The Catholic Circle: orthodox vs. heterodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter Daprato
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sure said:
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.
Click to expand...
Heretical or not? This is my take on your list, applying the definition “post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith.”

Women should (or can) be priests - heterodox, not heresy.

Mary wasn’t a Virgin - yes, heresy.

Everyone goes to Heaven - not heresy or even heterodox, really.

The Eucharist is only a symbol - yes, heresy.

The community confects the Blessed Sacrament - don’t know what this is but it sounds heretical.

Abortion is morally good - don’t know anyone that believes this but some go as far as morally neutral, most pro-choices are at sometimes allowable. Good and neutral are clearly heretical, I think, although a counter argument can be constructed and sometimes allowable may be heretical also, with the same caveat.

Contraception is morally good. Again, no one really says this but many say morally neutral. I find that heterodoxical, but agree that an argument for heresy can be made.

So part of the problem is that even with a definition agreement on what fits into the definition is tough.
 
Pope_Noah_I said:
Are you saying that the Catholics who cling to the Tradition of the faith are heterodox? BAH!
Click to expand...
the separation of pre and post Vatican II counsel should be reconciled, first by respecting the {Same Spirit of One God in Three Persons] is still in charge.

However, the open claims of heretical actions by Holy Fathers’ --past and Pope Benedict XVI is divisive and damaging to all people of the Church. When our Beloved Pope John Paul II showed respect for the ONE GOD of all people, by respecting their road to “THE ONE GOD” and kissing the Koran–i was horrified to read he was called an heretic by the Latin Mass only element of the Church. Christ said We are all different parts of One Body----I follow the Holy Father, and have no need to see my Latin Mass Only brothers and sisters as more or less part of Our One Body. God have mercy on us all.
 
Labels are useless on this thread. It is not “orthodox vs heterodox” or anything like that. What you have is a wide variance in the church caused by nothing more than the normal variance of people and their opinions in humanity.
 
Sure said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, I don’t think we can all agree that “progressive” means what you indicate. Some of us have been around long enough that “progressive” did not mean someone trying to “reinvent the Church”; as I noted, both JP 2 and enedict 16 were counted as progressives. Some people may not like some of their decisions, but both were true to the 2000 year history of the Magisterium.

The problem we have is in failing to have an agreement on the definition of terms. Failing that leaves any conversation in a state of misunderstandings, as one person means one thing and the other means something different.

“Liberal” or “Conservative” also are too often simply defined as in reference to one’s own position. When some people categorize, for example, JP 2 as liberal, and others insist he was conservative, the problem becomes obvious.

Further complicating the issue is that some people castigate someone in the Church not because they (the one criticized) is not true to the Magisterium, but simply because the one criticized has a postion that the criticizer doesn’t like (and too often is simply not very well informed about). Self anointed “experts” have opinions, but fail to actually back them with legitimate facts. How many times have we seen Catholics criticize someone in the Church with statements taken totally out of context?

JP 2 was certainly “progressive” when he used Personalism and Phenomenology as a means of explaining the sacrament of marriage. I hardly consider that liberal, but it certainly is different than simply falling back on Thomistic or neo-Scholastic philosophy. The results are not only true to the 2000 year history of Church thought about the sacrament, but are also brilliant in their ability to convey to people what the sacrament is all about. Calling that “liberal” is just silliness and misuse of the term, and signifies not much more than that the one so labeling doesn’t like it or doesn’t understand it. Yes, it is different than “how we did it for 500 years”, but different does not make it liberal; it most certainly can be progressive.

The biggest problem of all is that most foks are not taught to think critically - meaning, they do not know how to define terms, think logically, and proceed to a well founded conclusion based on facts. Too many simply think that the term “thinking critically” simply means criticizing something because I don’t like it or don’t understand it.
 
Sure said:
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.
Click to expand...
I would call them immoral. While I am not a confessor, I would call that mortal sin, and would feel that’s something to confess, and something that requires a change of mind on, lest the sin be considered obstinate mortal sin.
 
(cont’d)
Mary wasn’t a Virgin - yes, heresy.
Click to expand...
Correct.
Everyone goes to Heaven - not heresy or even heterodox, really.
Click to expand...
Universalism has been condemned as heresy. I forget the Council, but there is an anathema placed on those who hold this idea.

