Question about Heresy


Hello all,

Before you read this, please know that non of this is meant to be insulting…okay…if I don’t ask the questions, then I’ll never find the answers.

I belong to a church in which we label ourselves as “traditionalist”. I am fairly new to the Catholic faith, and am still learning. I would really like to visit other churches, mingle with other Catholics, and find someone in my age group to associate with, as there is no one at the church that I attend.

My priest says that to attend another church and to associate myself with “modernist” is heresy…because since they have given in to the sin of modernism, they are not true Catholics. I don’t necessarily agree with this, but I can’t defy the priest.

Here is a list of what we believe as “traditionalist”, verses what “modernist” believe.

Traditionalist: All unbaptized babies, even those aborted, go to limbo and will never see the face of God.

Modernist: Babies, especially those aborted have no sin, therefor they go strait to Heaven when they die.

The problem is(according to what I’ve been taught)…if aborted babies went strait to Heaven, then abortion wouldn’t be smiled upon by Satan, who’s desire is that non of us go to Heaven. Satan likes abortion, because those aborted do not get into Heaven.

Traditionalist: The Latin Mass is the ONLY true Mass, because Latin is a “dead language”. Anything else is sinful, because words of “living languages” are constantly changing it’s meaning of words, and the words in the Mass were never meant to be changed.

Modernist: The Mass needs to be spoken in a language that the people can understand.

Traditionalist: The priest conducts Mass with his back turned to the congregation, so that his full attention is at the alter in adoration of Christ.

Modernist: The priest faces the people, so that he can see them, and they can see him. In a way, the priest glorifies himself.

Traditionalist: Women must have their hair covered while in the sanctuary, wear dresses or skirts that go past their knees.

Modernist: Women feel that covering their hair makes them second-class citizens and refuse to do it, and they can wear pants if they choose to.

Traditionalist: Women are never to act as servers during Mass.

Modernist: Women can be servers, and even read scriptures.

Personally, I feel that if there is a change which brings people to God, then it is a change worth making. But as a “traditionalist” I am suppose to believe that it is a sin to change the old laws and the old order of things. Supposedly, Bishops of the past made rules that it is a sin to change the old laws.

What do you all think?


Are you sure the church you are going to is in communion with Rome?


I am hardly an expert on traditionalism/Vatican II stuff, but here’s my two cents.

While I can see a problem with a “modern” parish that abuses the Mass, it seems strange to me that one would condemn all non-Latin masses everywhere, when the Church seems to permit it.

Don’t get me wrong: I sympathize with much of what your priest says here (facing the altar, etc.) But I am uncertain if he can separate you from the rest of the Church like that. It seems strange to me.

As an aside, it is my understanding that the original Masses were not in Latin, but (I think) Greek. I could be wrong on that one though.


Hi Cure,

You need to look into your church and your “priest”. The terms traditionalist and moderist tend to be used by churches that separted from Rome due to Vatican II disagreements. These churches are in heresy. They are openly not following the magisterium of the Catholic Church ( and even believe that we have not had a pope since before Vatican II).

The term orthodox “little o” is often used for Catholics that hold more “concervative views” (sometimes viewed as traditional) but are in full accord with the magisterium of the church. People that hold orthodox views often are at odds with “liberals”. Liberals tend to hold views that are contrary to Rome (i.e. fornication is not a sin, contraception is ok, whats wrong with abortion).

Personally, I would search for a church with a priest that holds orthodox views, and stay FAR away from “traditionalists”, and “liberals”.

– Cadian :knight1:


This is off topic, but I think what the devil likes about abortion is that it is murder and that it causes turmoil in the lives of those involved and causes a tailspin of sin. The evil one likes to see people sin and have those sins multiply upon themselves.


Welcome to CAF and the Church!

I echo the previous comments. It sounds like your parish is not in communion with Rome.

Just for starters: Limbo for babies is not a teaching of the Catholic Church; at some point it was a theological speculation by certain theologians, but the Church never taught that it was true. The Church doesn’t teach that aborted babies go to Hell, but it doesn’t teach that they go to Heaven, either; it teaches that we entrust their souls to a merciful God, but we don’t know exactly how He handles it. Mass is not required to be in Latin; indeed, the first Masses were in Hebrew or Aramaic, then Greek. Latin came later – so, if “the words in the Mass were never meant to be changed,” then Latin is just as incorrect as English. Everyone here, traditionalist and non-traditionalist alike, will agree that there’s nothing sinful in celebrating the Mass in a vernacular language.

