Why do liberal Catholics stay in the Church?

[CopticChristian]

I think you’re used to it simply being one, uniform belief, and that’s to be understood, that’s what you’re used to. The beauty of our service, for example, is that it doesn’t have to all be the same thing. For some, viewing it as the body and blood of Christ is how they commune with God. For others, myself included, viewing it as the Bread of Heaven, is how I see it, and that’s how I commune. That room to choose is left because different people come to God in different ways, and no one should be barred from the Lord’s table because they’re more comfortable reaching him in a different way than others. Much like Catholicism, this is all faith.

.

It’s not creating different versions of the truth, per se; because we accept that people within our church may believe differently than we do - I think, as a Catholic, and this isn’t at all meant to be an insult so please don’t take it as such, you’re not used to that freedom to believe as you choose, because the Church says one thing, and what the Church says is law. To many of us, that’s an alien concept. In spite of whatever minor differences we have in our beliefs, we are all united as brothers and sisters in Christ, and instead of trying to stamp out those differences, we celebrate them; it’s that diversity of belief that makes us individuals, and as individuals we choose to work together as a team, come together as a parish family, learn from one another as people, help each other as neighbors; and all of this in turn shapes and nourishes our faith, and sometimes minor beliefs may change from here to there, but we all march under the same banner (in my case, the Episcopal banner) - and we do so not because we have to, but because we choose to

and this does not conform to One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism…and this model in practice does not lead to unity but division, after division, after division…and can be seen in the thread…

Wrongly dividing the Body of Christ…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=766675

People leave, and as you say, you left…

 

[Brendan_64]

The beauty of our service, for example, is that it doesn’t have to all be the same thing. For some, viewing it as the body and blood of Christ is how they commune with God. For others, myself included, viewing it as the Bread of Heaven, is how I see it, and that’s how I commune.

But regardless of whether different people believe different things about the Eucharist surely the Eucharist is the Eucharist and its nature will be what its nature is. Does the Eucharist suddenly change its nature to conform to what an individual believes its nature to be? And if so at what point does this nature change? If an Episcopalian believes the Eucharist to be the body and blood of Christ at what point does it become the body and blood of Christ? When the priest holds up the host is it the body and blood of Christ or is it not? And if an individual Episcopalian believes that it is not the body and blood of Christ then then has it never been the body and blood of Christ? Or does the host only become what it is once an individual receives it? And does it change its nature according to the beliefs of the person consuming it?

It’s not creating different versions of the truth, per se; because we accept that people within our church may believe differently than we do - I think, as a Catholic, and this isn’t at all meant to be an insult so please don’t take it as such, you’re not used to that freedom to believe as you choose, because the Church says one thing, and what the Church says is law.

I can accept and understand the logic of what you say (even though I will disagree) regarding morals, but with regard to the nature of God this stance makes little sense. Surely the nature of God is not moulded according to the beliefs of individuals? Is God’s nature dependent on individual beliefs? Do we each create our own version of God? Surely that is looking at things upside down?

I can understand the Baptist view of the Eucharist (at least it is intellectually consistent) but the Episcopalian/Anglican view of the Eucharist being different things to different people at the same service really makes very little sense.

I’m not trying to knock Episcopalians/Anglicans, I actually have a great deal of time for them and ecumenically they are make very cooperative partners (as do Methodists) but the apparent inconsistency in your approach seems illogical.

God bless you.

 

[KSU]

Absolutely right. In fact no Catholic has the right to say that anyone, regardless of what they believe, say, or do doesn’t belong in the Church. I believe that it is a sinful act to do so.

Brendon, I think I understand what you meant to say. You may, however, want to expand that advice with respect to the absolute authority of the Church regarding excommunication, after which, a person needs to be reconciled to God and the Church through full repentance for what the person said or did. catholic.com/search/content/excommunication

 

[Brendan_64]

Brendon, I think I understand what you meant to say. You may, however, want to expand that advice with respect to the absolute authority of the Church regarding excommunication, after which, a person needs to be reconciled to God and the Church through full repentance for what the person said or did. catholic.com/search/content/excommunication

When someone is excommunicated they are not actually expelled from the Church, they are prevented from receiving the Sacrament of Holy Communion. It’s like divorced and remarried people, are they no longer part of the Catholic Church, because they cannot partake in Communion? What about people in a state of mortal sin who cannot partake in Communion, are they no longer part of the Catholic Church? All these people do actually still belong to the Church, and the Church desperately wants them to be in a position to return to full communion again.

