The Catholic Circle: orthodox vs. heterodox

[Sure]

Actually you asked me what my definition was, when I used the word “Tradition.” Whether I meant Sacred Tradition or not. I told you my defintion there. You said nothing about defining Traditional Catholic. I can show you the post if you want. Once again, as the starter of this thread, it is YOUR responsibility to define your terms. I’ve defined mine. For the record again, a Traditional Catholic is first and foremost an orthodox Catholic, but is an orthodox Catholic who prefers or assits only at TLM’s.

They might be wrong in their opinions, but that is hardly heterodoxy. FOR THE LAST TIME: HETERODOXY REQUIRES THE DENIAL OF AN ALREADY DEFINED DOGMA, OR THE HOLDING OF A THEOLOGY THAT IS CONTRARY TO AN ALREADY DEFINED DOGMA. What Dogma have these people denied? What theology do they hold that is contrary to an already defined Dogma? The fact that they might regard the NO as invalid, is hardly a rejection of Church Dogma, or a theology contrary to Church Dogma. That is exactly why the SSPX, and even sedevacantists such as the SSPV, or CMRI are NOT heterodox. You apparantly need to brush up on the differences between schismatic and heretical. There is a MAJOR difference. One can be schismatic and not be heterodox, and one can be heterodox and not be schismatic. ONCE AGAIN: YOU HAVE FAILED TO SHOW ME WHY ANY OF THESE SOCIETIES ARE HETERODOX!!! I thought you could think in a clear and cognent manner…

Where did you get the definition of heterodox as only applying to a denial of “dogma”?

 

[SemperFidelis]

Oh good grief. Cue the Twilight Zone music…

As noted earlier, Cardinal Ottaviani was the prefect for the Holy Office, and was backed by Cardinal Bacci and many others including Archbishop Lefebvre. If you read the documents you would see the theological issues they had with the TLM, and THEY WERE IMPORTANT PEOPLE IN THE CHURCH. Even Pope Benedict XVI has “taken shots” at the NO. Theological issues that are being changed today, because the reality is in fact, that they were theological issues. For instance the changing of the consecration words.

No, I think I’ll stick with official Church documents…

Good, then why don’t you start with Vatican II, like the fact that the TLM is much closer to the Mass envisioned by the Second Vatican Council.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Where did you get the definition of heterodox as only applying to a denial of “dogma”?

From the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917:

“He, therefore, is orthodox, whose faith coincides with the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Since heterodoxy is the opposite, what infallible teaching then, do the SSPX, or SSPV, or CMRI reject?

The Encyclopedia also says this:

“That orthodox faith is requisite for salvation is a defined doctrine of the Church.”

Would you imply then that Catholics who go to SSPX Masses are heterodox, and therefore cannot be saved?

Only the Magisterium can label a group or teaching as heterodox, yet Daprato throws the heterodox claim around like we’re throwing out anathemas at Trent They have never called the SSPV, or CMRI heretical or heterodox. Schismatic yes, heterodox no. The SSPX is not in formal schism, but I don’t even want to get in to that.

 

[Sure]

From the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1917:

“He, therefore, is orthodox, whose faith coincides with the teachings of the Catholic Church.”

Since heterodoxy is the opposite, what infallible teaching then, do the SSPX, or SSPV, or CMRI reject?

The Encyclopedia also says this:

“That orthodox faith is requisite for salvation is a defined doctrine of the Church.”

Would you imply then that Catholics who go to SSPX Masses are heterodox, and therefore cannot be saved?

Only the Magisterium can label a group or teaching as heterodox, yet Daprato throws the heterodox claim around like we’re throwing out anathemas at Trent They have never called the SSPV, or CMRI heretical or heterodox. Schismatic yes, heterodox no. The SSPX is not in formal schism, but I don’t even want to get in to that.

I see. Unfortunately the encyclopedia gives no definition for “heterodox”. It seems to me to mean a departure from Catholic doctrine. I think there are many progressives and “radical” traditionalists who are heterodox. I would say that the SSPV and CMRI are certainly heterodox, because they have utterly rejected the authority and even the existence of the Roman Pontiff. The SSPX would be quite borderline as they reject the legitimate authority of canon law, the Pope and his curia (but, we don’t have to go there).

Perhaps we can make a distinction between “heterodox” and “holding heterodox beliefs”

 

[SemperFidelis]

I see. Unfortunately the encyclopedia gives no definition for “heterodox”.

It doesn’t really have to, being that heterodoxy is the exact opposite of orthodoxy.

It seems to me to mean a departure from Catholic doctrine. I think there are many progressives and “radical” traditionalists who are heterodox. I would say that the SSPV and CMRI are certainly heterodox, because they have utterly rejected the authority and even the existence of the Roman Pontiff. The SSPX would be quite borderline as they reject the legitimate authority of canon law, the Pope and his curia (but, we don’t have to go there).