It goes on and on . . . .

I would be interested to know what your pastor thinks of Popes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI. If he says that they aren’t really popes, then you have your answer: he isn’t in communion with Rome, and you’re in a schismatic (probably sedevacantist) parish. If he says that they are popes, but he doesn’t have to follow what they say, then he’s in disobedience to Rome. If he says he obeys them but only to a point, then he’s a cafeteria Catholic – only choosing to believe in what he likes.


Cure if you are a Catholic you are member of a Diocese and you are under the teaching authority of a specific Bishop. Please make sure that the Church that you attend and the priest that you talk to are under the authority of that Bishop. If they are not then you might be member of a community of faith that is not in full communion with Pope.

Just because a priest was ordained in a valid manner, that does not imply that what he is doing is not sinful and heretical. For example stating that the Latin Mass is the only true Mass is wrong and at best is a sign of ignorance of the priest’s side.

BTW your priest is absolutely correct in condemning Modernism and claiming that it is heretical. However, I think that he might be wrong with some of his understanding of Modernism.


While we are required to show submission to our priests, we are not required to submit to their leading us into rebellion against Rome. Many of the things your priest has said are directly contradictory to the teaching of the head of all priests in Rome.

We don’t have an official Church teaching on what happens to babies when they die in the womb. St. Augustine thought they all went to Hell. Some Medieval Fathers and popes thought they went to Limbo. This was a common Medieval view. Many Catholics today think babies that die in the womb go to Heaven. But there was no official teaching on it. It was a matter of theory and conjecture. The official Church position on this matter is “we assign them to the mercy of God.” We don’t know.

The Modernist and the Traditionalist would both be wrong, in this case. If the Mass “needs” to be spoken in a language people understand, then Rome would not still have the Latin Mass performed in many parishes worldwide. On the other hand, if this Traditionalist view (which doesn’t speak for all Traditionalists, I might add) is right that the Latin Mass is the only true Mass, then Rome is wrong in allowing the Mass to be spoken in many languages. But Rome has the power and jurisdiction, given it by Christ Himself to Peter in the form of the Keys, to authorize the use of many languages to spread the truth. Rome says that both the Latin Mass and the multiple languages Masses are good, holy and true. Bottom line: Rome is right, and anyone who fights her is wrong.

“On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

These changes, called Modernism by this Traditionalist perspective, are all authorized by Rome.

The Vatican, in union with all the bishops in ecumenical council, cannot command people to commit what is sin. Therefore none of these commands, here labeled “modernist” are sin. In fact, the nature of Modernism is disunion with Rome and rejection of infallible teaching. Modernism is sinful, but the Vatican Council did not implement Modernism. It made changes on non-infallible matters in order to draw her separated brothers and sisters back to herself. Yet parishes are still allowed to maintain the traditional Latin Mass and old customs. This is certainly not forbidden. But many important changes have been made to make the Church more available to hungry souls outside of her fold. Rome has the authority to make those changes, and those who disagree with them must still submit to them.

God bless you and your parish :).


If all you state is true, you are not in a church that is in communion with Rome. Resisting accepted and approved practices to the point of defiance and threatening parish members who want to visit another parish are not good signs. If I were you, I would find another parish where the priest DOES accept the policies of Rome and Bishops. Contact your diocese, I’m sure they can direct you to one nearby.

This, for example, is NOT Catholic Church teaching:

Traditionalist: All unbaptized babies, even those aborted, go to limbo and will never see the face of God

This IS Catholic Church teaching: (CCC 1261, last sentence left off for brevity)
As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism.

So you are already getting incorrect teaching. Time to find the truth.


<<Traditionalist: The Latin Mass is the ONLY true Mass, because Latin is a “dead language”. Anything else is sinful, because words of “living languages” are constantly changing it’s meaning of words, and the words in the Mass were never meant to be changed.>>

Obviously, this priest knows absolutely nothing about the Eastern Catholic Churches, or even that the Tridentine Mass was celebrated in Slavonic and even Chinese for centuries before Vatican II.

This alone says a lot about his formation and education.

Which strongly indicates he is NOT in communion with the Catholic Church but is a sedevacantist, and therefore not Catholic himself.


Cure, it sounds very much as if you have been deceived into joining a parish that is not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. I strongly recommend that you go to the website for your archdiocese and check to see if your parish is listed. If not, choose one that is listed on the website that appeals to you and go see the pastor. Explain the whole story of your conversion (including where you belong now) to the Catholic faith and see if anything needs to be rectified to make you part of the Church.



