Replies

And even if it meant what you suggest--it does not follow the Pope had fallen into formal heresy per se, which is a conscious assent to doctrines which are not Catholic. Other motives may be ascribed to explain his behavior besides formal heresy. There is no indication, for instance, that JPII prayed with animists for reasons other than diplomatic; it was wrong, it was scandalous, it was a betrayal of his office--it may even have been materially heretical. But it was not a formal assent to heresy.

This is a fascinating topic, and I find all of your posts informational.

I am confused a bit with the term heresy, in the way that there is a "conscious" or "deliberate" intent to resist to the authority of God, who communicates revelation through Scripture and tradition, and teaching authority through The Church.

Ultima, when you mentioned "formal assent." For my own clarification, would that mean "from the heart" per se, as opposed to when JPII prayed with animists, i.e in an act of diplomacy?

In other words, the conscious and deliberate act in heresy is willful "from within"...not just to an act to "be polite," diplomatic, or material as you put it.

JPII has been called a "Koran Kisser." Was he doing this act to show "respect and politeness" to the Islamic community? Or was it willfull intent to "respect" the Koran?

Either way, I agree 100%. It was wrong, scandelous, and inappropriate. Is he a heretic? I'm struggling with the definition as you can see, lol.

Thanks for your kind explanations to this recently baptized and received (5 years ago) Catholic.

Strictly speaking, a heresy is a denial of a dogma of faith. But such a denial may be intended or unintended. If unintended, the denial would constitute a material heresy. If deliberately intended, it would be a formal heresy.

Another distiction is pertinent here: that of dogmas and doctrines. All dogmas are doctrines (teachings of the Church), but not all doctrines are dogmas. Dogmas are definitions of teachings which are made binding on all the faithful. Only denial of these would be heretical. It would not be heretical to deny a doctrine which was not a dogma--to insist that women should be allowed to be ordained, for example.

Regarding the teaching authority of the Magisterium, by the way, there are further distinctions. For instance, not all teachings of the Magisterium are infallible, but only those teachings which are aligned with what has always been taught by the Magisterium. Any novel teachings would be therefore fallible--and subject to dispute. The Pope's opinion on capital punishment, for instance, would be such a fallible teaching. Vatican I made this abundantly clear:

"For the Holy Spirit was not given to the Successors of Peter that by His help they might disclose new doctrine, but that by His help they might guard the revelation that has been transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith, and might faithfully set it forth."

Novelty has no divine protection. Only that which has been "transmitted through the apostles and the deposit of faith." In other words, only those declarations which affirm what the Church has always believed and handed-down through the ages, are divinely protected.