The Catholic Church does not kick people out of the Church, regardless of what they do, say or believe. Our doors remain always open to even the greatest of sinners and we welcome them warmly into our midst.

 

[KSU]

When someone is excommunicated they are not actually expelled from the Church…The Catholic Church does not kick people out of the Church, regardless of what they do, say or believe…

Brendan, my intention was to suggest that, because of the terrible penalty of excommunication for what Catholics say or do, you may want to clarify your statement that “In fact no Catholic has the right to say that anyone, regardless of what they believe, say, or do doesn’t belong in the Church.”

You don’t agree clarification is needed for our young friend, and that’s up to you.

But, I am an orthodox Catholic and (despite your faulty belief that it’s a sin), have the God-given right to say that publically excommunicated apostates and some heretics, for example, are not in the Church. Now, I believe that if Catholics are not in the Church, because they don’t believe in Christ or His Church, then they don’t “belong” in the Church until they fully repent.

I do not believe that some debauched/obscene/sacrilegious Catholics who act out at Mass, especially towards the Eucharist or my children, “belong” in Church. Not my Church, anyway. There are, unfortunately, “churches” where they can go.

Is it right that some poor souls go to hell, or is it the act of an unjust god to put them there because nobody “belongs” in hell? Or maybe it depends “on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

 

[Brendan_64]

But, I am an orthodox Catholic and (despite your faulty belief that it’s a sin), have the God-given right to say that publically excommunicated apostates and some heretics, for example, are not in the Church. Now, I believe that if Catholics are not in the Church, because they don’t believe in Christ or His Church, then they don’t “belong” in the Church until they fully repent.

Bit it is not about whether **you **believe that they are in the Church or not. Whether you believe it or not makes no difference to whether or not they are in the Church. Excommunication does not mean being kicked out of the Church. An excommunicated person is still a member of the Church. Once a person has been baptised into the Church it can **never **be effaced, not by anyone in the Church. How could it be? You do **not **have any right given to you by God to say that someone doesn’t belong in the Catholic Church.

Your view on this matter is not orthodox, it is in fact very heterodox.

 

[KSU]

Bit it is not about whether **you **believe that they are in the Church or not. Whether you believe it or not makes no difference to whether or not they are in the Church. Excommunication does not mean being kicked out of the Church. An excommunicated person is still a member of the Church. Once a person has been baptised into the Church it can **never **be effaced, not by anyone in the Church. How could it be? You do **not **have any right given to you by God to say that someone doesn’t belong in the Catholic Church.

Your view on this matter is not orthodox, it is in fact very heterodox.

Brendon, it won’t work. This is not about some opinion I may have. My definition of membership in the Church is the definition published and taught by the Church, before and after Vatican II, so don’t try to go there either. The definition of the Church, excludes from membership apostates and some heretics, among others. You chose not to address that fact and thus lost the argument from the start.

In short, because of what they say and do, not all baptized Catholics remain members of the Church forever. They remain babtized, but they do not necessarily remain members of the Church; it can be said then that they no longer belong in the Church.

I’m not interested in your response, unless you point to black and white Church teaching contrary to what I stated herein above.

I note that you have promoted me from sinner to unorthodox. Thanks a lot.

 

[Elizabeth502]

One is technical membership, the other is practical membership. One never loses technical membership, and I think Brendan’s point (and i.m.o. it’s an arguable point) is that remaining a physical presence, no matter how much one’s heart & mind are absent or oppositional, is always a Plus.

I do agree that attending weekly Mass (even if not ‘in communion’ and not receiving Eucharist) is always a Plus. There are Actual Graces available from the mere act of warming a pew and being an observer. I can say that from my own experience, btw.

However, sincerity counts for a lot, Brendan. Not just in the witness (or lack thereof) one brings to others (vs. scandal and negativity), but in the level of receptivity to observant Catholics that one brings to such a personal presence. A sincere Catholic, whatever level of practice, will have the decency not to offend Christ’s Mystical Body, the visible Church made up of lay and clergy who are not there to foment, and to keep silent/quiet about his or her radical dissent. (Yes, opposition to the Church’s moral teachings is radical dissent.)

Again, this was simply understood in a former time. Oneself, the non-compliant Catholic, was under the obligation to remain respectful and unobtrusive in whatever habit or belief of non-practice he or she had. And not a single document of V2 contradicted that. (Of course, in society at large that has classically been called Good Manners. What a concept.) Thus (for example), a non-practicing Catholic would respectfully attend Mass, Catholic weddings, Catholic funerals, ordinations, etc., and simply not receive Eucharist, but behave and speak appropriate to the occasion, instead of using that occasion, or membership in a discussion group (or forum ), to broadcast and promote dissent.

We are entitled to engage in private dissent, although we are urged to close whatever intellectual and emotional gaps we can, with regular effort, prayer, & sacraments. Feeling entitled “by virtue of our baptism” to promote opposition to the Magisterium is another ball of wax entirely. In fact, it could be argued that our very baptism and confirmation do not entitle us to that, but entitle non-members to that. And the point is that modernist Catholics too often use baptism as an entitlement to disobedience, when that was & is never the meaning.

Baptism entitles us to become members of a spiritually cooperating community (the communion of saints in heaven, and the future saints on earth), through whom we often receive God’s graces. It also requires us to conform our minds and hearts to Holy Mother Church, not the other way around.

 

[KSU]

I agree completely, Elizabeth.

My issue with Brendan, however, is a much more narrow one: Do baptized Catholics, such as apostates, remain in the Church forever, no matter what they believe, do and say?
He says yes, I say no. I really tried to avoid making anyone read this long verification of my position from the ORIGINAL CATHOLIC ENCYLOPEDIA regarding “CHURCH, THE”, but here goes:
QUOTE
IX. MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH
The foregoing account of the Church and of the principle of authority by which it is governed enables us to determine who are members of the Church and who are not. The membership of which we speak, is incorporation in the visible body of Christ. It has already been noted (VI) that a member of the Church may have forfeited the grace of God. In this case he is a withered branch of the true Vine; but he has not been finally broken off from it. He still belongs to Christ. Three conditions are requisite for a man to be a member of the Church. (I) In the first place, he must profess the true Faith, and have received the Sacrament of Baptism. The essential necessity of this condition is apparent from the fact that the Church is the kingdom of truth, the society of those who accept the revelation of the Son of God. Every member of the Church must accept the whole revelation, either explicitly or implicitly, by profession of all that the Church teaches. He who refuses to receive it, or who, having received it, falls away, thereby excludes himself from the kingdom (Titus, iii, 10 sq.). The Sacrament of Baptism is rightly regarded as part of this condition. By it those who profess the Faith are formally adopted as children of God (Eph., i, 13), and an habitual faith is among the gifts bestowed in it. Christ expressly connects the two, declaring that “he who believeth and is baptized shall be saved” (Mark, xvi, 16; cf. Matt., xxviii, 19). (2) It is further necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of her appointed rulers. Those who reject the jurisdiction established by Christ are no longer members of His kingdom. Thus St. Ignatius lays it down in his letter to the Church of Smyrna: “Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be there is the universal Church” (ad Smyrn., n. 8). In regard to this condition, the ultimate touchstone is to be found in communion with the Holy See. On Peter Christ founded his Church. Those who are not joined to that foundation cannot form part of the house of God. (3) The third condition lies in the canonical right to communion with the Church. In virtue of its coercive power the Church has authority to excommunicate notorious sinners. It may inflict this punishment not merely on the ground of heresy or schism, but for other grave offenses. Thus St. Paul pronounces sentence of excommunication on the incestuous Corinthian (I Cor., v, 3). This penalty is no mere external severance from the rights of common worship. It is a severance from the body of Christ, undoing to this extent the work of baptism, and placing the excommunicated man in the condition of the “heathen and the publican”. It casts him out of God’s kingdom; and the Apostle speaks of it as “delivering him over to Satan” (I Cor., v, 5; I Tim., i, 20).

