@OracleOutlook's banner p

OracleOutlook

🇺🇸 Fiat justitia ruat caelum

5 followers   follows 2 users  
joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC 

				
User ID: 359


				
				
				

			

		

	














	


		


			



	

		

			

			

				

					

						

							
						

						

							
							

								
OracleOutlook


								

								

								
								
								

								
							
					
 
				


				
🇺🇸 Fiat justitia ruat caelum

				
				
				

				

					5 followers  

					follows 2 users  

					joined 2022 September 05 01:56:25 UTC
				


				
					

					
No bio...

				

				

				

				

				

					

					

					
					
					

					
User ID: 359


					
					
					
				

			


					

						
					



		

	

 











			
			

			
			

			




	


		

			
‎

			

				
				

					Hour
					Day
					Week
					Month
					
					All
				

			


			
‎

			

	
	

	 Hot Bump Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
	



		

	






	

		
		

		
		
	

	

  







		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I worry for those who are against infant baptism, or those who do not generally see baptism as necessary.  I worry for those who do not have the Eucharist.  I worry for those who have rejected obedience and apostolic succession.


How does this square with what I said elsewhere that there could be uncontacted members of Amazon tribes who are part of the Church?  Because there is a huge difference between being accidentally guilty of a fault and being purposefully guilty of a fault. There are some people who have everything they need to come to the truth, but there is some interior flaw that keeps them from accepting the truth.  I can't judge who from the outside those people are.  But that does worry me.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Because the pope was the head of the Church they belonged to, whether they knew it or not.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
First let's look at Pastor Aeternus for the definition:




When the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.




So basically any time we find the Pope calling back to Apostolic tradition and divine assistance, instructs the whole Church on a matter of faith and morals.  With this as a key, we can now interpret past documents for that which is divinely inspired and protected by Christ's promise to the Church and alternatively that which may still be subject to change.


This is a good one, from the Letter of Pope St. Agatho:




And briefly we shall intimate to your divinely instructed Piety, what the strength of our Apostolic faith contains, which we have received through Apostolic tradition and through the tradition of the Apostolical pontiffs, and that of the five holy general synods, through which the foundations of Christ's Catholic Church have been strengthened and established; this then is the status [and the regular tradition ] of our Evangelical and Apostolic faith, to wit, that as we confess the holy and inseparable Trinity, that is, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, to be of one deity, of one nature and substance or essence, so we will profess also that it has one natural will, power, operation, domination, majesty, potency, and glory. And whatever is said of the same Holy Trinity essentially in singular number we understand to refer to the one nature of the three consubstantial Persons, having been so taught by canonical logic. But when we make a confession concerning one of the same three Persons of that Holy Trinity, of the Son of God, or God the Word, and of the mystery of his adorable dispensation according to the flesh, we assert that all things are double in the one and the same our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ according to the Evangelical tradition, that is to say, we confess his two natures, to wit the divine and the human, of which and in which he, even after the wonderful and inseparable union, subsists. And we confess that each of his natures has its own natural propriety, and that the divine, has all things that are divine, without any sin. And we recognize that each one (of the two natures) of the one and the same incarnated, that is, humanated (humanati) Word of God is in him unconfusedly, inseparably and unchangeably, intelligence alone discerning a unity, to avoid the error of confusion. For we equally detest the blasphemy of division and of commixture. For when we confess two natures and two natural wills, and two natural operations in our one Lord Jesus Christ, we do not assert that they are contrary or opposed one to the other (as those who err from the path of truth and accuse the apostolic tradition of doing. Far be this impiety from the hearts of the faithful!), nor as though separated (per se separated) in two persons or subsistences, but we say that as the same our Lord Jesus Christ has two natures so also he has two natural wills and operations, to wit, the divine and the human: the divine will and operation he has in common with the coessential Father from all eternity: the human, he has received from us, taken with our nature in time. This is the apostolic and evangelic tradition, which the spiritual mother of your most felicitous empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, holds.




Jesus has two wills, that's something that has been infallibly defined.


