The Catholic Circle: orthodox vs. heterodox

[SemperFidelis]

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

Who here doesn’t know the difference between Dogma and customs/disciplines? Show me one post where someone said a discipline was a Dogma?

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.

While I am in favor of the unmarried priesthood, as is the Church, it is not heterodox to say otherwise. HETERODOXY REQUIRES THE REJECTION OF DOGMA. It seems YOU are the one confusing Dogma and customs. Try reading Denzinger or The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Dr. Ludwig Ott.

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

In whose opinion? Yours? I personally see YOUR reasoning as a non-starter. There is no set definition here, so no one is right. If there is a set definition, show me. Like always, you have no substance to back up your ridiculous claims. Also once again you have failed to answer my questions or respond to my posts. You think maybe perhaps you’re chart is a little stupid?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

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.

The original issuance of the Ottaviani Intervention was not plagued by intrigue. The prefatory letter to the Pope was signed by Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci and was prepared by them and a group of Roman theologians. As I said, you may disagree with their conclusions, but I don’t think their arguments (or the fact that they made them) can be characterized as misguided folly or ignorant. That assertion would be laughable. Here is a link to it:

fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1969ottoviani.html

And if anyone wants to read Dietrich von Hildebrand’s arguments below and think he is misguided and ignorant in his assertions—be my guest. The same would go with any other article or book I have mentioned. I am getting the idea that you are not particularly well read in this area.

Further, I wish I could say the New Mass was better. Obviously, you don’t reform something unless you intend to make it better.

God bless.

 

[Daprato]

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.

I have read the TAN edition of that work. No matter what, it does not take precedence over what the Church *actually *teaches. Your response thus far have been rather empty and in some cases sarcastic. I’m not sure about the reasons for that, but it in no way helps to make your point.

 

[Daprato]

The original issuance of the Ottaviani Intervention was not plagued by intrigue. The prefatory letter to the Pope was signed by Cardinal Ottaviani and Cardinal Bacci and was prepared by them and a group of Roman theologians. As I said, you may disagree with their conclusions, but I don’t think their arguments (or the fact that they made them) can be characterized as misguided folly or ignorant. That assertion would be laughable. Here is a link to it:

fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1969ottoviani.html

And if anyone wants to read Dietrich von Hildebrand’s arguments below and think he is misguided and ignorant in his assertions—be my guest. The same would go with any other article or book I have mentioned. I am getting the idea that you are not particularly well read in this area.

Further, I wish I could say the New Mass was better. Obviously, you don’t reform something unless you intend to make it better.

God bless.

It most certainly is misguided folly to suggest one approved form of the Mass is “better” than another approved form of the Mass.

Think about that for a moment. If we agree with what some people on these forums assert, it amounts to God through His Church chose to give us a Mass that was somehow inferior to an earlier version. That’s hardcore wrong.

Certainly people prefer one over another and there is no problem with that. But to suggest one is “better” than another is ridiculous – not to mention erroneous.

 

[Sure]

HETERODOXY REQUIRES THE REJECTION OF DOGMA.

Semper,

I am still looking for a reference for your definition. As I mentioned a few posts back, your definition seems a bit narrow.

Do you have any references from texts that define heterodox that way? I mean besides the encyclopedia reference which itself does not restrict it to the rejection of dogma.

Thanks

 

[Daprato]

…HETERODOXY REQUIRES THE REJECTION OF DOGMA. It seems YOU are the one confusing Dogma and customs. Try reading Denzinger or The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, by Dr. Ludwig Ott…

Your nasty ad hominem attacks aside, I have both references you mentioned right here on my desk. Please give me paragraph numbers for both references that state: “HETERODOXY REQUIRES THE REJECTION OF DOGMA.” Thanks.

 

[Daprato]

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…

Your self-derived definition is wrong. It’s simply not backed-up by practice.

Some of the very people who consider themselves to be most “Traditional” (sic) are also some of the most heterodox. Many seem to think they know “better” than what the Church actually teaches…

 

[SemperFidelis]

Semper,

I am still looking for a reference for your definition. As I mentioned a few posts back, your definition seems a bit narrow.

Do you have any references from texts that define heterodox that way? I mean besides the encyclopedia reference which itself does not restrict it to the rejection of dogma.

Thanks

Your own post in number 48 says it:

“not in accordance with established or accepted doctrines or opinions, esp. in theology; unorthodox.”

I highlight doctrines, because it could clearly mean Dogma in the Catholic sense, since the definition was clearly a general religous refererance. Unorthodox is the same as heterodox. Orthodox translated from the Greek = “correct teaching.” Now I ask again, what Dogma do the SSPX, SSPV, or CMRI reject or hold that is contrary to Dogma? You claim they’re heterodox, but how?

