The Catholic Circle: orthodox vs. heterodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daprato
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Daprato said:
“HETERODOXY REQUIRES THE REJECTION OF DOGMA.” <— still not proven. Quite the opposite, actually.
Click to expand...
So says you. Clearly you have a hard time understanding the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
 
Daprato said:
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.
Click to expand...
But wait, what’s your definition of “super-progressive” and “super-traditional”? We’re into “supers” now? Kind of gets annoying doesn’t it?
 
SemperFidelis said:
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?
Click to expand...
Thanks that’s helpful. I still think that heterodoxy is a broader term than just heresy. What do you call someone who ad-libs the liturgy? I don’t think they’re guilty of heresy, but I wouldn’t call them orthodox either. It seems in todays usage, orthodox is one who adheres to the teachings of the Church and heterodox is one who adheres to some, but not all.

To answer your last question:

All are in schism (I know you might not agree).

SSPV and CMRI are also heretical. It seems that to deny that Benedict is Pope is to deny a fundamental truth of the Church, namely that there exists a successor to Peter and his name is Benedict.
 
Sure said:
What do you call someone who ad-libs the liturgy?
Click to expand...
A bad Priest. If his ad-lib contained something heretical, than a heretic.
To answer your last question:
Click to expand...
All are in schism (I know you might not agree).
Click to expand...
SSPV and CMRI are also heretical. It seems that to deny that Benedict is Pope is to deny a fundamental truth of the Church, namely that there exists a successor to Peter and his name is Benedict.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But I still disagree. There is no Church Dogma, that says there will be Popes in perpetuity. The only Dogmas regarding the Pope deal with his Primacy and Infallibility. The sedevacantists do not deny these Dogmas. So still they are rejecting no defined Dogma, hence they cannot possibly be heretics.
 
SemperFidelis said:
A bad Priest. If his ad-lib contained something heretical, than a heretic.

Fair enough. But I still disagree. There is no Church Dogma, that says there will be Popes in perpetuity. The only Dogmas regarding the Pope deal with his Primacy and Infallibility. The sedevacantists do not deny these Dogmas. So still they are rejecting no defined Dogma, hence they cannot possibly be heretics.
Click to expand...
I am talking about if it wasn’t heretical. Just changing words around and some meanings but without introducing anything contrary to the Faith. I would call the priest heterodox.

There is not Dogma, but we could certainly say that the teaching that Pope Benedict is Pope rises to the doctrinal level and to reject it or deny it, is heresy. To deny that abortion is wrong is certainly heretical, but it is not a dogmatic denial. To deny that he is Pope is to deny a fundamental truth of our Faith and a truth that the baptized must believe.
 
Sure said:
I am talking about if it wasn’t heretical. Just changing words around and some meanings but without introducing anything contrary to the Faith. I would call the priest heterodox.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I would just call him a bad priest then.
 
Sure said:
Ok…

What about the denying Pope being heresy deal that I mentioned? Makes sense to me. What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
I believe Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope, you obviously do too. However I don’t see this as Church Dogma. I believe it’s a certainty, but not a Dogma. To be heretical one must deny Dogma. The fact that Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope is not Dogma. Dogmas are defined truths such as Transubstantiation or the Assumption. You have to remember that sedevacantism is a theology, but most assuredly not a certainty, and that they have theologians to quote, most specifically Pope Paul IV. I wouldn’t call them heretical, for the same reason I wouldn’t call Pope Paul IV heretical. Their position seems erroneous to me and to many, but since they reject no actual, defined, Dogma, I just can’t see how they are heretical. I just see them as erroneous schismatics, and one can be erroneous without being heretical.
 
SemperFidelis said:
Actually, it’s you who doesn’t ~ read below.

Not possible. To be a “progressive Catholic” requires one to want to change something that is immutable ie: Dogma. Therefore they are heterodox, all of them.
Click to expand...
Only by your definition. Both John Paul 2 and Benedict 16 were progressives at Vatican 2. And neither one has ever been shown to want to change any dogmas of the Church.
 