Benedictus Deus has a couple:




By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, with apostolic authority, define the following: According to the general disposition of God, the souls of all the saints who departed from this world before the passion of our Lord Jesus Christ and also of the holy apostles, martyrs, confessors, virgins and other faithful who died after receiving the holy baptism of Christ- provided they were not in need of any purification when they died, or will not be in need of any when they die in the future, or else, if they then needed or will need some purification, after they have been purified after death-and again the souls of children who have been reborn by the same baptism of Christ or will be when baptism is conferred on them, if they die before attaining the use of free will: all these souls, immediately (mox) after death and, in the case of those in need of purification, after the purification mentioned above, since the ascension of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ into heaven, already before they take up their bodies again and before the general judgment, have been, are and will be with Christ in heaven, in the heavenly kingdom and paradise, joined to the company of the holy angels. Since the passion and death of the Lord Jesus Christ, these souls have seen and see the divine essense with an intuitive vision and even face to face, without the mediation of any creature by way of object of vision; rather the divine essence immediately manifests itself to them, plainly, clearly and openly, and in this vision they enjoy the divine essence . Moreover, by this vision and enjoyment the souls of those who have already died are truly blessed and have eternal life and rest. Also the souls of those who will die in the future will see the same divine essence and will enjoy it before the general judgment.




This is something that some Protestants disagree with Catholics on, I've argued with quite a few on "soul sleep."  And another definition in the same document:




Moreover we define that according to the general disposition of God, the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into hell immediately (mox) after death and there suffer the pain of hell. Nevertheless, on the day of judgment all men will appear with their bodies “before the judgment seat of Christ” to give an account of their personal deeds, “so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body” (2 Cor. 5.10).




I think there is some idea that ex cathedra means it has to be novel.  So ex cathedra statements have to be the Pope saying, "By the Power of Greyskull, the Holy Spirit, I declare something apart from any council or prior teaching!"  But really, it would be an ex cathedra statement for the Pope to walk up to the podium today and said, "By the apostolic teaching handed down to me, as the Pope, I do declare that the Christian Faith is to believe that Jesus Christ is our Lord and Savior."  That would be an ex cathedra statement!  It would just be a supremely uninteresting one.  When I say there are 200 or so examples, most of them are things like that.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


How large was the church in 1400? Was half of Western Europe not in the church?




The Church was global in 1400. I hope there were members of uncontacted tribes in the Amazon who were members of the Church.  "They were, then, outside, but yet not divided from the holy Church, because in mind, in work, in preaching, they already held the sacraments of faith, and saw that loftiness of Holy Church."


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Yes, essential here can be defined in a few ways:


    

  • 

    What do I have to believe to be saved?
    

    • 

  • 

    What do I have to do to be saved?
    

    • 

  • 

    Which incorrect views are acceptable and which are damnable?
    

    • 



I think it is very significant if there is disagreement over these because it shows that certain lines of Protestantism may be leading people to Hell.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
No, I am a woman and I have only ever been intimate with my husband.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I feel like people are responding to something I didn't say.


What I did say: I would be ok with paternity tests becoming common place and routine as just a normal part of a hospital birth.  In such a world, there is no reason to take offense.  But in this world, a specific husband asking his specific wife is obviously offensive to her.


What I am responding to is stuff like this comment, where people feel like every father should ask this of his wife at every birth before agreeing to be on the birth certificate, regardless of any evidence of cheating.


If you ask your wife for a paternity test... your relationship is going to have problems after.  So don't do it unless you already have problems.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
The problem is your wife is suspecting you're unfaithful.  That is a problem!  Yes, once that problem is there, then you have no recourse but to solve it.


But in this thread it seems people are recommending men make a habit of asking their wives for paternity tests with every child even if there is no real reason to be suspicious.  And I can tell you, it would not go over well and neither should it.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If I came out of a coma or had some head trauma that caused me to lose some time, and my husband earnestly presented a child to me as my own, then I would believe him.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I do not have a natural guarantee that my husband is faithful to me.  All I can guarantee is that I am faithful to him.


Also see my response here: https://www.themotte.org/post/3726/culture-war-roundup-for-the-week/440420?context=8#context


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


the wife seething in jealousy for months




But see!  This is the problem here.  It'd be a sign that your wife is currently seething in jealousy!  Your relationship is forever changed whether the test happens or not.


Let's look at the different worlds:


World 1: Wife does not ask for 'fidelity' test.


