Thank you for putting all this out in a digestable manner!
"It is not possible to hold two contradictory propositions at the same time."
The failure of the effort to "square the circle" is the alchemist's wrapper around the violation of the law of non-contradiction. You can no more change error into truth than dirt into gold.
"It is also understandable that some will hold that merely expressing heretical ideas – even if by mistake, or in good faith – is enough to deprive someone of the ability to excommunicate, without the 'excommunicator' being personally heretical."
It may certainly be understandable (because of the Crisis), but they would be mistaken to hold this particular opinion, because a person who expresses a heretical idea by mistake or in good faith is not a heretic in any way, but remains a faithful Catholic, and it would thus be an unjust and arbitrary thing to remove from him the exercise of any right that he is given by law or lawful appointment, which is definitely not the case with someone who is a heretic.
I would like to see a Monty Pythonesque tribunal of Doctors of the Church ruling on the commitment of heresies: “Ding Ding Ding we have another one! Mark it on his chart Thomas, and let’s make sure his name is spelled correctly this time!”
I hate Objection No. 3, as it is so often made without the distinction you made between legal authority and private judgment based on fact.
Thank you for putting all this out in a digestable manner!
"It is not possible to hold two contradictory propositions at the same time."
The failure of the effort to "square the circle" is the alchemist's wrapper around the violation of the law of non-contradiction. You can no more change error into truth than dirt into gold.
Mr. Wright:
"It is also understandable that some will hold that merely expressing heretical ideas – even if by mistake, or in good faith – is enough to deprive someone of the ability to excommunicate, without the 'excommunicator' being personally heretical."
It may certainly be understandable (because of the Crisis), but they would be mistaken to hold this particular opinion, because a person who expresses a heretical idea by mistake or in good faith is not a heretic in any way, but remains a faithful Catholic, and it would thus be an unjust and arbitrary thing to remove from him the exercise of any right that he is given by law or lawful appointment, which is definitely not the case with someone who is a heretic.
I would like to see a Monty Pythonesque tribunal of Doctors of the Church ruling on the commitment of heresies: “Ding Ding Ding we have another one! Mark it on his chart Thomas, and let’s make sure his name is spelled correctly this time!”