SemperFidelis said:
I believe Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope, you obviously do too. However I don’t see this as Church Dogma. I believe it’s a certainty, but not a Dogma. To be heretical one must deny Dogma. The fact that Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope is not Dogma. Dogmas are defined truths such as Transubstantiation or the Assumption. You have to remember that sedevacantism is a theology, but most assuredly not a certainty, and that they have theologians to quote, most specifically Pope Paul IV. I wouldn’t call them heretical, for the same reason I wouldn’t call Pope Paul IV heretical. Their position seems erroneous to me and to many, but since they reject no actual, defined, Dogma, I just can’t see how they are heretical. I just see them as erroneous schismatics, and one can be erroneous without being heretical.
Click to expand...
**Nice said SemperFidelis! 👍 **
 
SemperFidelis said:
I believe Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope, you obviously do too. However I don’t see this as Church Dogma. I believe it’s a certainty, but not a Dogma. To be heretical one must deny Dogma. The fact that Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope is not Dogma. Dogmas are defined truths such as Transubstantiation or the Assumption. You have to remember that sedevacantism is a theology, but most assuredly not a certainty, and that they have theologians to quote, most specifically Pope Paul IV. I wouldn’t call them heretical, for the same reason I wouldn’t call Pope Paul IV heretical. Their position seems erroneous to me and to many, but since they reject no actual, defined, Dogma, I just can’t see how they are heretical. I just see them as erroneous schismatics, and one can be erroneous without being heretical.
Click to expand...
Are we not also bound to hold doctrines of the Church? It seems to me that it is also heretical to deny doctrines of the Church. For instance, to deny that abortion is evil is, well, heretical. Who the Pope is and the fact that there is a Pope are truths with the weight of doctrine and to deny them is heretical.

It seems possible that heretical covers dogma as well as doctrine.
 
Daprato said:
A “Spirit of Vatican II Catholic” might applaud and support the use of “liturgical dance.” It’s been demonstrated on these forums (with some exceptions) that this is wrong.

A TLM-only Catholic might persuade other people to attend SSPX Masses, calling them “better” than the Masses (both Pauline and Tridentine) that are celebrated within the Church. That too is wrong. Terribly wrong.

I have been witness to both – within the past 2 weeks.
Click to expand...
So can I conclude that you are slightly more sympathetic towards the SPirit of Vatican II Catholics? Am I wrong? Or TERRIBLY WRONG?
 
SemperFidelis said:
I believe Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope, you obviously do too. However I don’t see this as Church Dogma. I believe it’s a certainty, but not a Dogma. To be heretical one must deny Dogma. The fact that Pope Benedict XVI is the Pope is not Dogma. Dogmas are defined truths such as Transubstantiation or the Assumption. You have to remember that sedevacantism is a theology, but most assuredly not a certainty, and that they have theologians to quote, most specifically Pope Paul IV. I wouldn’t call them heretical, for the same reason I wouldn’t call Pope Paul IV heretical. Their position seems erroneous to me and to many, but since they reject no actual, defined, Dogma, I just can’t see how they are heretical. I just see them as erroneous schismatics, and one can be erroneous without being heretical.
Click to expand...
This is something I have never really thought through, but I think you are right. I had always kind of equated schism and heresy, but one does not necessarily compel the other - they are simply different things.

I think there is a lot of talking past one another here because of semantics. Too many of these terms are undefined. SF says that progressive means something along the lines of wanting to change some dogma. (see post 23). I always thought that liberals were more heterodox than progressives and thought of progressives as those who want to change some disciplines, and so forth, but not dogmas. The fact that everyong is using different definitions of terms makes meaningful conversations virtually impossible.

All of that said, my feeling is that if you define “heterodox” as anyone who does not agree with every single thing the Church says then most folks are heterodox. But not that many, on either side of the ledger, slide all the way to heretic. I admit to heterodoxy, but I am not a heretic.

I am not sure that, as Sure posits in 95, that disbelieving a doctine makes one heretical. Again this is really definitional problem. Deciding to call that person a heretic does nothing to change the person, it just realigns the labels. But labels can get emotional, which is pretty much the only thing you can tell for sure from this thread. But if heresy is “post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith” then it is pretty narrow, IMO.
 
otjm said:
Only by your definition.
Click to expand...
That was my whole argument, everybody has different definitions because there are no set definitions. By my definition, I just call the Vatican II Fr. Ratzinger, a liberal. A progressive is something far worse in my opinion, and that’s the point, it’s my opinion. Somebody else might disagree because they have there own definitions.
 
SemperFidelis said:
That was my whole argument, everybody has different definitions because there are no set definitions. By my definition, I just call the Vatican II Fr. Ratzinger, a liberal. A progressive is something far worse in my opinion, and that’s the point, it’s my opinion. Somebody else might disagree because they have there own definitions.
Click to expand...
I think we can all agree that a progressive (ie, someone who believes women should be priests, Mary wasn’t a Virgin, everyone goes to Heaven, The Eucharist is only symbolic, The “community” confects the Blessed Sacrament, etc.) is nearly always a heretic.

One thought though…what do we call those people who believe that abortion and contraception are morally good??? I’d like to call them heretics, but from our definitions here, it would appear that we cannot.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top