This is from Fr. John Hardon’s Pocket Catholic Dictionary:

ORTHODOXY. Right belief as compared with heterodoxy or heresy. The term is used in the East to identify those churches (not united with Rome) which accepted the ancient councils, notably Ephesus and Chalcedon, and which call themselves “the holy, orthodox, catholic, Eastern Church.” In the West the word is sometimes used to describe a justifiable concern for sound doctrine in the Catholic faith. (Etym. Greek orthos, right + doksa, opinion: orthodoksa, having the right opinion.)

www.wordwebonline.com defines heterodoxy as this:

Characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards

• dissident, heretical, unorthodox

The definition is clear. Where have the above mentioned groups departed from Catholic teaching?

 

[Brennan_Doherty]

It most certainly is misguided folly to suggest one approved form of the Mass is “better” than another approved form of the Mass.

Think about that for a moment. If we agree with what some people on these forums assert, it amounts to God through His Church chose to give us a Mass that was somehow inferior to an earlier version. That’s hardcore wrong.

Certainly people prefer one over another and there is no problem with that. But to suggest one is “better” than another is ridiculous – not to mention erroneous.

The liturgical committee which produced the New Mass was not dictated to by God. There is no grace of infallibility which applies to liturgical changes. One could argue that God would not allow an invalid Mass, but since the two Masses are not exactly the same (to say the least) it only makes sense that one is going to be better than another even though both are valid.

What follows is an excerpt I have quoted before by Dietrich von Hildebrand, from an essay entitled: “Belief and Obedience: The Critical Difference”:

"Our belief in the teachings of the Church de fide must be an absolute and unconditional one, but we should not imagine that our fidelity to the Church’s theoretical authority is satisfied merely by acceptance of ex cathedra pronouncements. We also must adhere wholeheartedly to teachings of the Church in matters of morality, even if they are not defined ex cathedra. The teaching of the encyclical Humanae Vitae, for example, is binding because its content has always been part of the teaching of the Church; in it we are confronted with the theoretical authority of the Church embodied in the tradition of the ordinary magisterium. It is not a mere practical commandment of the Church, like the commandment to go to church on Sunday. It is a statement about a moral fact; that is, it states a truth: that birth control is sinful. It is forbidden not because of the Pope’s policy, but because the theoretical authority of the Church declares its sinfulness. Here, as in all cases of a teaching of the theoretical authority, the old maxim applies: Roma locuta: causa finita.

The situation is different when positive commandments of the Church, practical decisions, are at stake. Here we are not faced with the infallible Church. While we must obey such decisions and submit to them in reverence and deep respect, we need not consider them felicitous or prudent. Here the maxim Roma locuta: causa finita does not apply. If we are convinced that any practical change or decision is objectively unfortunate, noxious, compromising, imprudent, or unjust, we are permitted to pray that it may be revoked, to write in a respectful manner about the topic, to direct petitions for a change of it to the Holy Father–to attempt, in a variety of ways, to influence a reversal of the decision.

…The point, of course, is that obedience to the practical disciplinary decisions of the pope does not always imply approval of them. When such a decision has the character of compromise or is the result of pressure or the weakness of the individual person of the pope, we cannot and should not say: Roma locuta: causa finita. That is, we cannot see in it the will of God; we must recognize that God only permits it, just as He has permitted the unworthiness or weakness of several popes in the history of the Church.

…Nor can I conceal–and here we are returning to the point from which we started–the fact that the new Missale Romanum seems to me an incomparably greater mistake than that Concordat [with Hitler’s Germany]. I share the view of the great, venerable Cardinal Ottoviani–a true rock of orthodoxy–and of the group of Roman theologians who authored a critical study of the “new” Mass for Cardinal Ottoviani, that this liturgical innovation implies a contrast, at least by omission, with the de fide canons of the Council of Trent about the Mass. ["]http://www.latin-mass-society.org/study.htm]("http://www.latin-mass-society.org/study.htm)].

On account of my deep love for and devotion to the Church, it is a special cross for me not to be able to welcome every practical decision of the Holy See, particularly in a time like ours, which is witnessing a crumbling of the spirit of obedience and of respect for the Holy Father.

 

[Daprato]

See, this is where your entire thread fails. You fail to define your terms such as “progressive Catholic.” A Catholic you describe above, I would just term liberal. I see a “progressive Catholic” as someone who wants say the ordination of women.

