”I am not competent to give an official answer.”
Mad Dawg, I didn’t suppose you to be a church official, but I thought you sufficiently conversant with Church Doctrine to provide a reasonably authoritative, if albeit layman’s, reply. My fault surely; a poor choice of terms.
”I'm thinking maybe you are thinking of the whole heretic barbecue thing.”
I prefer backyard barbecues, whether it be Texas style or KC style. If you’ll take the trouble to briefly examine my posting history (an exercise I don’t particularly recommend), you will see that I’ve consistently sought to defend the Judeo-Christian tradition of Western Civilization by observing (among other things) that, unlike Islamic lunatics and Marxist Atheists, we’ve learned to develop more civilized methods of persuasion than inquisitions, water dunking, and branding irons. But you apparently don’t consider me a part of “we,” and there really doesn’t seem to exist a “we” from your perspective.
What I sought from both of you was a confirmation that my thesis is reasonably correct. I suppose, to some degree, I have received that confirmation, but your remarks leave me with the impression that my participation is not welcome, since you obviously do not appear to consider ‘Protestants’ (spit) to be Christians, and consider Jews, likewise, beyond the pale. I really had not considered the proposition before perusing this thread, but apparently you do not recognize the existence of a Judeo-Christian tradition, much less exhibit a desire to defend it.
As to my answer about my lack of competence, having lived through the adolescence of my daughter I am not accustomed to anyone thinking I am competent at anything. As it happens I really don't know what we're supposed to do about excommunicated persons. I do remember that in the 39 Articles they are to be shunned, but I don't know were we stand on it. I am pretty much an autodidact on a lot of Catholic stuff, so I suffer the gaps autodidacts suffer. I shudda just said, "I dunno." That would have been just as true and clearer. Again. I am sorry.
As to the barbecue line, that just comes from some goofing around a few years ago when I suggested that an auto-da-fe was incomplete without marshmallows.
I am confused and at a loss to determine what I might have said that would lead you to believe I think Protestants aren't Christians. OR the Jewish stuff.
My church teaches me to refer to the Jews as my elder brothers in the faith, and I am happy to do so.
As to Protestants and Xty the full answer is lengthy and I've given it before, but here goes: If you are validly baptized you are a Christian and a member of the body of Christ, grafted into his death and rising. In some sense the old man is dead and the Spirit of Christ is in you. You are in the one and only Church.
In that sense, speaking scandalously, I would say that it is not wrong, from our POV, to say that everyone who is baptized is baptized into the Catholic Church. It's more politic to say that baptism is not a denominational thing.
Though the theology is vexed still, the initiation is not complete, the full benefits of the Church are not enjoyed, unless one is admitted to sacramental communion and is, sooner or later, confirmed.
This is why when a baptized person, reared and "formed" in another communion wants to become a full-bore (I've got the boring part down, anyway) Catholic, though we loosely speak of "conversion" IMHO the only proper language is that so-and-so is admitted to full communion. The implication is that SOME communion already existed.
As has been noted, we papists are good at weasel words. One of our weasel words is "ordinary" and its cognates. I mention this because baptism is said to be the "ordinary" way of coming into the Church. We make that specification because we allow that, through some extraordinary benefit coming from the atonement wrought by Xt's sacrifice, some people may be grafted into Christ without Baptism.
The famous ways are "baptism by blood" - someone is martyred for the faith before he is baptized, and "baptism of desire" - you get hit by a train or a piano falls on you while you are on your way to your baptism. But that list is not exhaustive, God being wiser, better, and less predictable than we.
I think the "Protestant (spit!)" words were trying to portray an attitude or tone that I do NOT have, but that sometimes we Catholics are accused of.
I hope that is clearer and credible, and I eagerly await your response.