Wouldn't that leave practicing [Roman] Catholics still needing permission from a local Ordinary to be communicating with those persons (and other critics of some particular aspects of Roman Catholicism, too) if allowed to 'speak for the RC church', at all?
We do see on these pages, that sort of thing, on a daily basis.
If I had a dollar for every time some [Roman] Catholic or another had said 'Catholics believe' whatever followed, and 'Catholics do not believe' something yet else, then one freepathon could be retired a bit earlier.
I mean, what you brought out was all about whether or not a person should be considered a 'heretic' or not.
According to what you've attributed to Augustine, (but failed to tell us from where among writings attributed to him) it did not include any distinction for permission to speak with them, particularly those whom defend their opinions with some amount of zeal.
How many FRomans have the sort of permission slip as it were, otherwise required, if in fact such a thing can wipe out all the previous directives forbidding those not officially clergy (or else possibly otherwise recognized) from communicating with others in regards to the [Roman] Catholic 'faith'?
I guess this is just another one of those inconsistencies...
It's a glaring one, too.
As far as I can tell, the larger error was in forbidding communication to take place --- rather than parishioner sort of Roman Catholics nowadays trying their hand at 'evangelization' and what-not.
Please take note that the laws in regards to freedom of expression & speech (which many here in the United States often take too much for granted, perhaps) are not 'Catholic' laws, but instead are from the Constitution of the United States of America. That Constitution is not subject to canon law of the RCC.
Which laws would you prefer to operate under? Choose this day, under which set of laws you would prefer to serve. (and stick with it, none of this going back-and-forth between differing sets of law).
Since what you brought out did not nullify what daniel1212 just covered, from official RCC sources no less, then those canon laws would still apply to [Roman] Catholics. (or else they are in defiance of their own Church's alleged to be infallible directives, most any time they open their yaps in regards to matters pertaining to Christian practice & faith)
Where then are the required permission slips for the usual suspects?
Does anyone have them? Or is this yet again one of those tenets of Roman Catholicism which is not adhered to -- yet still on the books, and according to other aspects of RCC theology would be included as infallible teaching of the [RC] Church, for reason of being part of Ordinary Magesterium.
So let us see them the permission slips, and have email addresses of their priests too, so that we can inform the local Ordinaries just what their own people are up to.
Meanwhile, I'm not constrained by that sort of artificial muzzling of my own expression, for I was born a free man, and told directly by the Lord also --- that I am free. That was a direct quote, in that in the past He said to me, quote un-quote "you are free".
It is enough that we are all accountable- --to God--- for what we say, even idle words.
Bring to us here your foremost apologists, the veritable Goliaths of Roman Catholic apologetics.
Myself and a few others, have a small collection of smooth river-stone we'd like to show them, while those lacking the required permission to engage, should just keep mum, saying nothing...
Both of the above are considered invalidated by subsequent canon law. Though the decree of Pope Alexander IV in “Sextus Decretalium was considered binding when the CE was written (1902) it was absent in the Codex Iuris Canonici of 1917 (Pio-Benedictine Codex) while Canon 229 §1 provides some sanction for defending Cath faith. However, canon law is both changeable and can be quite interpretive, such as applying it to liberals getting the wafer or church funerals.
Can. 229 §1. Lay persons are bound by the obligation and possess the right to acquire knowledge of Christian doctrine appropriate to the capacity and condition of each in order for them to be able to live according to this doctrine, announce it themselves, defend it if necessary, and take their part in exercising the apostolate.
But which is too broad and ambiguous. And since the penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new code of canon law that went into effect on January 1, 1983., then it also is considered abrogated . At least by some.
As Rome interprets herself, and what she said in the past only means what she says in the present, thus it seems RCs are not to base their obedience on their judgment of whether present teaching conforms with the past, but like docile sheep, their on duty is to follow the pastors.
See debate here on Pope Alexander IV (1254-1261) in “Sextus Decretalium,” "We furthermore forbid any lay person to engage in dispute, either private or public, concerning the Catholic Faith. Whosoever shall act contrary to this decree, let him be bound in the fetters of excommunication."
While the Quinisext Ecumenical Council in Trullo, Canon 64, states: It does not befit a layman to dispute or teach publicly, thus claiming for himself authority to teach, but he should yield to the order appointed by the Lord, The Quinisext Council of 692 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm) was not held by the western church as authoritative and binding, but it is regarded by the Orthodox as ecumenical/binding, yet as disciplinary canons they can be abrogated.