What i said was that it was not spelled out, not that is could not be derived by interpretation.
"Forsaking the faith once received" is formal heresy.
And what it can mean and who has forsaken the faith they once received is interpretive. You have bishops judging liberal RC pols as members, and the pope cordially thanking a manifestly impenitent Teddy K for his prayers, and with the the closest thing we can see to a rebuke being that of a giving him an "apostolic blessing," while giving him a church funeral, which canon law forbids for notorious public sinners, thus Rome apparently did not judge such as being one who departed from the faith. Or does that mean he would have had to leave Rome and perhaps become a conservative evangelical? No doubt then real concern for his soul would be manifest.
Or they may be unaware of..or they may be unaware...Or they may consider ... it is to be hoped that their communicating with unbelievers will lead to the conversion of the latter rather than to the aversion of the faithful from the faith.
So that must be what allows you to converse with such as me, despite what some past teaching said, but the point here is that we see variant interpretations on this matter, while you make made the teaching of Dr. Aquinas determinative on this matter, and thus perhaps we should expect you to affirm something else he said on this subject:
"On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received". — Living Tradition, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum, http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html
And at one time obedience to the pope required exterminating all the heretics from the land, akin to Islam, and now they professes to worship the same god, while some RCs here consider Prots as myself to be lost, while their church makes them brethren with liberals. Its quite an amalgamation.
It was spelled out. "Forsaking the faith once received", is by definition, formal heresy.
And what it can mean and who has forsaken the faith they once received is interpretive.
I think you mean open to interpretation. "Interpretive" means explanatory or providing interpretation of something needing clarification.
Indeed it is open to interpretation. The same is true of most any law, religious or secular. Any time human behavior is measured against a law or some form of standard, interpretation is required.
You have bishops judging liberal RC pols as members, and the pope cordially thanking a manifestly impenitent Teddy K for his prayers, and with the the closest thing we can see to a rebuke being that of a giving him an "apostolic blessing," while giving him a church funeral, which canon law forbids for notorious public sinners
Quite so. It's called scandal and it's plagued the Church since the beginning. See the Gospel accounts of Judas' betrayal and Paul's complaints about those who had abandoned him.
....thus Rome apparently did not judge such as being one who departed from the faith.
"Rome" doesn't decide who gets a Catholic funeral. That responsibility rests with the deceased's bishop.
Or does that mean he would have had to leave Rome and perhaps become a conservative evangelical? No doubt then real concern for his soul would be manifest.
Silly.
So that must be what allows you to converse with such as me, despite what some past teaching said
If you read the "past teaching" in its entirety and think about its purpose you'll see that my conversing with you is entirely consistent with it.
....but the point here is that we see variant interpretations on this matter.....
Yeah..... rather like the multitude of Protestants interpretations of the Bible.......ROFL!!
....while you make made the teaching of Dr. Aquinas determinative on this matter, and thus perhaps we should expect you to affirm something else he said on this subject: On the other hand, there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received".
No, I don't think so. Aquinas advocated capital punishment for heretics while St. Jerome suggested that Arius and his sons should have been exterminated before their contagion spread. Easy to judge their 13th century (and earlier) ideas by our modern lights. Societies were extremely fragile and libraries, professional schools and universities, were still relatively new institutions frequented only by a few. Heresy was considered to be the principal threat to civil and social order, so it's no surprise that Aquinas advocated drastic solutions to it.
Is there an overarching point in your diffuse, rambling, stream-of-consciousness screed? I'm missing it.