Unhealthy Attachment To Tradition

[goldenchild17]

I didn't want to put this in debate table as its not intended for such. I would have put it in Q&A except that I may have some follow up questions, thus here 'tis.

Are there any known heresies in Church history (prior to Vatican II) that refused to accept a true theological/liturgical development in the Church? It seems to me that I remember a fairly well-known one, but its escaping me and I can't remember the name or even when or what it was about... thanks

[Nihil Obstat]

The "Old Catholic Church" split from Rome when infallibility was defined.
[quote]The Old Catholic Church is a Christian denomination originating with mainly German-speaking groups that split from the Holy See in the 1870s because they disagreed with the solemn declaration of the doctrine of papal infallibility promulgated by the First Vatican Council (1869–1870). The Old Catholic Church holds close to ideas of ecclesiastical liberalism (Liberal Christianity).[citation needed] As a Breakaway Catholic Church, the church is not in communion with the Holy See, though the Union of Utrecht of Old Catholic Churches is in full communion with the Anglican Communion.[/quote]

EDIT: That's sorta being too traditionalist, but maybe not quite what you're looking for?

Edited September 15, 2009 by Nihil Obstat

[Nihil Obstat]

I'm still thinking, because I'm getting the same feeling as you are.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='15 September 2009 - 04:41 PM' timestamp='1253054487' post='1967126']
The "Old Catholic Church" split from Rome when infallibility was defined.


EDIT: That's sorta being too traditionalist, but maybe not quite what you're looking for?
[/quote]

That was my first guess, but did they actually believe in holding to tradition too much or was it just the issue with the Papal Infallibility. Question is, WHY did they reject papal infallibility?

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='15 September 2009 - 04:44 PM' timestamp='1253054691' post='1967128']
I'm still thinking, because I'm getting the same feeling as you are.
[/quote]

It feels like when you have something on the tip of your tongue but just can't make the words come out... Maybe I'm imagining it and there's nothing, but figured I'd ask anyways.

The thread comes from a question that was posed to me: "A good litmus is how could Satan refer you to the historic teaching of the Church?"

Now, I'll spare ya'll the details of the discussion, but it got me thinking, beyond just the fact that Satan is okay with allowing a lot of truth as long as we accept just a little lie along with it, didn't he actually do just this with a past heresy in which a group rejected legitimate grown and development in the Church and adhered in an unhealthy manner to the traditions of the Church. But I can't get any further than that with it...

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='goldenchild17' date='15 September 2009 - 05:48 PM' timestamp='1253054909' post='1967135']
That was my first guess, but did they actually believe in holding to tradition too much or was it just the issue with the Papal Infallibility. Question is, WHY did they reject papal infallibility?
[/quote]
From my limited understanding, it sounds like they held a more radical conciliar view and didn't appreciate the pope explicitly having the same power.... I don't know for sure, I'm not historian.
I'm still searching. This is frustrating.
There is the Priestly Society of St. Josaphatt, which is similar to the SSPX, but from the East. Interesting group to read about actually. They aren't in communion with us because the rejected the de-Latinization in the East.

[Apotheoun]

The Old Catholics are many things, but they are not strict adherents of Tradition, liturgical or otherwise.

[Nihil Obstat]

That's a good point; they're rather more liberal now than they were when they first broke away.