Once a Catholic Always a Catholic?

[james03]

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.

There is also the case of recognizing when the Church has judged a person is excommunicated and not Catholic.  For example, we know that Pelosi is excommunicated latae sententiae.  The very term means without a trial.  I recognize the authority of the Church and accept that she is not Catholic.

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.

They aren't.  For example in theological discussions the point is made that a heretic is not Catholic, and therefore can't be Pope.

Another way to look at it, if this was just a matter of sin and Sanctifying Grace, a heretic could go into a confessional, confess he was a heretic, and receive absolution.  That's not how it works.  He has to have his excommunication lifted first.  Then he can receive absolution.  In the case of abortion in many cases (the bishop has provided faculties) this happens together in the confessional where the priest ALSO lifts the excommunication, but they are still separate acts.

[Miriam_M]

I know what excommunication means, James.  But if she repents of her un-Catholic views, she reinstates herself, just as automatically and "without a trial."  In the case of a public figure like that, her bishop should insist that she retract herself publicly as well, but bishops in general have been unreliable in this regard, even though her archbishop is more reliable than is PF, who invited her to Rome.

[james03]

But if she repents of her un-Catholic views, she reinstates herself, just as automatically and "without a trial."

No, Miriam_B, she can't.  There is a separate rite or ceremony involved for the lifting of the excommunication. Until that happens, she can't even receive absolution.

[ChairmanJoeAintMyPrez]

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

The person in your second example is still a Catholic.

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.

Preventing scandal is one of the specific situations in which detraction is not sinful.  Would that reasoning not apply, provided the person is not attempting to excommunicate and is merely describing the situation at hand?

e.g. Nancy Pelosi has been corrected by her bishop but continues to teach others that one can support abortion and be a good Catholic.  Therefore...

[Miriam_M]

I know about the second example. It's not about any generalizing on my own part but on the part of others.

[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 continues to ignore this quote of hers.  Why?  I also find it interesting that no one else is challenging it.

Here she clearly states that a Catholic that apostatizes is still a Catholic.  Because, according to her, "we should all know" that membership in the Catholic Church is "permanent". This goes against Pius XII's clear teaching that states otherwise.

It should be explained, and Church teaching should be provided to support it, or it should be retracted.   

[Michael Wilson]

Once the teaching of Pius XII in Mistici Corporis has been posted; there is no room for argument. If there are people who want to keep affirming the contrary, there is nothing other members can do about it.
There is the examples of Fr. James Martin and Sr. Jeanine Gramnick, both of whom have been engaged in the public "apostolate" (sic) of encouraging people in the practice of sins which the Apostle said "should not even be mentioned" among the faithful; there are others including bishops and even a bishop in Italy who encourages these sick people; yet we cannot say "these people are not Catholic"? Is it above our "pay grade" to say so? Is the Catholic faith so nebulous and indefinite, that one cannot discern a Catholic from one who isn't, even if their public actions and statements are contrary to Church teaching on either faith or morals? Then we would be required to ask: "Where is the Catholic Church?"

[Baylee]

Once the teaching of Pius XII in Mistici Corporis has been posted; there is no room for argument. If there are people who want to keep affirming the contrary, there is nothing other members can do about it.
There is the examples of Fr. James Martin and Sr. Jeanine Gramnick, both of whom have been engaged in the public "apostolate" (sic) of encouraging people in the practice of sins which the Apostle said "should not even be mentioned" among the faithful; there are others including bishops and even a bishop in Italy who encourages these sick people; yet we cannot say "these people are not Catholic"? Is it above our "pay grade" to say so? Is the Catholic faith so nebulous and indefinite, that one cannot discern a Catholic from one who isn't, even if their public actions and statements are contrary to Church teaching on either faith or morals? Then we would be required to ask: "Where is the Catholic Church?"

What's interesting is that some of the same people who say we can't do this will call a whole group of people a non-Catholic sect because they adhere to the SV thesis. Not just an individual, but thousands of individuals.  Why isn't that above their paygrade?  Where is the consistency in their beliefs?

[Stubborn]

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.

Even after all this time, I still find it somewhat remarkable how some teachings of the Church sedes give new meanings to in order to maintain the sede belief.

Below is a 3 minute video clip of a pre-sede Peter Dimond preaching a few simple, basic, Catholic principles, including that of the title of this thread, that you don't need to be a theologian to understand. The things he says in the clip are what all Catholics believed - until the advent of sedeism, at which point, these basic Catholic principles must be altogether abandoned, heck some sedes even condemn them as heresy, for no other reason than that of maintaining the sede belief.

The truth is, as a presumably ex-sede said: "[Sedeism] entails an entire set of beliefs and practices set apart from the rest beyond merely not believing these Popes are legitimate."
 

[DecemRationes]

Once the teaching of Pius XII in Mistici Corporis has been posted; there is no room for argument.

22. 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."[17] 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.[18] And therefore, if a man refuse to hear the Church, let him be considered - so the Lord commands - as a heathen and a publican. [19] It follows that those who 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.