Cure I can appreciate where you’re at and that “tugging” perhaps you feel, something just ain’t right…what I did that helped me was to begin to learn the catechism of the Catholic church…it costs 10.00. Another decision I made and followed through on if it is not aligned with the Pope I’m not going there.

I also did lots of thinking & praying for the truth. One of the tactics that I figured out that kept me was that terror & fear that I was going to hell if I did anything against the cult I was in and I’m not saying you’re in a cult, but I believe the teachings I followed is a cult and they call themselves catholic and they were not against the Pope but I don’t know if that has changed (btw I’m not talking about SSPX) But today, I do stay away from any fringe groups. So in esscence I have come to the conclusion if they need fear, terror and to get one to isolate oneself from others…because they are in “error” or heretics…in order to convey a message then they are not of God. It took me almost 20 years to walk through all the confusion and I’m still not completely free.
I hope you don’t have to go through the same thing.


Thank you all so very much for your words of wisdom, and your information.



You are correct! “You shall know them by their fruits” This is something the New Church will not admit to, along with the fact that the majority of schism, heresy, and dissent comes from our Catholic Bishops and Catholics who have bent the one true faith into their own relativism. One only needs to look at the Church to see there is a CRISIS! A crisis in Liturgy, faith and leadership. Archbishop Lefebrve saw this coming years ago and did what was necessary to save Tradition in the Church. God saw fit to bless this action with 600 priests and over 500,000 faithful. Now our Holy Father is beginning to see the truth and the need to re-embrace tradition. This will come! It will be slow but, God will not let the gates of Hell prevail against His Church! Unless you understand the depth of dissent that penetrates the entire leadership of the Hierarchy, and how desperately they will fight to keep it, you will not be able to understand their condemnation of Tradition.

I pray you will purchase, at your Chapel, “My Catholic Faith” The Catechism of 1958.
Read it cover to cover and you will know your faith. (This book has been banned in my Diocese, by my Bishop!!)


Please provide evidence of such a statement!


I’m not sure what your looking for evidence of.
If you’re referring to the book “My Catholic Faith”, my very dear friend who
is in charge of religious ed. for her parish, was shown a training video from the the Diocese
a few years ago. The first slide had a photo of the book with a big red circle and
line through it. The narrator said do NOT use this book it is no longer timely!

The parish I am in also has many Liturgical abuses such as standing after receiving communion, the Confetior being removed from Mass, all directed by the local Bishop.

To protect my friend who still teaches, I will not disclose the Diocese. She has locked the Diocese text up and is teaching the truth!

If you seriously don’t think there is a CRISIS in the Church, you do NOT know your faith.


So you are just quoting hearsay about a book that is not banned but that should not be used at this point in time. After that you are adding red herrings to the discussion.


Dear Cristiano,

You may choose to believe me or not. I have no reason to lie.
This book is what I teach my children with. Everything in it is in the CCC.
Why my Bishop refuses to allow it is probably why he refuses to allow
speakers like Fr. John Corapi, and also stated in our local newspaper:
“This Diocese is not a branch of the Vatican”.

You may live in a Diocese where all is well, but you are in the minority.

BTW, in my opinion, “CURE” will find more truly faithful in the SSPX than in his
local Diocese. I have seen it. If the SSPX is so EVIL why is Pope Benedict
re-embracing them??

God bless you on your faith journey.


I am not debating against any of the points that you bring up. I also use that same book to teach my child and I use it as a reference for my Sunday classes.

My point is that your comments were introducing hearsay and the red herrings were moving the topic away from the initial discussion. This is counterproductive to the cause of addressing departure from orthodoxy in the Church.

If we want to ensure that the confused people will follow the right path, we must understand that rants and generalizations on anecdotal evidence will present us as a bunch of hotheads that just want to stick to something because we like it and not because it is the right thing to do in obedience to the Church.

I think that you understand what the true concerns are, and I am sure that you have a lot of good answers in your arsenal. I am just saying that we need to debate the topic without using logical or psychological fallacies, that is what politicians do and we do not want to emulate them.


I thought this was blog about Catholic ideals and finding the truth. I was addressing CURE and his new found orthodoxy/ tradition at the SSPX, just like those who condemn tradition.
I wish him all the best.

Sorry, my posts don’t fit into your line of thinking.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit