"Bishop Strickland is speaking in common language…"

…and the "common language" about Church matters is very often wrong, as it is here.

Bergoogles is heretical aprostate annie-pope! UV's a demon! Bishop Strickland is picking up bad habits from the morons on GTV.

That's why the "legalese" is precise and such random claims are not.

Definition from the Baltimore Catechism. (your cite)
" (7) Apostates, who have rejected the true religion, in which they formerly believed, to join a false religion"

Your claim, word for word:
" apostasy is an official act."

Not one word about apostasy being "official" in the Baltimore Catechism OR Canon Law. Your source supports my claim as well. Appreciated. ;-)

Definition from Wikipedia:(your cite)
"Perfidiæ is the complete and voluntary abandonment of the Christian religion, whether the apostate embraces another religion"

Underlining, mine. Cardinal Marx has not done done so. Therfore Bishop Strickland's claim, “Cardinal Marx has left the Catholic faith" is false.

" which was recognized from 1983 to 2010 in the Code of Canon Law "

Use of obsolete Canon Law detected. :D

"since he didn’t use the word apostasy it’s besides the point."

It isn't. Bp. Strickland has made a false claim that is identical to "apostasy" i.e. "has left the Catholic faith". Cardinal Marx has not done so. Bp. Strickland is incorrect and thus Cardinal Marx is not an apostate.

What I said stands. He should know better.

"He’s pointing out that the bishop has abandoned his duty as bishop."

That isn't what he wrote. Don't re-write his claim into something different. ;-) Here's why: Bp. Strickland is claims a cardinal, NOT a bishop, "has left the Catholic faith".

Also, any clergy could abandon their duties and STILL not leave The Catholic Faith, which is what Bp. Strickland DID accuse Cdl. Marx of doing.

" The Catholic faith teaches that homosexuality is intrinsically evil, and so to say that is not true is to abandon the faith."

Wrong. Saying otherwise is promote error contrary to the teachings of The Church. However, that is not leaving the faith or even the Catholic Church or even Christianity.

Actually, I won't point out anything of the sort. ;-)

I'll point out something far more relevant.
1.) Nowhere in that lengthy cite is there ANY mention of "apostasy".

2.) There is NO reference to leaving/ having "left the Catholic faith" or what would constitute such an act according to The Catholic Church.

3.) The cite doesn't mention and does not contradict what has already been presented on subjects of apostasy or leaving the Catholic faith, either in your cites or mine.

4.) Your previous cite supports mine and both corroborate the point I made.

"No longer holding the faith and leaving the faith seem synonymous to m me when speaking like this." @Mathathias Maccabeus

I doubt that. You're too astute to make such an easy mistake. Unless I've misjudged you.

Cdl. Marx is preaching error, not leaving the faith. That's why Bp. Strickland is wrong and the Aquinas quote irrelevant.

"Neither say apostasy."

Thus returning me to the question I asked two hours ago: "Explain the difference between leaving the Catholic faith and apostasy." ;-)

" I am making the case that Bishop Strickland did not say he apostatized, but repudiated the Catholic faith."

…and that's contradicted by Bp. Strickland's own words. He accused Cdl. Marx of having "left the Catholic faith", not repudiating it.

And Bp. Strickland is still wrong, even allowing for your defense. Error is not apostasy. Even heresy is not apostasy. Error is not even repudiation which requires at least citing a source that one contradicts or claimed to be incorrect.

No apologies needed, either. ;-)

" Although the word “apostatized” has historically also been used to describe people joining heretical sects, too. It’s also been used to describe when clerics and monks abandoned their positions."

Then it's been done so incorrectly, at least according to The Church's definition of apostasy. Even allowing for a historical misapplication, it still wouldn't apply to Cdl. Marx, even using that definition. Cardinal Marx hasn't and isn't abandoning his position. He's remaining in his position and misusing it to legitimize error, which is something very different.

" My main point is that he isn’t speaking with a legal sense, he’s speaking with a theological sense."

…and he's still wrong on all counts. Cdl. Marx hasn't left the Catholic faith, Cdl. Marx hasn't repudiated the Catholic faith. Cdl. Marx remains the clerical equivalent of a malignant cancerous tumor within The Church and, like other cancers, seeks to substitute the healthy original tissue (the Catholic faith, metaphorically speaking) with something of his own creation.

"How so? To leave the faith means not to hold it anymore."

…because your original comment is a fallacy of composition, namely this one:

"No longer holding the faith and leaving the faith seem synonymous to m me when speaking like this."

Promoting one error does not imply renouncing ALL Catholic teachings in favor of other errors.

"If you no longer hold to the infallible teachings of the Church, you have departed from the church,"

No, at the least you are in error, at the worst (following ignored correction by The Church) you are a heretic. So long as you retain other (critical) teachings, you haven't left The Church. Further, doing so implies a positive act, which Cdl. Marx has not in any way done.

"I'm not going to get into the merits of the argument of when one no longer counts as holding the faith."

The faith includes more than The Church's teaching on homosexualty. Preaching one error does constitute leaving The Church or no longer holding the faith, in toto.

"then it's a little more than just preaching error."

Technically, no. Until The Church steps in, it's still just an error. At least according to Church Law and The Church's definition of heresy. Cardinal Marx isn't anywhere near the standards for apostasy which really WOULD entail "having left the Catholic faith".

"This is seemingly part of the "legalistic" approach. You are taking "leaving" as literally leaving."

Heaven forbid a reader should take the word "leave" to literally mean "leave"! :D Or assume Bp. Strickland undestands the meaning of "leave" or "the Catholic faith", eh?

Apparently in Texas, "has left the Catholic faith" DOESN'T mean he "left the Catholic faith". It means something ELSE. Goodness! Let's apply that generously apologetic interpretation of "eave" to Cardinal Marx and his use of the word "sin"!

When Cardinal Marx says homosexuality "is not a sin", he means something ELSE , even though he used the word sin. He probably meant something else like "it's not a good idea" or something ELSE that doesn't mean sin. :P

"But the quote I provided shows that one no longer holds to the faith if they reject just one part of it.

Not so. The faith includes more than one teaching.

"On the contrary, Just as mortal sin is contrary to charity, so is disbelief in one article of faith contrary to faith."

Contrary to faith and leaving the Catholic faith are not the same. The former is a contrast against what the Church teaches, the latter an act of leaving the religion and all its beliefs entirely.

"If a man willfully rejects one article of the faith, faith no longer remains in him."

Meaning faith (i.e. belief) in the faith (The Catholic church and its teachings), no longer remains in him.

Belief (faith) and a religion (the faith) are not the same.

""otherwise, if, of the things taught by the Church, he holds what he chooses to hold, and rejects what he chooses to reject, he no longer adheres to the teaching of the Church as to an infallible rule, but to his own will."

Irrelevant to him leaving The Church or the faith outright. Caffeteria Catholicism is a rampant problem among Catholics. They haven't all "left the Catholic faith" though as Bp. Strickland would claim based on your quote.

No, I’m rejecting your application of it.

"Therefore neither does faith, after a man disbelieves one article."

"Faith" (as a single word) is belief while "the Catholic faith" is a religion comprising a system of beliefs. A man may have no faith (belief) and still be part of the Catholic faith (which is a religion)

"Further, we know that one can interiorly leave the faith without officially leaving the faith."

Since Bishop Strickland isn't a mind-reader he can't make any claim on what Cardinal Marx has done interiorly.

"The second proof is from this:"

Pius IX's Papal Encylical "INEFFABILIS DEUS" was discussing the Immaculate Conception. His comments were in reference to that, not homosexuality.

Irrelevant quote.

Even then, being "he has separated from the unity of the Church" is not the same as having "left the Catholic Faith". The Church is an organization. The Catholic Faith is far, far more.

"The in Toto part contradicts the source given. As St. Thomas rightly pointed out, obstinately hold one view contrary to the Church means that you aren’t faithful in any of them."

St. Thomas made a fallacy of composition.

A belief in, say, the Real Presence or the Immaculate Conception, has absolutely no connection to or bearing on The Church's teachings on homosexuality.

A Catholic could believe in the first two teachings while foolishly disagree with the third. It simply does not follow.

"Cafeteria Catholics are Catholics by law, but are their own heresy by spirit."

Not even by law since they routinely pick and choose which laws they follow and how and when. No one short of God is in any position to discern their spirit.

"What Bishop Strickland is saying is that he should be honest and formally resign and admit he’s left the faith."

Are you going to re-write Bishop Strickland again? :D

. That isn't what he's "saying" at all.

He's making a baseless accusation against Cardinal Marx having "left the Catholic faith" which Marx has not, regardless of his errors, and Strickland can not show. From this, Bp. Strickland is advocating Cardinal Marx to follow to confirm those empty claims by following his suggestions.

It's no different than Jimmy saying Bergoogles is a heretical aprostated any-pope. He should be honest and resign. Baseless accusation and a demand for a third party to confirm the accusation by doing what they're told.

"Until then, he is visibly in communion with Rome, so he has not visibly committed apostasy."

Uh-greed. Since he hasn't visibly committed apostasy, he hasn't left the Catholic faith any more than Pope Francis has -despite both men openly preaching many, many errors.