards Formal Heresy.

The only thing we can say with certainty as regards a Catholic spouting Formal heresy, is that a mortal sin has been committed.

[Michael Wilson]

Dellery:

To simplify the question: May one have an opinion, or suspicion, on another's intent and interior disposition if their actions support the opinion, and, or suspicion.

Of course. We have to make such judgements all the time.