Regarding each of these conditions, however, certain distinctions must be drawn. (1) Many baptized heretics have been educated in their erroneous beliefs. Their case is altogether different from that of those who have voluntarily renounced the Faith. They accept what they believe to be the Divine revelation. Such as these belong to the Church in desire, for they are at heart anxious to fulfil God’s will in their regard. In virtue of their baptism and good will, they may be in a state of grace. They belong to the soul of the Church, though they are not united to the visible body. As such they are members of the Church internally, though not externally. Even in regard to those who have themselves fallen away from the Faith, a difference must be made between open and notorious heretics on the one hand, and secret heretics on the other. Open and notorious heresy severs from the visible Church. The majority of theologians agree with Bellarmine (de Ecclesiae, III, c. x), as against Suarez, that secret heresy has not this effect. (2) In regard to schism the same distinction must be drawn. A secret repudiation of the Church’s authority does not sever the sinner from the Church. The Church recognizes the schismatic as a member, entitled to her communion, until by open and notorious rebellion he rejects her authority. (3) Excommunicated persons are either excommunicati tolerati (i.e. those who are still tolerated) or excommunicati vitandi (i.e. those to be shunned). Many theologians hold that those whom the Church still tolerates are not wholly cut off from her membership, and that it is only those whom she has branded as “to be shunned” who are cut off from God’s kingdom (see Murray, De Eccles., Disp. i, sect. viii, n. 118). (See Excommunication.) END QUOTE
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Church%2C_The

 

[benganonline4]

M?i quý khách hÃng có nhu c?u mua các s?n ph?m dèn led chi?u sáng trong nhÃ, dèn led chi?u sáng ngoÃi tr?i, dèn led qu?ng cáo hãy liên h? v?i Công ty Gia HoÃng chúng tôi d? du?c h? tr? vÃ* mua nh?ng s?n ph?m t?t nh?t. R?t mong du?c h?p tác cùng quý khách hÃ*ng.

S?n ph?m tiêu bi?u c?a dèn led Gia HoÃ*ng

• Dèn Led th? h? dèn ti?t ki?m nang lu?ng
• Dèn led c?c 3W dui c?m
• Dèn led c?c 3W dui xoáy
• Dèn led c?c 3W dui xoáy
• Dèn led tuýp T8 12W dÃ*i 1,2m
• Dèn led tuýp 18W T8
• Dèn led tuýp T8 26W dÃ*i 1,2m
• Dèn led tuýp T8 12W dÃ*i 1,2m
• Dèn led tuýp 12W T8
• Dèn led âm tr?n m?t kÃ*nh 3W
• Dèn LED NhÃ* Xu?ng 50W
• Dèn LED NhÃ* Xu?ng 80W
• Dèn led nhÃ* xu?ng 200W
• Dèn LED ?p tr?n tròn 8w
• Dèn LED ?p tr?n tròn 6w
• Dèn led âm tr?n m?t kÃ*nh 9W
• Dèn Led búp 9W
• Dèn Led búp 7W
• Dèn LED NhÃ* Xu?ng 100W
• Dèn led dây Flex
• Dèn led dây ?ng xanh
• dèn led
• dèn led âm tu?ng
• dèn led pha
• dèn led ?p tr?n
• dèn led dây
• dèn led thanh
• dèn led c?c
• Dèn Led g?n tr?n d?ng t?m
• dèn led âm tr?n
• dèn led nhÃ* xu?ng
• dèn led thanh ray
• Dèn led trong nhÃ*
• dèn led tuýp
• dèn led búp

M?i chi ti?t xin liên h?:
** A Nam : 0944 755 800 **
CÔNG TY C? PH?N CÔNG NGH? VÀ TRUY?N THÔNG GIA HOÀNG
D?a ch?: T?ng 2 - S? P2A11 - Ngõ 59 - Ph? Chùa Láng - D?ng Da - HÃ* N?i
Di?n tho?i: 04 62754061 - Fax: 04 62754062 - Hotline: 0944 755 800 - 093 6446 383
Email: giahoangtechcom@gmail.com - Website: denledconnghiep.com

 

[Brendan_64]

One is technical membership, the other is practical membership. One never loses technical membership, and I think Brendan’s point (and i.m.o. it’s an arguable point) is that remaining a physical presence, no matter how much one’s heart & mind are absent or oppositional, is always a Plus.

Correct.

A sincere Catholic, whatever level of practice, will have the decency not to offend Christ’s Mystical Body, the visible Church made up of lay and clergy who are not there to foment, and to keep silent/quiet about his or her radical dissent. (Yes, opposition to the Church’s moral teachings is radical dissent.)

Agreed.

Again, this was simply understood in a former time. Oneself, the non-compliant Catholic, was under the obligation to remain respectful and unobtrusive in whatever habit or belief of non-practice he or she had. And not a single document of V2 contradicted that.

I never implied (or would imply) that Vatican II changed this one iota.

