Are my views and beliefs heretical?

[bear06]

Ok, I just want to make sure my views are still valid, and in no way, shape, or form, heretical.

Call me conservative, but…

• I believe you should not eat meat on Fridays.
• I believe there should not be altar girls.
• I believe in Limbo.
• I believe you should pray the Rosary.
• I believe there should not be homosexual priests, nuns, or Catholic school teachers.
• I believe Freemasonry is some sort of religious cult (that possibly worships Lucifer) and no Catholic should be a part of it.
• I believe there should be a canon law that requires certain attire for Mass.
• I believe in Young Earth Creationism.
• I don’t believe in cremation. I can’t stress the word “don’t” enough. I believe one should have a proper funeral and burial.
• I don’t believe in Natural Family Planning (NFP) or oral sex. The purpose of sex is pro-creation.
• I don’t believe one should get tattoos.
• I don’t believe one should engage in yoga.
• I prefer the Baltimore Catechism.
• I prefer the 1950 Holy Family Catholic Bible. (Is this Bible even approved?)
• I prefer receiving the Eucharist on my tongue, not in the hand.
• I prefer anonymous confession, in a confessional, not in a reconciliation room.
• I recognize February 14th as Saint Valentine’s feast day.
• I feel there should be altar rails. (Not really a big deal)

So, are any of these heretical or are they completely valid views?

Oh, and please don’t argue. Debating is not the purpose of this thread.

And yes, I have used the search feature, but who has time to rummage through 50 threads?

It would seem you go from valid to heretical with no in between. Also you’ve got different categories you’re listing here.

I would offer these in response to some of the ecclesiastical discipline items you’ve listed.

“in this itself (discipline) there is to be distinguished what is necessary or useful to retain the faithful in spirit, from that which is useless or too burdensome for the liberty of the sons of the new Covenant to endure, but more so, from that which is dangerous or harmful, namely, leading to superstituion and materialism”; in so far as by the generality of the words it includes and submits to a prescribed examination even the discipline established and approved by the Church, as if the Church which is ruled by the Spirit of God could have established discipline which is not only useless and burdensome for Christian liberty to endure, but which is even dangerous and harmful and leading to superstition and materialism,–false, rash, scandalous, dangerous, offensive to pious ears, injurious to the Church and to the Spirit of God by whom it is guided, at least erroneous.

(Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, 78, cited in Denzinger, The Sources of Catholic Dogma, translated by Roy F. Deferari from the 13th ed. Of Henry Denzinger’s Enchiridion Symbolorum, 1954, Loreto Publications, 2nd printing, 2004, pg. 393)]

“…[they] state categorically that there are many things in the discipline of the Church … [which] are harmful for the growth and prosperity of the Catholic religion… While these men were shamefully straying in their thoughts, they proposed to fall upon the errors condemned by the Church in proposition 78 of the constitution Auctorem fidei (published by Our predecessor, Pius VI on August 28, 1794). … do they not try to make the Church human by taking away from the infallible and divine authority, by which divine will it is governed? And does it not produce the same effect to think that the present discipline of the Church rests on failures, obscurities, and other inconveniences of this kind? And to feign that this discipline contains many things which are not useless but which are against the safety of the Catholic religion? Why is it that private individuals appropriate for themselves the right which is proper only for the pope (Encyclical Quo Graviora, October 4, 1833).

“If anyone says that the ceremonies, vestments and outward signs, which the Catholic Church uses in the celebration of Masses, are incentives to impiety rather than the services of piety: let him be anathema.” (Trent Session XXII, canon 7, Denz. 954.).

“It would beyond any doubt be blameworthy and entirely contrary to the respect with which the laws of the Church should be received by a senseless aberration to find fault with the discipline which she has established, and which includes the administration of holy things, the regulation of morals, and the laws of the Church and her ministers; or to speak of this discipline as opposed to certain principles of the natural law, or to present it as defective, imperfect, and subject to civil authority.” (Mirari Vos, August 15, 1832.)
Pope Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, 66 (1943):“

"Certainly the loving Mother is spotless in the Sacraments, by which she gives inviolate; in her sacred laws imposed on all; in the evangelical counsels which she recommends; in those heavenly gifts and extraordinary graces through which, with inexhaustible fecundity, she generates hosts of martyrs, virgins and confessors.”

