Author Topic: Heresyincorrect teachings before V-2 Besides... (Read 840 times)

tdrev123 · « **on:** October 04, 2014, 06:55:01 PM »

I want to know if anybody believes that there were heretical teachings or simply wrong teachings from the Catholic Church before V-2 besides BoD/I.I. and NFP and Holy week changes.
I am not saying i personally believe these were heretical or wrong teachings, I believe in BoD for Catechumens and I believe it is a teaching of the church, although it is definitely not part of the dogma. I personally think that there was nothing wrong with what Pius XII said in '51 to the midwives but it is obviously a fallible teaching and it was not directed to the whole church. And the Holy week changes were (obviously) bad, but not heretical.
But what I want to talk about and hear, is what else does anyone believe was a heretical/bad teaching prior to V-2. And I Don't mean from some obscure priest, but either from the Magesterium, Pope, Cardinals, Catechisms, 1917 CoC Law, etc... I would especially like to know if there are anything that certain or all trad priests believe in but someone here doesn't believe in (besides things listed above).

This topic is in the general discussion, not the BoD/Feeneyism, so if anyone wants to respond to me, don't start talking about BoD or NFP because there are plenty of other threads regarding that.

roscoe · « **Reply #1 on:** October 05, 2014, 01:41:13 AM »

edit :smoke-pot:

tdrev123 · « **Reply #2 on:** October 05, 2014, 02:19:23 AM »

Quote from: roscoe

edit :smoke-pot:

I put "Heresy/Incorrect teachings", I am not sure why it deleted the " / "...I am not sure how to change a thread title, if someone can tell me how or Matthew can change it.

clare · « **Reply #3 on:** October 05, 2014, 05:59:33 AM »

Quote from: tdrev123

Quote from: roscoe
edit :smoke-pot:

I put "Heresy/Incorrect teachings", I am not sure why it deleted the " / "...I am not sure how to change a thread title, if someone can tell me how or Matthew can change it.

Punctuation is always automatically removed from thread titles for some reason. Not even apostrophes get through.

Ladislaus · « **Reply #4 on:** October 05, 2014, 06:14:07 AM »

Quote from: tdrev123

I want to know if anybody believes that there were heretical teachings or simply wrong teachings from the Catholic Church before V-2 besides BoD/I.I. and NFP and Holy week changes.
I am not saying i personally believe these were heretical or wrong teachings, I believe in BoD for Catechumens and I believe it is a teaching of the church, although it is definitely not part of the dogma. I personally think that there was nothing wrong with what Pius XII said in '51 to the midwives but it is obviously a fallible teaching and it was not directed to the whole church. And the Holy week changes were (obviously) bad, but not heretical.
But what I want to talk about and hear, is what else does anyone believe was a heretical/bad teaching prior to V-2. And I Don't mean from some obscure priest, but either from the Magesterium, Pope, Cardinals, Catechisms, 1917 CoC Law, etc... I would especially like to know if there are anything that certain or all trad priests believe in but someone here doesn't believe in (besides things listed above).

This topic is in the general discussion, not the BoD/Feeneyism, so if anyone wants to respond to me, don't start talking about BoD or NFP because there are plenty of other threads regarding that.

I pretty much agree with you on your assessment of theological notes, but I do not personally believe in BoD even for catechumens (but that's a side subject) and do believe that NFP is wrong and harmful. We had a handful of negatively bad / harmful non-dogmatic "teachings" (positions / opinions) floating around before Vatican I. I don't think, for instance, that there's anything positively or intrinsically harmful about the Pius XII Holy Week Rites. There really can't be, since this would be protected by the Church's disciplinary infallibility. NFP took place in a non-infallible allocution to the midwives. Again, not any kind of dogmatic definition or teaching, but certainly harmful negatively in having given permission under certain circuмstances for the practice. There was no positive definition of anything, nor was anything made binding. BoD has been allowed or tolerated by the Church, but as you pointed out nowhere positively and dogmatically defined. In fact, you get different explanation of BoD for pretty much anyone who claims to believe in it, so that there is prima facie evidence of its never having been defined.

I would add only one other thing, per your question, namely Pius XII opening the door to evolution; that too was extremely harmful.

So we have some negatively or relatively (vs. positively) harmful things that crept in to the Church over time. And these things led directly to Vatican II. Some of the extreme sedevacantists would say that nothing like that can ever happen, holding a radical view of infallibility, whereas the R&Rers claim that an Ecuмenical Council can lead the entire Church into error and promulgate a Rite of Mass that's intrinsically and positively harmful to the faith and cannot be attended in good conscience by Catholics. As in most things, the truth is somewhere in the middle.

songbird · « **Reply #5 on:** October 05, 2014, 07:13:43 PM »

I have one question: Vatican 1, read some where, that it was not finished. If that is the case, what needed to be done to finish it? Vatican 1 covered infallibility and BOD. BOD was also brought up in Council of Trent. There is no definition that I can find. It was said that there are 2 different infallibilities, one being ex cathedra (solemn) and ordinary/universal. The later is to mean that if some opinion or theology of a matter was brought up over the 2000 years of the church, like BOD, then it becomes infallible teaching, therefore doctrine. That was knew for me to learn just last week. So, now, is this why BOD has no definition? or maybe Vat. 1 would have taken it further? If Vatican 1 was not finished(?) why was it not finished.

Was there errors before Vat. 1? Pope Leo XIII thought so, called "Americanism". What was floating in the USA was to be sure religion was to be tolerated. Bishop Carroll our lst Bishop was to back this scheme. In 1940's the pope (Pius XII) put such a letter out to the USA, to warn against it and there were clergy already hoping not to see the letter. So, the USA has had hanky-panky.

When Fr. Leblanc was with us, books were mailed to him to store. One I did see with a picture of a new order mass (mess) in 1940 in Missouri or Minnesota, can't recall. So, the USA has pretty much set herself up, thanks to masons, infiltrators to see that the USA would tolerate religions. Won't work!! But I am sure the Muslims are liking it.

InfiniteFaith · « **Reply #6 on:** October 06, 2014, 10:35:08 AM »

Quote from: tdrev123

I want to know if anybody believes that there were heretical teachings or simply wrong teachings from the Catholic Church before V-2 besides BoD/I.I. and NFP and Holy week changes.
I am not saying i personally believe these were heretical or wrong teachings, I believe in BoD for Catechumens and I believe it is a teaching of the church, although it is definitely not part of the dogma. I personally think that there was nothing wrong with what Pius XII said in '51 to the midwives but it is obviously a fallible teaching and it was not directed to the whole church. And the Holy week changes were (obviously) bad, but not heretical.
But what I want to talk about and hear, is what else does anyone believe was a heretical/bad teaching prior to V-2. And I Don't mean from some obscure priest, but either from the Magesterium, Pope, Cardinals, Catechisms, 1917 CoC Law, etc... I would especially like to know if there are anything that certain or all trad priests believe in but someone here doesn't believe in (besides things listed above).

This topic is in the general discussion, not the BoD/Feeneyism, so if anyone wants to respond to me, don't start talking about BoD or NFP because there are plenty of other threads regarding that.

I will say that there has been one teaching in the SSPX that has left me sort of baffled. I have yet to see the explanation behind it.

The SSPX teaches that if you commit a sinful act without realizing that it was sinful then you are not culpable at all.

But scripture teaches...

[Luke 12:48]- "But he that knew not, and did things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes."

There is probably an explanation for all of this somewhere, but I have yet to see it.