I have never seen a distinction between the terms “liberal” and “progressive” when it comes to describing certain Catholics. While the Church has not formally defined either term (nor has it defined what a “Traditional Catholic” is), “progressive” and “liberal” are synonymous when used to colloquially describe Catholics.

I reject your personal definition.

 

[SemperFidelis]

Your self-derived definition is wrong. It’s simply not backed-up by practice.

Read above.

Some of the very people who consider themselves to be most “Traditional” (sic) are also some of the most heterodox.

HOW? I have asked this time and again and you never answered me. How is a “Traditional” Catholic heterodox? Point to one fact that says they are heterodox. You seem to have a clear disdain for anyone who considers themselves a Traditional Catholic. If that’s your stance, they why are you even posting in the Traditional Catholicism forum? You post a chart in the Traditional Catholicism forum calling Traditional Catholics heterodox. Your motives are apparent. There are countless points on this very thread that you have failed to refute or answer. It is apparent that you have few answers.

 

[Daprato]

Your own post in number 48 says it:

“not in accordance with established or accepted doctrines or opinions, esp. in theology; unorthodox.”

I highlight doctrines, because it could clearly mean Dogma in the Catholic sense, since the definition was clearly a general religous refererance. Unorthodox is the same as heterodox. Orthodox translated from the Greek = “correct teaching.” Now I ask again, what Dogma do the SSPX, SSPV, or CMRI reject or hold that is contrary to Dogma? You claim they’re heterodox, but how?

This is from Fr. John Hardon’s Pocket Catholic Dictionary:

ORTHODOXY. Right belief as compared with heterodoxy or heresy. The term is used in the East to identify those churches (not united with Rome) which accepted the ancient councils, notably Ephesus and Chalcedon, and which call themselves “the holy, orthodox, catholic, Eastern Church.” In the West the word is sometimes used to describe a justifiable concern for sound doctrine in the Catholic faith. (Etym. Greek orthos, right + doksa, opinion: orthodoksa, having the right opinion.)

www.wordwebonline.com defines heterodoxy as this:

Characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards

• dissident, heretical, unorthodox

The definition is clear. Where have the above mentioned groups departed from Catholic teaching?

Doctrine is not dogma. Not all “accepted beliefs or standards” are dogmatic. The above does nothing to assertion your personal opinion of:

“HETERODOXY REQUIRES THE REJECTION OF DOGMA.”

In fact, it strongly suggests the contrary…

 

[SemperFidelis]

I have never seen a distinction between the terms “liberal” and “progressive” when it comes to describing certain Catholics. While the Church has not formally defined either term (nor has it defined what a “Traditional Catholic” is), “progressive” and “liberal” are synonymous when used to colloquially describe Catholics.

And that is why this thread fails, as I have pointed out several times.

I reject your personal definition.

And I reject your personal definition, and who’s to argue with me, because their is no set definition. That is why this thread is completely and utterly stupid. This whole thread is based off of your personal definitions, definitions that only you hold. When others don’t hold them, you resort to ad hominems and claim their definitions are incorrect. Well likewise. I remember something about a pot and a kettle and the color black…

 

[Sure]

Your own post in number 48 says it:

“not in accordance with established or accepted doctrines or opinions, esp. in theology; unorthodox.”

I highlight doctrines, because it could clearly mean Dogma in the Catholic sense, since the definition was clearly a general religous refererance. Unorthodox is the same as heterodox. Orthodox translated from the Greek = “correct teaching.” Now I ask again, what Dogma do the SSPX, SSPV, or CMRI reject or hold that is contrary to Dogma? You claim they’re heterodox, but how?

This is from Fr. John Hardon’s Pocket Catholic Dictionary:

ORTHODOXY. Right belief as compared with heterodoxy or heresy. The term is used in the East to identify those churches (not united with Rome) which accepted the ancient councils, notably Ephesus and Chalcedon, and which call themselves “the holy, orthodox, catholic, Eastern Church.” In the West the word is sometimes used to describe a justifiable concern for sound doctrine in the Catholic faith. (Etym. Greek orthos, right + doksa, opinion: orthodoksa, having the right opinion.)

www.wordwebonline.com defines heterodoxy as this:

Characterized by departure from accepted beliefs or standards

• dissident, heretical, unorthodox

The definition is clear. Where have the above mentioned groups departed from Catholic teaching?

So, it seems to include more than just dogma, if it also mentions accepted beliefs or standards. I would say that the SSPV and CMRI don’t accept the “accepted belief or standard” that there is a Pope. It would certainly be acceptable to say that the Church teaches that there is a Pope and his name is Benedict XVI. If one rejects that declaration by the Church, then one is not “in accord with accepted doctrines or opinions.” That makes them heterodox.