Thus (for example), a non-practicing Catholic would respectfully attend Mass, Catholic weddings, Catholic funerals, ordinations, etc., and simply not receive Eucharist, but behave and speak appropriate to the occasion, instead of using that occasion, or membership in a discussion group (or forum ), to broadcast and promote dissent.

I agree.

We are entitled to engage in private dissent, although we are urged to close whatever intellectual and emotional gaps we can, with regular effort, prayer, & sacraments. Feeling entitled “by virtue of our baptism” to promote opposition to the Magisterium is another ball of wax entirely. In fact, it could be argued that our very baptism and confirmation do not entitle us to that, but entitle non-members to that.

Agreed.

And the point is that modernist Catholics too often use baptism as an entitlement to disobedience, when that was & is never the meaning.

And not forgetting of course Catholics on the ‘Traditionalist’ end of the spectrum who do exactly this. The SSPX comes to mind. Disobedient to the point that they left Rome with no option but to suspend them. Then creating doctrine of their own (‘Eternal’ Rome) in order to justify their disobedience. And still they continue in blatant disobedience and defiance, publicly expressing contempt towards the Pope. Disobedience does not come solely (or even primarily) from just one dissenting side.

The teachings of the Church are the teachings of the Church, and the Church’s interpretations of these teachings are the Church’s interpretations, we are bound by these. Dissenting because one views them as too liberal, is no less rebellious than dissenting because one finds them too conservative.

Baptism entitles us to become members of a spiritually cooperating community (the communion of saints in heaven, and the future saints on earth), through whom we often receive God’s graces. It also requires us to conform our minds and hearts to Holy Mother Church, not the other way around.

Most definitely agree. The same applies to those who reject any elements of Vatican II.

In this whole post I can only find one point where I take slight issue, but not actual disagreement with.

 

[Elizabeth502]

As Francis of Assisi was want [sic] to say, preach, and if necessary use words.

• Where Did St. Francis Say That?

Q: I keep seeing St. Francis of Assisi credited as saying, “Preach the gospel at all times. Use words if necessary.” I have looked in several places but cannot find where St. Francis said this.
A: This is a great quote, very Franciscan in its spirit, but not literally from St. Francis. The thought is his; this catchy phrasing is not in his writings or in the earliest biographies about him.

In Chapter XVII of his Rule of 1221, Francis told the friars not to preach unless they had received the proper permission to do so. Then he added, “Let all the brothers, however, preach by their deeds.”

I had been a Franciscan for 28 years—and had earned an M.A. in Franciscan studies—before I heard the “Use words if necessary” quote. That was during Msgr. Kenneth Velo’s homily at Cardinal Joseph L. Bernardin’s funeral in 1996.

About a year ago, a friend of mine used the Internet to contact some of the most eminent Franciscan scholars in the world, seeking the source of this “Use words if necessary” quote. It is clearly not in any of Francis’ writings. After a couple weeks of searching, no scholar could find this quote in a story written within 200 years of Francis’ death.

By Father Pat McCloskey, O.F.M.

americancatholic.org/Messenger/Oct2001/Wiseman.asp#F1*

 

[Elizabeth502]

I never implied (or would imply) that Vatican II changed this one iota.

My point was not that you ever implied or said such a thing, but that many “liberal Catholics” do precisely that. ("V2 allowed [whatever] ").

Following your semi-rant about the SSPX , however, I wanted to return to an earlier comparison you made about traditionalists who ‘speak contemptuously of the English Mass.’ Ask yourself something honestly, Brendan. In fact ask yourself two things:

(1) What is considered more serious behavior in Catholic thought: speaking contemptuously of the way the modern English Mass is celebrated (which is most often not the N.O. in the form instituted by Paul VI, but some extremely loose version of that), or supporting any, let alone all, of the following:

homosexual “marriage”
homosexual behavior
universally accessible contraception – all ages, no questions, taxpayer-paid
use of contraception by Catholic couples
the HHS mandate
invalid heterosexual marriages (marriage after divorce, and more)
abortion
female ordination

(And I think you know what the answer is.)

(2) Then ask yourself the difference between the strictness with which the SSPX has been addressed (not that I’m saying it should be lax; the Church always has to be concerned with schismatic movements, especially given Church history), even though the SSPX does not support the 8 above areas – versus the relative tolerance the Church has shown toward her open dissenters on the above areas.