This is from Dr. Ludwig Ott’s The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
  1. The souls of those who die in the condition of personal grievous sin enter Hell. (de fide)
  2. The punishment of Hell lasts for all eternity. (de fide)
From the Baltimore Catechism:
  1. Who are punished in hell?
Those are punished in hell who die in mortal sin; they are deprived of the vision of God and suffer dreadful torments, especially that of fire, for all eternity.

(a) The souls in hell are beyond all help. They do not belong to the Mystical Body of Christ or to the Communion of Saints. They are not included among our neighbors and are not the objects of charity. They are doomed to the company of the devils for all eternity.

(b) The souls in hell do not have supernatural faith. They believe, however, in the truths revealed by Almighty God, not with divine faith, but because they cannot escape the evidence of God’s authority.

(c) The privation of the beatific vision is called the pain of loss; the torment inflicted by created means on the soul, and on the body after its resurrection, is called the pain of sense.

(d) It is not against God’s mercy to punish souls in hell for eternity. God’s justice demands that He thus punish those who, sinning gravely and refusing to repent, deliberately turn themselves from God, their last end.

(e) The punishment of hell is eternal; Our Lord referred to it as “everlasting fire.”
The Eucharist is only a symbol - yes, heresy.
Click to expand...
Most definitely heresy
The community confects the Blessed Sacrament - don’t know what this is but it sounds heretical.
Click to expand...
This sounds like denial of the Dogma of Transubstantiation, which would make it heretical.
Abortion is morally good - don’t know anyone that believes this but some go as far as morally neutral, most pro-choices are at sometimes allowable. Good and neutral are clearly heretical, I think, although a counter argument can be constructed and sometimes allowable may be heretical also, with the same caveat.
Click to expand...
Contraception is morally good. Again, no one really says this but many say morally neutral. I find that heterodoxical, but agree that an argument for heresy can be made.
Click to expand...
Heresy pertains to Dogma. Morals are not defined Dogmas, but they are nonetheless permanent, and can never be changed. To deny the moral teachings of the Church is not heretical, but it is immoral. As known throughout the history of the Church, unrepented sin leads one to hell. Abortion and artificial contraception have been defined as immoral by the Church.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Labels are useless on this thread. It is not “orthodox vs heterodox” or anything like that. What you have is a wide variance in the church caused by nothing more than the normal variance of people and their opinions in humanity.
Click to expand...
Yes, but some of these “opinions” have been defined as revealed truth, and are required to be believed on pain of mortal sin. Are you saying there is no Dogma?
 
SemperFidelis said:
Universalism has been condemned as heresy. I forget the Council, but there is an anathema placed on those who hold this idea.
Click to expand...
OK, you may be right on women priests, but I’m not sure.

I think we agree on most everything else, except that you say that unchanging moral doctrines are not faith issues and so technically outside of heresy. You may be right on that, again I suffer from lack of good feel for the definitions.

But I don’t think we agree on universalism, although it depends (again) on definition. If you believe that everyone automatically goes to Heaven no matter what they do, that Hell does not exist, that is heresy. But if you believe that everyone can go to heaven (which is certainly true) and believe that even though Hell exists and some can go there nobody really does because they all get saved in the end, that is not heresy, or even heterodox. We don’t know who makes it to heaven, if you want to believe everybody does thats ok, as long you acknowledge that Hell is real and is a real option.
 
otjm said:
No, I don’t think we can all agree that “progressive” means what you indicate. Some of us have been around long enough that “progressive” did not mean someone trying to “reinvent the Church”; as I noted, both JP 2 and enedict 16 were counted as progressives. Some people may not like some of their decisions, but both were true to the 2000 year history of the Magisterium.

The problem we have is in failing to have an agreement on the definition of terms. Failing that leaves any conversation in a state of misunderstandings, as one person means one thing and the other means something different.

“Liberal” or “Conservative” also are too often simply defined as in reference to one’s own position. When some people categorize, for example, JP 2 as liberal, and others insist he was conservative, the problem becomes obvious.