Possibilities:


    

  • Wife believes you are faithful and you are in a happy marriage
    • 

  • Wife doesn't believe you are faithful and your marriage is unhappy, but for some reason she does not request the test.  Maybe she doesn't want to rock the boat, maybe she doesn't mind as long as you pay the mortgage, etc.
    • 



World 2: Wife asks for "fidelity test"


Possibilities:


    

  • Wife doesn't believe you are faithful and your marriage is unhappy
    • 



The possibility where your marriage is happy is gone now.  Your marriage is different and you can't go back.


Given the responses from the Male Motte, the most I can say is that male and female intuitions on this topic are just diametrically opposed.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Are you married?


Let's say there was a test with 99% accuracy that would determine if you have had sex with someone else (maybe a genital swab of you and your wife that would identify bacteria from another women.)  Your wife out of the blue demands that you take the test.  The implication is that she suspects you have been cheating on her.  You had a healthy relationship.  You thought she trusted you.  You never would even think of another woman.


Wouldn't this be off-putting to say the least?  You thought you had one kind of relationship, one where it was you two, forever together, just you and her til death.  And then suddenly it appears that she is in some other relationship, one in which you would cheat.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If my husband demanded a paternity test for our kids, I'd be very offended.  If he couldn't trust me that much, does he even want to be married?


But if it was just standard at every birth, I wouldn't care at all.


Maybe a state will normalize it for some reason and the rest will follow suit.


I suspect that we're moving in a different direction though.  Many states are making the spouse of the mother is listed on the birth certificate by default, even if they obviously are not the father.  For example, two lesbians end up on the birth certificate and that's affirming and cute under the Uniform Parentage Act (UPA).  There seems to be a trend towards "intended parents" over genetic parent.


If intended parents matter more to the state than genetic parent, it doesn't make sense to start genetic testing.  It would just be a triggering reminder that two women can't actually make a baby on their own.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Better water and food quality.


Boron is mostly found in fruits and avocados, which are generally "middle-class and up fare" in America.  Silica is found in fancier mineral water.


Maybe I'm wrong here but I get the impression that nail quality is worse for people in the lower classes, which is why they love their press-ons. Meanwhile, I noticed my nails getting more brittle as I aged and started drinking Fiji water a couple times a week and now have great nails.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
For myself, getting nails done was a thing that went along with fancy/formal occasions.  We seldom went to a salon but we would make a big production of picking out nail polish that matched our dress and painting each other's toes/nails the day before a wedding or dance.


Someone who always has their nails done up strikes me as someone with too much time on their hands.  Whether that's because they are upper class or living off the dole, it could mean either.  Upper class people have more "taste" and make sure their nails don't clash.  They also probably get more silica/boron in their diet and have stronger nails to start with.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


No? Is this a common experience?




Yeah kinda.  A software developer who is ill fitted to their position changes gender and then for a year becomes unfire-able.


Am I just really unlucky here?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
How old is your family? What percentage is under 25 years old?


You've never even had a coworker change gender on you?


Four of my examples are from Washington State, but one is from Texas.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Culture War Roundup for the week of May 4, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
If you have a large enough family, trans issues are going to happen to you at least once.


    

  • 

    One of my cousins became trans in high school.  She didn't show any sign of being masculine as a child, was a very picky eater, wanted to marry a lead singer of a boy band to the point where she plotted killing his wife... and then a year later her mother was dying and she decided that men are better able to handle such awfulness and transitioned into a boy, hormones and all.
    

    • 

  • 

    We once pooled resources with my husband's friend to rent a house together and one of our friend's sons married a transwoman who dressed in a way that was really inappropriate all the time.
    

    • 

  • 

    Another of that friends' sons is super autistic, didn't finish high school, and decided recently that he's a woman.
    

    • 

  • 

    The last of that friend's children was raped as a teenager and decided to become a man in response.  All three of these young adults suffered obvious physical and mental health challenges that were exacerbated by their belief they could improve their lives by trying to live as another sex.
    

    • 

  • 

    Now I have a family reunion coming up on my husband's side, and my sister in law messaged our family to say that her oldest son was transitioning, that her husband still used masculine pronouns and my sister-in-law used female pronouns, my nephew was still using the same androgynous first name and was wearing androgynous clothes, and it was up to us how we want to prepare our children to see their cousin.
    