Also, according to P. Hermann, Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae (4th ed., Rome: Della Pace, 1908), vol. 1, p. 258:

“The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments. . . .“If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible.”Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae. 4th ed. Rome: Della Pace 1908. 1:258

[Disciplinary Infallibility] has, however, found a place in all recent treatises on the Church (De Ecclesiâ}. The authors of these treatises decide unanimously in favour of a negative and indirect rather than a positive and direct infallibility, inasmuch as in her general discipline, i. e. the common laws imposed on all the faithful, the Church can prescribe nothing that would be contrary to the natural or the Divine law, nor prohibit anything that the natural or the Divine law would exact. If well understood this thesis is undeniable; it amounts to saying that the Church does not and cannot impose practical directions contradictory of her own teaching. Catholic Encyclopedia

 

[Mister_De]

It seems the only thing that really conflicts with teachings is the whole NFP thing. Well, I’ve been reflecting on 1 Corinthians, as well as reading some historical documents (online) on the subject, and I’ve become more open to accepting other people practicing NFP. However, I personally would still refrain from sexual activity, unless I’m having kids. I just can’t help but wonder though, would Jesus recommend the rhythm method?

 

[childofmary1143]

It seems the only thing that really conflicts with teachings is the whole NFP thing. Well, I’ve been reflecting on 1 Corinthians, as well as reading some historical documents (online) on the subject, and I’ve become more open to accepting other people practicing NFP. However, I personally would still refrain from sexual activity, unless I’m having kids. I just can’t help but wonder though, would Jesus recommend the rhythm method?

I am not married but I would say that couples who use NFP would do that too. NFP’s effectiveness is that it tells couples when to avoid having sex.

Furthermore should couples who are past childbearing years, not have sex either?

 

[Refugium]

Ok, I just want to make sure my views are still valid, and in no way, shape, or form, heretical.

Call me conservative, but…

• I believe you should not eat meat on Fridays.
• I believe there should not be altar girls.
• I believe in Limbo.
• I believe you should pray the Rosary.
• I believe there should not be homosexual priests, nuns, or Catholic school teachers.
• I believe Freemasonry is some sort of religious cult (that possibly worships Lucifer) and no Catholic should be a part of it.
• I believe there should be a canon law that requires certain attire for Mass.
• I believe in Young Earth Creationism.
• I don’t believe in cremation. I can’t stress the word “don’t” enough. I believe one should have a proper funeral and burial.
• I don’t believe in Natural Family Planning (NFP) or oral sex. The purpose of sex is pro-creation.
• I don’t believe one should get tattoos.
• I don’t believe one should engage in yoga.
• I prefer the Baltimore Catechism.
• I prefer the 1950 Holy Family Catholic Bible. (Is this Bible even approved?)
• I prefer receiving the Eucharist on my tongue, not in the hand.
• I prefer anonymous confession, in a confessional, not in a reconciliation room.
• I recognize February 14th as Saint Valentine’s feast day.
• I feel there should be altar rails. (Not really a big deal)

So, are any of these heretical or are they completely valid views?

Oh, and please don’t argue. Debating is not the purpose of this thread.

And yes, I have used the search feature, but who has time to rummage through 50 threads?

Nope…you sound like a true Catholic to me!

 

[latinmasslover]

I have a question for people saying his beliefs are not heretical: *If he thinks that NFP is immoral, and the Church believes it is morally permissible, and he is not willing to submit to the Church’s authority on that matter - how is that any different from being an modalist or an arian, dissenting from the Church on the trinity, and being unwilling to submit? *

Heresy is defined as a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas - these include the dogmas of the trinity, as well as dogmas on sexual morality. He is, indeed, heretical on this point.

Heresy - …In the Roman Catholic Church…Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic.
(Catholic Dictionary by John A. Hardon, SJ)

As far as I know, NFP is simply permitted and only when necessary; it is not a truth “that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.” Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[pnewton]

Heresy - …In the Roman Catholic Church…Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts **any **of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic.
(Catholic Dictionary by John A. Hardon, SJ)
.

The use of the word “any” would prohibit one from being heretical on one point. You are or you aren’t. I agree that NFP, as being a permitted practice, does not fall under the definition above.

 

[bpbasilphx]

The Church could issue new rules requiring all confessions be face-to-face, or in front of the congregation.

As a matter of fact, these are the normal practices in the Byzantine Churches; confessions are heard face-to-face before the iconostas.

 

[Freshman88]

Wrong.
Homosexuality is a disorder according to the Church. Unfortunately, many seminaries let homosexuals through in the past. The Church isn’t yet ready to “divorce” those who choose to stay in their vocation and remain celibate. We are still trying to fix the mess that we are presently in due to this “oversight.”