Further complicating the issue is that some people castigate someone in the Church not because they (the one criticized) is not true to the Magisterium, but simply because the one criticized has a postion that the criticizer doesn’t like (and too often is simply not very well informed about). Self anointed “experts” have opinions, but fail to actually back them with legitimate facts. How many times have we seen Catholics criticize someone in the Church with statements taken totally out of context?

JP 2 was certainly “progressive” when he used Personalism and Phenomenology as a means of explaining the sacrament of marriage. I hardly consider that liberal, but it certainly is different than simply falling back on Thomistic or neo-Scholastic philosophy. The results are not only true to the 2000 year history of Church thought about the sacrament, but are also brilliant in their ability to convey to people what the sacrament is all about. Calling that “liberal” is just silliness and misuse of the term, and signifies not much more than that the one so labeling doesn’t like it or doesn’t understand it. Yes, it is different than “how we did it for 500 years”, but different does not make it liberal; it most certainly can be progressive.

The biggest problem of all is that most folks are not taught to think critically - meaning, they do not know how to define terms, think logically, and proceed to a well founded conclusion based on facts. Too many simply think that the term “thinking critically” simply means criticizing something because I don’t like it or don’t understand it.
Click to expand...
Yes!! In my OP you’ll note that I apologized for the use of labels that have no formal and universal definition. Labels mean different things to different people. I will admit however that some of the definitions proffered on this thread really make me wonder.

I could not agree more with you on your comments about critical thinking. There are two things on these forums that especially scream out as being ignorant and arrogant. First the misuse and overuse of catchy and inflammatory terms. I don’t know how many times I have someone use the term “modernist” in a conversation, yet I would bet they have no real idea what modernism is. Same for labels like “liberal” and “progressive” which are often used in such venomous ways.

The other glaring problem is the disuse of logic and reason in favor of emotion, misdirection and ad hominem attacks in an attempt to make one’s point. I think that’s one reason why so many traditionalist-minded Catholics are simply ignored – at least in my limited exposure to them.
 
NewUlm1976_2000 said:
Labels are useless on this thread. It is not “orthodox vs heterodox” or anything like that. What you have is a wide variance in the church caused by nothing more than the normal variance of people and their opinions in humanity.
Click to expand...
No, they are not “useless.” They are a starting point not only for dialog. In time they could be formally defined.

There most certainly is orthodoxy and heterodoxy within the Church. If we follow what the Church teaches and directs, we are orthodox Catholics. It does boil down to that. The more we dissent (be it along the progressive or traditional path) the more we move into the depths of heterdoxy.

In the end, the Church is divinely inspired – it is not a product of the opinions of humanity.
 
TMC said:
OK, you may be right on women priests, but I’m not sure.

I think we agree on most everything else, except that you say that unchanging moral doctrines are not faith issues and so technically outside of heresy. You may be right on that, again I suffer from lack of good feel for the definitions.

But I don’t think we agree on universalism, although it depends (again) on definition. If you believe that everyone automatically goes to Heaven no matter what they do, that Hell does not exist, that is heresy. But if you believe that everyone can go to heaven (which is certainly true) and believe that even though Hell exists and some can go there nobody really does because they all get saved in the end, that is not heresy, or even heterodox. We don’t know who makes it to heaven, if you want to believe everybody does thats ok, as long you acknowledge that Hell is real and is a real option.
Click to expand...
It’s okay to desire that everyone to go heaven. I most certaintly do, but Jesus assured us that that would not be the case.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

IV. HELL
1033 We cannot be united with God unless we freely choose to love him. But we cannot love God if we sin gravely against him, against our neighbor or against ourselves: “He who does not love remains in death. Anyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him.”[610] Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren.[611] To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”

1034 Jesus often speaks of “Gehenna” of “the unquenchable fire” reserved for those who to the end of their lives refuse to believe and be converted, where both soul and body can be lost.[612] Jesus solemnly proclaims that he “will send his angels, and they will gather . . . all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire,”[613] and that he will pronounce the condemnation: “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire!”[614]

1035 The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell, “eternal fire.”[615] The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