    • 



Trans people are everywhere and each individual has to figure out what to do about it.  How do you address them, do you encourage them or discourage them from transitioning, do you even feel a gender?  A small group of people can't just change how all of society thinks about sex and language and think, "Why do people keep talking about us?"


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for May 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I mean, if five minutes after pressing the button 40% of the worlds population started dying of radiation sickness and over the course of weeks to a couple months everyone slowly died that would be a sign it was the button.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for May 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
Why do you assume it's an instant death and not a slow drawn out painful death?


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for May 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
I think the difference is, a kid will see that a woodchipper is scary, but a kid might see a blue button as enticing.


I think most people who answer blue are thinking of children (maybe?) and most people who answer red assume children wouldnt' be asked.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Friday Fun Thread for May 1, 2026
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
There are two ways to phrase the question.  This way is phrased here basically demands Blue.


Rephrase it like this and I think there would be more Red pushers:




Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button.   Everyone who presses the red button will live with no risk of death.  If you press the blue button, you will die unless more than 50% of people also press the blue button.




Phrasing this way demonstrates that the blue button pressers are creating a risk of death which doesn't really need to be there.


But what about kids?  I think adding a (those who are incompetent or underage will have their button pushed by their parent/guardian) parenthetical would change it even more.


Because consider the parent now.  If you asked a parent, "Which button would you press for your kid, the one where they will always survive or the one where they might die?"  I think most parents would press the red button without a second thought.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


They all preceded the formation of Christ's church as current constituted,




Why should this matter if the formulation is absolute the way it is interpreted?  They were Jews and they wouldn't have recognized themselves having any allegiance to a Pope in Rome.   Therefore, they will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels.  That's what the phrase is interpreted to mean when people say that it excludes Protestants or basically everyone who does not consider themselves under the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church in Rome.




If you can show me some Jews, pagans, heretics or schismatics who existed after the ascension of Christ who are uncontroversially saved, I am all ears.




While there are no dogmatic declarations like for Abraham, and sainthood is reserved for Christian role models, we do have records from the earliest times where people outside the church were considered to have been saved:


Acts of Paul and Thecla (c. AD 150) — A deceased non-Christian woman, Falconilla, appears in a dream to her mother Queen Tryphena, asking that the martyr Thecla pray for her soul’s transfer from suffering to happiness.


Martyrdom of Saints Perpetua and Felicity (AD 203) — Perpetua’s prison diary, one of the oldest surviving texts written by a woman, records two visions of her unbaptized younger brother Dinocrates: first in suffering, then in joyful refreshment after Perpetua prays for him.


**Pope St. Gregory the Great, Homilies on Ezekiel, 2:3 (540-604 AD): “**The passion of the Church began already with Abel, and there is one Church of the elect, of those who precede, and of those who follow… They were, then, outside, but yet not divided from the holy Church, because in mind, in work, in preaching, they already held the sacraments of faith, and saw that loftiness of Holy Church.”


Abel is an interesting choice because he's not even part of the covenant with Abraham.


So that shows that at one time, Christians assumed that people who died without knowing Christ could be saved.  Augustine has compunctions on the case of poor Dinocrates and argues that he could have been baptized as an infant without anyone knowing, but even with that excuse it is still clear he died without being a practicing Catholic.


Though arguing this is perhaps that early Christians believed this, but were the early Christian's Catholic?  That's probably one of the points in contention.


I don't know what the authors of Florence read for sure, but I know for a fact that Saints Perpetua and Felicity held wide popularity and they had a publicly celebrated feast day up until the 14th century when Aquinas replaced their calendar day. The Acts of Paul and Thecla also have Latin copies found far and wide.


Ultimately I just don't know enough about what the signatories of Florence had in their libraries to argue too strongly.  Hopefully we can agree that Pope St. Gregory the Great was Catholic. Abraham is the better argument for me as his salvation is as assured as anything can be in the Bible.




I'd be interested in hearing you elaborate on this!




The Church is the Body of Christ.  Christ is the bridegroom and we are the bride.  The Church is the New Israel.