The only difference between self-proclaimed Catholic liberals who support the 8 areas above, and the SSPX, is that the SSPX has behaved in a formally organized schismatic way. Catholic liberals are equally schismatic; htey are just without a formal organization. (Yet. There has been open talk about breaking from Rome, forming an American Church or A Liberal Church or a Western Church or some other “reformation community” of the 21st century.)

Any individual Catholic who proclaims, by dissent and autonomy, that he is his own private authority, is breaking from Rome and setting up a competing authority. (In his case, a lonely authority of one.)

Finally, ask yourself to compare the scandal and confusion caused so far by the SSPX versus that caused by liberal Catholics, some of whom are politicians, others of whom populate discussion forums and mislead lurkers who are potential converts. Most Catholics have not even heard of the SSPX, including many traditionalists.

The SSPX is a worry to Rome because of the importance of central authority. But at least Rome can locate them and communicate with them directly.

Finally, in continuing to speak about “interpretations” as being “binding,” it depends on what topics you’re referring to. If an individual interprets the Eucharist as not being The Real Presence (which liberals often do, but never the SSPX), then the individual is practicing heresy. If, OTOH, an individual is abiding by an old theology regarding an explanation of some aspect of the Faith (such as less modern ways of speaking of sacraments), that is not necessarily heretical or disobedient behavior. It’s a clinging to the past, which makes such a person not in sync with modern catechesis (and not suitable, perhaps, as a catechist), but it does not in itself make a person a heretic if the dogma is not being opposed, merely the expression of the dogma.

In sum, then, my position is that you are comparing apples and oranges too often here.

 

[KSU]

Bless you, Elizabeth.

 

[Brendan_64]

My point was not that you ever implied or said such a thing, but that many “liberal Catholics” do precisely that. ("V2 allowed [whatever] ").

And in that they are wrong, as are those who deny elements of Vatican II (e.g. the possible salvation of non-Catholics etc).

(1) What is considered more serious behavior in Catholic thought: speaking contemptuously of the way the modern English Mass is celebrated (which is most often not the N.O. in the form instituted by Paul VI, but some extremely loose version of that)

What I am talking about is not the criticism of illicit actions or errors. I mean the contempt displayed for the OF as carried out correctly (in line with GIRM, Redemptionis Sacramentum etc) There are Catholics who criticise and display contempt for the EF Mass, often using the excuse of pointing out errors here and there as cover to justify their position and appear loyal. this is not a minor issue, this is a display of disrespect for the Church’s Ordinary Form of celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist. A display of disrespect to Our Lord himself.

homosexual “marriage”
homosexual behavior
universally accessible contraception – all ages, no questions, taxpayer-paid
use of contraception by Catholic couples
the HHS mandate
invalid heterosexual marriages (marriage after divorce, and more)
abortion
female ordination

Support for any of the above issues can never be justified, and I would certainly never suggest as such.

(2) Then ask yourself the difference between the strictness with which the SSPX has been addressed (not that I’m saying it should be lax; the Church always has to be concerned with schismatic movements, especially given Church history), even though the SSPX does not support the 8 above areas – versus the relative tolerance the Church has shown toward her open dissenters on the above areas.

The SSPX are not just guilty of well-meaning misunderstanding, or difference of opinion. The SSPX has consistently defied Church teachings, and sets itself up as a guardian of Catholic values, using a religious organisation (that claims to be Roman Catholic) to actively and publicly promote teachings that are counter to the teachings of the Church. And they promote these views not to non-Catholics, but to baptised Catholics. They actively promote heresy to Catholics, and do so claiming this heresy to be the true teachings of the Catholic Church. That is quite serious.

If a religious organisation within the Catholic Church set itself up, as the SSPX has, and promoted ultra-liberal values that were in opposition to Church teachings then I have no doubt that the Church would deal with them in a similar fashion to the SSPX. It is difficult however if a secular organisation that has Catholic members sets itself up and promotes views in opposition to Church teachings, but, unlike the SSPX, does not actually claim that these teachings are in fact the true teachings of the Church.

Finally, in continuing to speak about “interpretations” as being “binding,” it depends on what topics you’re referring to. If an individual interprets the Eucharist as not being The Real Presence (which liberals often do, but never the SSPX), then the individual is practicing heresy.

Yes it is heresy, and so is the concept of obedience to ‘Eternal Rome’ as this ineffect denies Papal authority.