What of the example I gave of the priest who decides to adlib? I would call that heterodox. You would not?

 

[Daprato]

Read above.

HOW? I have asked this time and again and you never answered me. How is a “Traditional” Catholic heterodox? Point to one fact that says they are heterodox. **You seem to have a clear disdain for anyone who considers themselves a Traditional Catholic. ** If that’s your stance, they why are you even posting in the Traditional Catholicism forum? You post a chart in the Traditional Catholicism forum calling Traditional Catholics heterodox. Your motives are apparent. There are countless points on this very thread that you have failed to refute or answer. It is apparent that you have few answers.

I still have no idea what a “Traditional Catholic” is. I consider myself to be very orthodox and I embrace everything the Church teaches and instructs.

My personal tastes run strongly towards formality and solemnity when it comes to the liturgy, but I am always guided by what the Church instructs and teaches – not what I feel might be “better.”

 

[TMC]

Perhaps some of the heat comes from the fact that you drew a circle – although I know that was the point. I see it more as a straight line with “Catholic Christian” in the middle and TLM-only’s on one end and whatever you want to call the super-liberals on the other.

Its not secret that I drift towards the progressive side. Maybe far enough to be heterodox, I guess. On the Traditional side, I would say that a Catholic that prefers the TLM, even to the point of refusing to attend NO, is getting up there around the circle but is not heterodox yet. Anyone that says the NO is not a licit Mass, or that NO consecrations are not valid is definitely heterodox, I think.

No need to get so worked up about it. Lots of good people have been heterodox through the centuries. If it is troubling one can always “orth-up” but swinging back around the circle.

 

[SemperFidelis]

So, it seems to include more than just dogma, if it also mentions accepted beliefs or standards. I would say that the SSPV and CMRI don’t accept the “accepted belief or standard” that there is a Pope. It would certainly be acceptable to say that the Church teaches that there is a Pope and his name is Benedict XVI. If one rejects that declaration by the Church, then one is not “in accord with accepted doctrines or opinions.” That makes them heterodox.

What of the example I gave of the priest who decides to adlib? I would call that heterodox. You would not?

Here’s the CCC’s definition of heresy, apostasy, and schism:

2089 ~ “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Here is the CCC’s definition of Dogma:

88 The Church’s Magisterium exercises the authority it holds from Christ to the fullest extent when it defines dogmas, that is, when it proposes truths contained in divine Revelation or also when it proposes in a definitive way truths having a necessary connection with them.

Those two bolded parts read very similiar. The definition for heresy, sounds just like the opposite of Fr. Hardon’s (not to mention my other definitions) definition of orthodoxy. It also seems that in Fr. Hardon’s definition he uses heterodoxy and heresy to mean the same thing. To me it seems pretty obvious that heresy = heterodoxy. Since heresy = the denial of Dogma, heterodoxy = the denial of Dogma. Come on fellas, it’s not that hard.

So, Sure, which one of these three (heresy, apostasy, or schism do you think applies to the SSPX, SSPV, or CMRI?

 

[SemperFidelis]

I still have no idea what a “Traditional Catholic” is.

Since there is no actual definition, I have given you my definition. If you don’t like my defintion, then too bad. The fact is that many Catholics identify themselves as Traditional Catholics, not to mention you’re on a forum that has that very name. That’s just something you’ll have to deal with, regardless if you can understand the term or not. I thought you could think in a clear and cognent manner. Well this isn’t that hard.

I consider myself to be very orthodox and I embrace everything the Church teaches and instructs.

Good for you…

My personal tastes run strongly towards formality and solemnity when it comes to the liturgy, but I am always guided by what the Church instructs and teaches – not what I feel might be “better.”

And the Church gave instructions on the liturgy in Vatican II. The TLM is far closer than the NO to those instructions, so yes I follow those instructions too.

 

[Daprato]

Perhaps some of the heat comes from the fact that you drew a circle – although I know that was the point. I see it more as a straight line with “Catholic Christian” in the middle and TLM-only’s on one end and whatever you want to call the super-liberals on the other.

That’s the whole point. Super-progressive and super-traditional Catholics are far more alike than unalike. Some people think the are polar opposites, when in fact they seem to almost converge.

No need to get so worked up about it. Lots of good people have been heterodox through the centuries. If it is troubling one can always “orth-up” but swinging back around the circle.

True enough…

 

[Daprato]

“HETERODOXY REQUIRES THE REJECTION OF DOGMA.” <— still not proven. Quite the opposite, actually.