Our Church doesn’t need disordered priests and nuns. Holding fast to the Church’s teaching on celibacy and chastity requires sexual wholeness and integrity. Homosexuals by definition are not sexually integrated. They are not healthy in that respect and should not be ordained. Seminaries today are getting wise to this fact.

More on this in: The Courage to be Chaste by Fr. Benedict Groeschel.

I respectfully disagree, but I also realized that there are many beliefs that I have which were instilled by a very poor and liberal Catholic education (thanks Ontario! ).

I don’t have a copy of Fr. Groeschel’s book - do you know of any articles that make this arguement?

As far as I understood - if a homosexual contained his desires and submitted to Church teaching then there should be no problem. This seems reasonable enough and I have never heard of this being a “condition” which bars one from the priesthood.

 

[mathematician]

Ok, I just want to make sure my views are still valid, and in no way, shape, or form, heretical.

Call me conservative, but…

• I believe you should not eat meat on Fridays.
• I believe there should not be altar girls.
• I believe in Limbo.
• I believe you should pray the Rosary.
• I believe there should not be homosexual priests, nuns, or Catholic school teachers.
• I believe Freemasonry is some sort of religious cult (that possibly worships Lucifer) and no Catholic should be a part of it.
• I believe there should be a canon law that requires certain attire for Mass.
• I believe in Young Earth Creationism.
• I don’t believe in cremation. I can’t stress the word “don’t” enough. I believe one should have a proper funeral and burial.
• I don’t believe in Natural Family Planning (NFP) or oral sex. The purpose of sex is pro-creation.
• I don’t believe one should get tattoos.
• I don’t believe one should engage in yoga.
• I prefer the Baltimore Catechism.
• I prefer the 1950 Holy Family Catholic Bible. (Is this Bible even approved?)
• I prefer receiving the Eucharist on my tongue, not in the hand.
• I prefer anonymous confession, in a confessional, not in a reconciliation room.
• I recognize February 14th as Saint Valentine’s feast day.
• I feel there should be altar rails. (Not really a big deal)

So, are any of these heretical or are they completely valid views?

Oh, and please don’t argue. Debating is not the purpose of this thread.

And yes, I have used the search feature, but who has time to rummage through 50 threads?

Become an Anglican, and you can have the altar rails.

 

[Freshman88]

Become an Anglican, and you can have the altar rails.

We already have em’ - just need to find a Traditional Church.

I should hope that communion with Rome is more important than altar rails!

 

[masscup]

Ok, I just want to make sure my views are still valid, and in no way, shape, or form, heretical.

Call me conservative, but…

• I believe you should not eat meat on Fridays. agreed
• I believe there should not be altar girls. agreed but reluctantly
• I believe in Limbo.agreed
• I believe you should pray the Rosary.agreed daily
• I believe there should not be homosexual priests, nuns, or Catholic school teachers.absolutely agree
• I believe Freemasonry is some sort of religious cult (that possibly worships Lucifer) and no Catholic should be a part of it.agree about belonging, definitely disagree about the “Satan” comment
• I believe there should be a canon law that requires certain attire for Mass.Disagree. Attire does not make the Christian
• I believe in Young Earth Creationism.On the fence
• I don’t believe in cremation. I can’t stress the word “don’t” enough. I believe one should have a proper funeral and burial.Don’t agree
• I don’t believe in Natural Family Planning (NFP) or oral sex. The purpose of sex is pro-creation.disagree
• I don’t believe one should get tattoos.disagree
• I don’t believe one should engage in yoga.completely agree
• I prefer the Baltimore Catechism.at times
• I prefer the 1950 Holy Family Catholic Bible. *(Is this Bible even approved?)*Duoay Rheims
• I prefer receiving the Eucharist on my tongue, not in the hand.agree
• I prefer anonymous confession, in a confessional, not in a reconciliation room.agree
• I recognize February 14th as Saint Valentine’s feast day.as do I
• I feel there should be altar rails. (Not really a big deal)

indifferent

Heretical, no. Conservative, yes. I don’t see anything “wrong” (my word) with your opinions

 

[rpp]

I respectfully disagree, but I also realized that there are many beliefs that I have which were instilled by a very poor and liberal Catholic education (thanks Ontario! ).

I don’t have a copy of Fr. Groeschel’s book - do you know of any articles that make this arguement?

As far as I understood - if a homosexual contained his desires and submitted to Church teaching then there should be no problem. This seems reasonable enough and I have never heard of this being a “condition” which bars one from the priesthood.

Guidelines for acceptance in Catholic seminaries is for men NOT to be homosexual.