The thing is with sedevacantists, they reject the authority of the Pope, whom they don’t even consider as the Pope. An example: the Eastern Orthodox reject Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility, as well as a slew of other Dogmas, they are heterodox according to Catholic opinion because they reject Church Dogma, on top of being schismatic. Sedes believe in Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility, in fact usually more so than most Catholics. They reject no actual Dogma, which means they can’t be heterodox. Schismatic yes, heterodox no. They recognize the authority of the Pope, they just don’t believe there is one.

P.S. I, in no way shape or form, have or will ever hold to the sedevacantist theory.

 

[Daprato]

IMO, the terms the chart uses aren’t properly defined.

TLM only-is this someone who only believes that the TLM is valid, and rejects the new mass as valid? if so, then I could see believing that they are heterodox…or, if it means someone who will attend at TLM over a NO, well, then I don’t think that’s heterodox

Traditional is also not defined here…nor is progressive. Is it progressive in the sense of wanting to change church teaching, or progressive in terms of non-dogma or such things as what kind of music is sung at mass, etc. Is traditional those who put tradition above all else (including over the bible, the pope, etc) and become heretical? or is it those who prefer the older form of the mass because they feel it gives greater spirtual benefit

Even the disagreement over those people who believe the TLM is “better” is unclear. Does “better” in this case mean more valid? Does it mean of higher spirtual benefit (because even if the eucharist is valid, and equal, that does not mean that other aspects, such as music, forms, etc are equal in the benefits…the TLM has a much richer form of prayers…with many deeper layers of meaning that are not found in the NO)?

Until the groupings are defined, it is difficult to say who is “orthodox” “heterodox”, etc.

I pretty much agree. It’s too bad there really aren’t some widely approved standards when it comes to labels.

The “TLM-only” label was based on my own experiences where I have come into contact with people who contend only the Tridentine Mass is valid. It might well mean something else to others.

I’m not sure what “Tradition” means as used by some people. First, “Tradition” with a capital “T” should stand for Sacred Tradition – not to be confused with the customs, disciplines or traditions of man. Some use the label “Traditional Catholic” as as others properly use “Roman Catholic”, “Byzantine Catholic” or “Greek Catholic”, etc. and that’s quite wrong. While “traditional Catholic” is fine, “Traditional Catholic” sounds more than a bit odd.

“Better” is the wrong word to use when comparing approved forms of the Mass. To suggest the Pauline Mass is “better” than the Tridentine Mass (or vice versa) is simply an ignorant display of one’s own desires. To say one prefers one or the other is fine. But “better?” I think not.

 

[Daprato]

Daprato,

Are you aware that there are entire books written on the subject of which rite is better, as in more faithfully conveys the Catholic faith and lifts one’s heart and mind to God? And they aren’t written by ultratraditionalists. Dietrich von Hildebrand wrote on the very subject (see my signature line) and Pope Pius XII called him a “20th Century Doctor of the Church.” Are you aware of the books published by Ignatius Press, run by Fr. Fessio, that deal with these very questions, like “The Heresy of Formlessness” or “Reform of the Reform?” by Fr. Thomas Kocik?

I have no disagreement that both rites are valid and any traditionalist who maintains that the NO rite is invalid would not only have an argument from me, but also widely read traditionalists like Michael Davies, Dietrich von Hildebrand, Dr. William Marra and others who all maintained the validity of the NO.

What is significant about the Ottaviani Intervention, mentioned above, is it was written by a Cardinal who held the same post as Cardinal Ratzinger. You are free to disagree with his conclusions, but his conclusions are certainly not wrong to hold.

I suppose there are liberals who are orthodox and prefer female dancers, all vernacular Masses, folk songs, married priests etc. These are not heterodox because they believe these things. I would strongly disagree with them, however.

It’s misguided folly to suggest one approved rite of the Mass is “better” than another. It’s also quite ignorant.

The Ottaviani Intervention has always been plagued with intrigue and impacted by politics. Some people say Cardinal Ottaviani had little or nothing to do with its preparation. It’s not something I spend a lot of time studying.

 

[Sure]

It doesn’t really have to, being that heterodoxy is the exact opposite of orthodoxy.

The thing is with sedevacantists, they reject the authority of the Pope, whom they don’t even consider as the Pope. An example: the Eastern Orthodox reject Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility, as well as a slew of other Dogmas, they are heterodox according to Catholic opinion because they reject Church Dogma, on top of being schismatic. Sedes believe in Papal Primacy and Papal Infallibility, in fact usually more so than most Catholics. They reject no actual Dogma, which means they can’t be heterodox. Schismatic yes, heterodox no. They recognize the authority of the Pope, they just don’t believe there is one.

P.S. I, in no way shape or form, have or will ever hold to the sedevacantist theory.