All who are baptized with water in a Trinitarian formula are members of the Church.  All who are baptized by desire and wish they were members of the Church are members of the Church.  All who are baptized by blood and suffer for the Church are members of the Church.  This isn't a new teaching or a modern softening of things.  The Catholic Church has considered Orthodox sacraments perfectly valid, including and especially baptism.  Baptism can be conferred by anybody, even someone who is not a Christian.


I return to Gregory the Great's quote: "in mind, in work, in preaching, they already held the sacraments of faith, and saw that loftiness of Holy Church."  With this in mind, consider this:


    

  1. God earnestly desires that all be saved.
    2. 

  2. Salvation only happens through Jesus, though being a member of His mystical body.
    3. 

  3. Hopefully God gets His wish and many are saved.
    4. 

  4. There are many who, through accidents of geography, inherited religious traditions, etc, who are not able to consciously choose to become a member of Christ's mystical body.
    5. 

  5. Jesus also says that the Kingdom of Heaven is like wheat and tares, or good fish and bad fish.  At some point they will be separated, but that point is not now.
    6. 



The Kingdom of Heaven is not just "a set of all those who are saved"/invisible church but instead we are told there are some bad people in it right now who will not be saved but nevertheless are considered in what I would call the Church.


But nevertheless there are some people who are not aware that the Pope in Rome has jurisdiction over them, who are also saved.  But all of them are saved through participation in Christ's Body.


Catholics believe the Pope has jurisdiction over the suffering Church on Earth, which would include everyone who is in Christ's Body.


So if I were to rephrase Florence to how I read it with the definitions I have:


Everyone who is saved is saved through a participation in Christ's Universal Church, which is under the jurisdiction of the Pope. This participation needs to happen sometime in their earthly life before their death.  They are not saved through merit found in their other faiths, but saved through Christ and His Church.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					


all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives") is damned to eternal fire, correct?




Yes, this is correct.  This does not contradict what I said and it does not contradict what the Church taught previously either.


So consider this - Moses, Elijah, Abraham, these people are uncontroversially saved, right?  That is official Church teaching, Abraham is in Heaven, this was known well before the council of Florence.  The people at the council of Florence would agree that Abraham is in Heaven and they still wrote what they wrote.


So from the start, we can tell that what Florence is saying here is completely different from how it's been interpreted by various groups (many of whom are Catholic unfortunately.)


What the Catholic Church believes herself to be is the most important obstacle to understanding what she means when she utters statements like this.


				

				

						

							

								
							

						


						
					

				
			


			

	


			
			
				

			
		

	






		

			
			
				Converting to Catholicism
			
		

	

	

	

		
			

			

				

			

		

			


				

					
From your source:




Nevertheless, although during the first centuries the anathema did not seem to differ from the sentence of excommunication, beginning with the sixth century a distinction was made between the two.




But also I think your Catholic Encyclopedia source is just incorrect on some points, which an Encyclopedia is allowed to be.


And even granting that these anathemas were to excommunicate:


    

  1. 

    The penalty of excommunication applies to the present, it is not retroactive.  It is something faithful Catholics should keep in mind going forward and keep out of obedience, not something that condemns people in the past before the definition was made.
    

    2. 

  2. 

    It is a canonical penalty.  There are saints who died while excommunicated.  People who are excommunicated are still expected to meet the precepts of the Church, come to mass, etc.  It's not what people think it is.
    

    3. 



This also another area where I think it is important to recognize that Vatican I actually limited Papal authority. Now we have the tools to look back and assess what is morally/theologically certain, what are pious opinions, what are disciplines and canonical requirements.  And pious opinions and disciplines can change without impacting the veracity of dogma over time.




Florence explicitly say that "schismatics" are damned




Yes, schismatics are damned.  Schism is a damnable sin.  But how many people who believe themselves outside the Catholic Church are actually personally guilty of the sin of schism?  Not that many, especially centuries after the initial break.  A bishop who breaks away from the Church is guilty of schism and will be judged accordingly, but someone who follows their bishop all their life without knowing the difference is not guilty of schism.  An individual who breaks away from the Church on their own free choice is different from their great grand children who grew up without knowing the Church.  And so on.




As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him,  knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.




English Standard Version Catholic Edition (n.p.: Augustine Institute, 2019), Tt 3:10–11.