This has been ignored recently out of a misplaced sense of charity. And the Church has greatly suffered as a result.

 

[childofmary1143]

Heresy - …In the Roman Catholic Church…Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic.
(Catholic Dictionary by John A. Hardon, SJ)

As far as I know, NFP is simply permitted and only when necessary; it is not a truth “that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith.” Someone please correct me if I’m wrong.

NFP is not doctrine but the OP has asked whether his/her views are heretical. The OP has stated that NFP is immoral. The Church has said otherwise.

 

[pnewton]

I have a question for people saying his beliefs are not heretical: *If he thinks that NFP is immoral, and the Church believes it is morally permissible, and he is not willing to submit to the Church’s authority on that matter - how is that any different from being an modalist or an arian, dissenting from the Church on the trinity, and being unwilling to submit? *

Heresy is defined as a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas - these include the dogmas of the trinity, as well as dogmas on sexual morality. He is, indeed, heretical on this point.

NFP is not a dogma or the Church. The other areas you mention are. They must be believed with an assent of faith.

 

[childofmary1143]

NFP is not a dogma or the Church. The other areas you mention are. They must be believed with an assent of faith.

True. But I think when the Church says that NFP is permitted in certain circumstances and the OP says that it is immoral then he is disagreeing with what the Church teaches. Since NFP is centred around Marriage and the Commandments of the Church for married couples, then it becomes at least incredulity if not heresy because he is not submitting to the authority of the teaching authority of the Church.

 

[graceandglory]

Well, I’ve been reflecting on 1 Corinthians, as well as reading some historical documents (online) on the subject, and I’ve become more open to accepting other people practicing NFP.

Dear Mister De:

To reference 1 Corinthians, which you brought up, abstinence is addressed by St. Paul.
1 Corinthians 7:5 " Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again…"

Maybe God’s plan for you is to be the dad with a dozen kids. That is commendable. I have always wanted a dozen. Now I’d just be happy with eight!

Maybe God is calling you to the celibate life.

The sexual abstinence of a married couple is a form of fasting and asceticism.
It is holy. All of their sexual encounters continue to be open to life.

I believe that 1 Corinthians 7:5 contains a command, “Do not deprive one another.”

CCC 2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

---

“Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh.”

Genesis 2:24

 

[graceandglory]

I don’t have a copy of Fr. Groeschel’s book - do you know of any articles that make this arguement?.

How about the articles plastered across the front pages of major newspapers all across this country for the past 10 years?

My Archdiocese has filed bankruptcy paying off the legal fees of disordered priests who went through seminary.

The Courage to be Chaste
"33 Used and New from $1.27
amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0809127059/ref=pd_bbs_sr_olp_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204678864&sr=8-1

 

[rpp]

How about the articles plastered across the front pages of major newspapers all across this country for the past 10 years?

My Archdiocese has filed bankruptcy paying off the legal fees of disordered priests who went through seminary.

The Courage to be Chaste
"33 Used and New from $1.27
amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0809127059/ref=pd_bbs_sr_olp_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204678864&sr=8-1

Along these same lines, I would recommend:

Goodbye Good Men by Michael Rose. Get it here.

The Faithful Departed: The Collapse of Boston’s Catholic Culture by Philip Lawler. Get it here.

 

[Freshman88]

This is in response to the two previous posts.

Yes, I own the hardcover of “Goodbye Goodmen”. I thought it was very interesting and of course quite sad. I found it quite interesting as I am discerning my own vocation and It is one of the reasons why I started looking beyond the Dioceses and at orders such as the FSSP and ICK. I whole heartily agree with the notion that conservative dioceses breed vocations while liberal dioceses squash vocations.

Though I have to remind myself that is often the nature of such a book to exaggerate the situation in order to draw attention to it.

Yet the book was one of the reasons why I have the beliefs that I do. The examples he gave were of seminaries where these young men were not expected to submit to Church teaching and even encouraged to break Church teaching! I don’t recall examples from the book where a priest who comes to a seminary with homosexual tendacies AND a desire to control those feelings just as any other heterosexual priest would be expected to. Said homosexual priest would also be expected to teach according to the Church and to outright deny the homosexual agenda.

The articles in recent years often have to do with pedophiles - that’s a whole different can of worms. Not all pedophiles are homosexuals and not all homosexuals are pedophiles.

 

[rpp]

The articles in recent years often have to do with pedophiles - that’s a whole different can of worms. Not all pedophiles are homosexuals and not all homosexuals are pedophiles.

More than 80% of the child victims of priest sex abuse were male.
%between%