I guess I just don’t agree that heterodox strictly pertains to a rejection of dogma. The dictionary defines it as: “not in accordance with established or accepted doctrines or opinions, esp. in theology; unorthodox.” The word literally means “other opinion”. I would say that perhaps your definition is too narrow. For instance, a priest who thinks that it is permissible to ad-lib certain parts of the Mass (not the consecration) is not “rejecting dogma” but I think we could say he is acting in a "heterodox "manner.

 

[Daprato]

Traditional Catholic is of Course Catholic

So you say. I still have no idea what people mean when they type “Traditional Catholic.”

They probably said this since Christ’s words were changed for the Consecration, i.e. from ‘many’ to ‘all’,laity touching the most Holy Eucharist, etc. This is another debate altogether and should not be rehashed here since it can be viewed on older threads via Search

Are you serious? So now you are not only reading their minds, you are suggesting they are in a position to judge the efficacy of a consecration of the gifts presented at a Mass?

Further you work-in the “laity touching the most Holy Eucharist” out of nowhere as if could possibly impact the validity of the consecration?

C’mon…

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

It’s misguided folly to suggest one approved rite of the Mass is “better” than another. It’s also quite ignorant.

The Ottaviani Intervention has always been plagued with intrigue and impacted by politics. Some people**(and these ‘some people’ obviously lack any credibility or you would have mentioned who they were)** say Cardinal Ottaviani had little or nothing to do (cite your reference for this quote))with its preparation. It’s not something I spend a lot of time studying.(you would do yourself justice and others if you spent more time studying it, since by your own writing you know nothing about it. One should not critique documents without reading them first )

And you speak of misguided folly in the same breath.

 

[Daprato]

I guess I just don’t agree that heterodox strictly pertains to a rejection of dogma. The dictionary defines it as: “not in accordance with established or accepted doctrines or opinions, esp. in theology; unorthodox.” The word literally means “other opinion”. I would say that perhaps your definition is too narrow. For instance, a priest who thinks that it is permissible to ad-lib certain parts of the Mass (not the consecration) is not “rejecting dogma” but I think we could say he is acting in a "heterodox "manner.

You’re absolutely correct. Some people don’t seem to grasp the differences between dogma, doctrine and customs/disciplines.

Anyone ignoring something like the unmarried priesthood (a man-made discipline) would not only be holding a highly heterodox viewpoint, if they were a priest they might well find themselves laicised.

The earlier attempt at differentiating between “liberal” and “progressive” Catholics is also a non-starter – they are the same thing.

 

[Daprato]

…And you speak of misguided folly in the same breath.

Pot/kettle/black.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

So you say. I still have no idea what people mean when they type “Traditional Catholic.”

**AGREED **.

Are you serious? So now you are not only reading their minds, you are suggesting they are in a position to judge the efficacy of a consecration of the gifts presented at a Mass?
LOL and you are who?

Further you work-in the “laity touching the most Holy Eucharist” out of nowhere as if could possibly impact the validity of the consecration? So tell us when can the laity touch the most HOLY Eucharist oh saintly one?
BTW, a word to the wise, you should use the word valid carefully, as many things are valid and yet illicit.

C’mon…

Where is it precisely you want to go?

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Pot/kettle/black.

How did you know I take my Coffee Black? Are you performing your Saintly/Prophet Mind Reading trick again?:hypno:

BTW, the mediocrity in your response here goes without mention, but I mentioned it anyway. So now you can at least try and address the post #50. i.e. who are the ‘some people’ and cite your reference.

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

Pot/kettle/black.]

BTW, the mediocrity in your response here goes without mention, but I mentioned it anyway. So now you can at least try and address to the post #50.

 

[Daprato]

LOL and you are who?

Someone who spoke directly to this group. Someone who was told directly by members of the group that they questioned the validity of the consecration rendered by the Pauline Mass.

So tell us when can the laity touch the most HOLY Eucharist oh saintly one?

Sarcasm aside, the laity are certainly allowed touch the Eucharist when receiving Holy Communion or when licitly performing the duties of an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.

 

[Daprato]

BTW, the mediocrity in your response here goes without mention, but I mentioned it anyway. So now you can at least try and address the post #50. i.e. who are the ‘some people’ and cite your reference.

And your responses are disjointed and add absolutely zero value to the dialog. Worse, they are sarcastic. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Sure]

Let’s get back on point, Ladies and Gentlemen!

 

[Daprato]

Let’s get back on point, Ladies and Gentlemen!

 

[ThereCanBeOnly1]

And your responses are disjointed and add absolutely zero value to the dialog. Worse, they are sarcastic. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Pot/Kettle/Black…

You speak on the Ottaviani Intervention without studying it, It is not I who has Arthritic responses or less than zero value (i.e. negative numbers) in any dialog.

Here is a link to start you off:
fisheaters.com/ottavianiintervention.html
Hopes this helps your confusion.
GOD Bless.