If, OTOH, an individual is abiding by an old theology regarding an explanation of some aspect of the Faith (such as less modern ways of speaking of sacraments), that is not necessarily heretical or disobedient behavior. It’s a clinging to the past, which makes such a person not in sync with modern catechesis

Would you also say that it would be acceptable for a Catholic to deny the full divinity of Christ following the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople? Would that simply be “abiding by an old theology”?

In sum, then, my position is that you are comparing apples and oranges too often here.

Disobedience to the Church is disobedience to the Church, regardless of whether the disobedience is by liberals or conservatives.

 

[Ender]

Do baptized Catholics, such as apostates, remain in the Church forever, no matter what they believe, do and say?

Apparently not:Actually only those are to be included (annumerandi) as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith,* and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body** (neque a Corporis compage semet ipsos misere separarunt), or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. *(Pius XII - Mystici Corporus Christi)
Ender

 

[Elizabeth502]

I mean the contempt displayed for the OF as carried out correctly (in line with GIRM, Redemptionis Sacramentum etc) There are Catholics who criticise and display contempt for the EF Mass, often using the excuse of pointing out errors here and there as cover to justify their position and appear loyal. this is not a minor issue, this is a display of disrespect for the Church’s Ordinary Form of celebrating the Sacrament of the Eucharist. A display of disrespect to Our Lord himself.

No, what you keep bringing up is a minor issue, comparatively speaking. It is a disrespect of liturgical form, not a disrespect of Our Lord in the Eucharist. This does not vaguely rise to the level of formal or material cooperation with the following:

homosexual “marriage”
homosexual behavior
universally accessible contraception – all ages, no questions, taxpayer-paid
use of contraception by Catholic couples
the HHS mandate
invalid heterosexual marriages (marriage after divorce, and more)
abortion
female ordination

And formal/material cooperation with the above 8, yet receiving Communion, is absolutely

A display of disrespect to Our Lord himself.

I doubt any trained Catholic moral theologian would affirm your comparisons, Brendan.

 

[Brendan_64]

No, what you keep bringing up is a minor issue, comparatively speaking. It is a disrespect of liturgical form, not a disrespect of Our Lord in the Eucharist.

It is not minor. It is disrespect to the ordinary form of the Mass. The mass is not some trivial liturgy to me mocked and sneered at. The OF is the primary form of Mass of the Roman Catholic Church. For a Catholic to mock this is not a trivial matter. By doing so they mock the faithful, mock the clergy, and mock the Christ’s Church on Earth. That is just a short step away from the SSPX.

And formal/material cooperation with the above 8, yet receiving Communion, is absolutely

And have I ever said that it is not? Perhaps you assume me to hold, or have sympathy with, views that I do not?

I doubt any trained Catholic moral theologian would affirm your comparisons, Brendan.

And you are one in order to speak as such?

 

[KSU]

Speaking of liberals making a living off a purported Catholic-in-good-standind identity:

cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/2277/Canon-Law-Case-Against-Georgetown-Submitted-to-Cardinal-Wuerl.aspx

 

[Elizabeth502]

Brendan, it is not clergy who is being mocked, nor the proper OF/NO which is being mocked. In the great majority of criticisms and disdain, it is the many perversions, subversions, disapproved elements and variations of that. What is being mocked is not the OF, but what is being celebrated in substitute for the OF. While probably Paul VI’s soul is in Heaven, his body has probably been busy turning in its underground grave since V2.

In addition, Catholics are free to approve or disapprove of the OF and the EF, respectively. That is why both are offered, wherever both can be offered and there are willing presiders for the EF. *“I would never go to an EF Mass because it’s all mysterious and incomprehensible to me” *is not a heretical or sinful thing to say. Similarly, saying, “I will go to any length to go to an EF Mass unless I have no choice but to go to an OF Mass, because almost no OF Masses are conducted authentically.” And that last comment would be accurate, by the way. Proper OF Masses are the exception, not the rule – at least in parishes (not Religious Houses). This is why so many viewers comment on how unusual the EWTN OF Daily Mass is: it’s the way it was meant to be done, and few Catholics find anything similar in their parishes.

Catholics who are knowledgeable about the liturgy, and mock dancing girls, invented prayers (Preface, Offertory, Consecration), hand-holding, chatting, lay homilies, and tastless music are not committing heresy or even mortal sin. Those were never meant to define the OF of the Mass, even though they have unfortunately become assimilated into too many of them.

Not only are you, i.m.o., comparing apples with oranges, there’s not a sense of proportion in the so-called equations you are constructing.