1036 The affirmations of Sacred Scripture and the teachings of the Church on the subject of hell are a call to the responsibility incumbent upon man to make use of his freedom in view of his eternal destiny. They are at the same time an urgent call to conversion: **“Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few.”**616] Since we know neither the day nor the hour, we should follow the advice of the Lord and watch constantly so that, when the single course of our earthly life is completed, we may merit to enter with him into the marriage feast and be numbered among the blessed, and not, like the wicked and slothful servants, be ordered to depart into the eternal fire, into the outer darkness where “men will weep and gnash their teeth.”[617]

1037 God predestines no one to go to hell;[618] for this, a willful turning away from God (a mortal sin) is necessary, and persistence in it until the end. In the Eucharistic liturgy and in the daily prayers of her faithful, the Church implores the mercy of God, who does not want “any to perish, but all to come to repentance”:[619] Father, accept this offering from your whole family. Grant us your peace in this life, save us from final damnation, and count us among those you have chosen.[620]
 
(cont’d)

V. THE LAST JUDGMENT
1038 The resurrection of all the dead, “of both the just and the unjust,”[621] will precede the Last Judgment. This will be “the hour when all who are in the tombs will hear [the Son of man’s] voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.”[622] Then Christ will come “in his glory, and all the angels with him … Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left… And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”[623]

1039 In the presence of Christ, who is Truth itself, the truth of each man’s relationship with God will be laid bare.[624] The Last Judgment will reveal even to its furthest consequences the good each person has done or failed to do during his earthly life: All that the wicked do is recorded, and they do not know. When “our God comes, he does not keep silence.”. . . he will turn towards those at his left hand: . . . “I placed my poor little ones on earth for you. I as their head was seated in heaven at the right hand of my Father - but on earth my members were suffering, my members on earth were in need. If you gave anything to my members, what you gave would reach their Head. Would that you had known that my little ones were in need when I placed them on earth for you and appointed them your stewards to bring your good works into my treasury. But you have placed nothing in their hands; therefore you have found nothing in my presence.”[625]

1040 The Last Judgment will come when Christ returns in glory. Only the Father knows the day and the hour; only he determines the moment of its coming. Then through his Son Jesus Christ he will pronounce the final word on all history. We shall know the ultimate meaning of the whole work of creation and of the entire economy of salvation and understand the marvellous ways by which his Providence led everything towards its final end. The Last Judgment will reveal that God’s justice triumphs over all the injustices committed by his creatures and that God’s love is stronger than death.[626]

1041 The message of the Last Judgment calls men to conversion while God is still giving them “the acceptable time, . . . the day of salvation.”[627] It inspires a holy fear of God and commits them to the justice of the Kingdom of God. It proclaims the “blessed hope” of the Lord’s return, when he will come “to be glorified in his saints, and to be marvelled at in all who have believed.”[628]
 
Daprato said:
I think that’s one reason why so many traditionalist-minded Catholics are simply ignored – at least in my limited exposure to them.
Click to expand...
You’d be suprised at the amount of influence the SSPX has in Europe, especially Rome.
 
Daprato said:
The more we dissent (be it along the progressive or traditional path) the more we move into the depths of heterdoxy.
Click to expand...
You still haven’t given me an example of how a Traditional Catholic is heterodox.
 
SemperFidelis said:
You still haven’t given me an example of how a Traditional Catholic is heterodox.
Click to expand...
Is a “Traditional Catholic” as opposed to a traditionally-minded Catholic a new Protestant denomination like the “American Catholic Church?”
 
SemperFidelis said:
Well then you should tell them to read this:

fisheaters.com/syllabus.html

or this:

fisheaters.com/lamentibilisane.html

👍
Click to expand...
While your references are correct, it only serves to prove the point; the word “modernism” or “modernist” is used pejoratively by those who, even if they had read the two documents, could not use the term correctly.

Modernism is a vague term, not one clearly defined, and it is an issue from the late 1800s that traces its lineage back to the Enlightenment and to the French Revolution. There have been any number of “isms” since then, which have nothing particular to do with modernism as a philosophical stance, which have impacted issues in the Church. However, if one is lacking in education in philosophy, it is much easier to sling a term around than it is to engage in critical analysis.

Further, the word is used for people who are operating within the paramters of what the Church allows, but are offending those who feel that things should be done differently; so those who are perfectly within acceptable parameters are painted with a term that really means “I don’t like what you are doing and I think you are wrong”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top