Michael,

Excommunicates are also consider nonmembers; they are also severed from the Body, as are heretics and apostates - all of those groups are nonmembers. But are the excommunicates still not Cathlic, even if separated from the unity of the Body? If they are, why not the others?

I could see where Mystici Corporis hasn't settled the matter, and there is still "room for argument."

[Michael Wilson]

Michael,

Excommunicates are also consider nonmembers; they are also severed from the Body, as are heretics and apostates - all of those groups are nonmembers. But are the excommunicates still not Cathlic, even if separated from the unity of the Body? If they are, why not the others?

I could see where Mystici Corporis hasn't settled the matter, and there is still "room for argument."

Mistici Corporis did settle the matter. Excos are not "actual" members of the Church i.e. Do not belong to the exterior commonwealth of the Catholic Church. It is possible for an excommunicated person to belong to the Church "in voto", because they are in the state of grace.
Where a lot of people make a mistake is either by "deficiency" i.e. Only those who are baptized and confess the true faith are "in" the Church or by "excess" i.e. All people of good will are "actual" members or "inside" the Church.
In "Mistici Corporis" Pius XII was defining who was a member of the visible commonwealth of the Catholic Church; that is who can be counted as one of her members; In order to be included in this number, one had to be outwardly professing and practicing the Catholic faith, and being subject to the visible hierarchy. The Protestants who by their false principles of "private interpretation" of Sacred Scripture, could not attain to doctrinal unity, posited the Church as being composed of only those who sincerely worshiped God; which rendered the Church on Earth invisible. But as theologians and Popes correctly pointed out, the true Church is a visible society and it is practically impossible to ascertain whether this or that person is in the state of grace or who sincerely worshiped God.
This does not mean that all those who are actual members of the Church are in the state of grace or will be saved; and that those who are not actual members, are in the state of sin and will be damned.
I would highly recommend reading either one of the following books that go further into this matter:
Msgr. Joseph C. Fenton, "The Church of Christ" especially the following chapters: II. Our Lord's presence in the Catholic Church. III. The Mystici Corporis and the Definitions of the Church. IV. The Use of the Terms Body and Soul in reference to the Catholic Church.
The other work that is also very helpful is :Fr. E. Sylvester Berry S.T.D. "The Church Of Christ" Chapter VI "Members of The Church" pgs. 121-136.
Msgr. Fenton in his essay makes the very pertinent comment that this is one of the most difficult doctrines to explain in an accurate and orthodox manner; that is why I don't understand so many of traditional Catholics in general and members of this forum specifically who don't consult the works of those traditional theologians who defend and explain the correct doctrine of the Church. But prefer the opinion of non-experts and even those who have been excommunicated for their erroneous views on this doctrine hint hint.

[DecemRationes]

Michael,

You haven't addressed my point. I've read Mystici Corporis, and quoted from it. On it's own terms, it does not "settle the matter." Excommunicate, as well as heretics and apostates, are "nonmembers" severed from the body. But excommunicates remain Catholic. Ergo, on the basis of what Pius XII says in Mystici, it indeed seems an argument can be made that the baptized Catholic who becomes a heretic or apostate remains a Catholic "nonmember" severed from the body. This is simple logic.

And please remember, the thread is entitled, "Once a Catholic Always a Catholic."

You mention authorities, but quote none. I'm not arguing the position contrary to you, but simply saying the question is "not settled" based upon Mystici. Make an argument quoting authorities which show a distinction between heretics and other excommunicates - since heretics are excommunicates latae sententiae - showing the heretic to be not only a "nonmember" of the Body, since all excommunicates are, but "non-Catholic."

I have consulted a Catholic authority, the Catholic Encyclopedia. It says, among other things, that:

The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced; he can, however, be considered as an exile from Christian society and as non-existent, for a time at least, in the sight of ecclesiastical authority. But such exile can have an end (and the Church desires it), as soon as the offender has given suitable satisfaction.

And it mentions heresy as a cause of excommunication. A baptized Catholic who was joined to the Church by his baptism who becomes a heretic is an excommunicated person - see above.

In light of that, on top of what Pius XII says in Mystici, I again say it does not appear that the matter is settled, and that an argument contra yours can indeed be rationally and licitly made. This is all that I have said, and you haven't shown otherwise. Perhaps you can quote an authority which argues that the matter is indeed settled as a result of Mystici. I haven't seen it yet.

[Michael Wilson]

Decem:

You haven't addressed my point. I've read Mystici Corporis, and quoted from it. On it's own terms, it does not "settle the matter." Excommunicate, as well as heretics and apostates, are "nonmembers" severed from the body. But excommunicates remain Catholic. Ergo, on the basis of what Pius XII says in Mystici, it indeed seems an argument can be made that the baptized Catholic who becomes a heretic or apostate remains a Catholic "nonmember" severed from the body. This is simple logic.

I don't follow you, Pius XII stated that excommunicate are not members of the Body i.e. The Church. They are not Catholic and I don't see where there is any room to argue on this. Pius XII earlier stated that the Catholic Church is the Mystical Body of Christ; they are one and the same thing, therefore to not be a member of the Body is to not be a member of the Church.
Maybe I'm missing something?