Replies

Your association of the word "unorthodox" with heresy is incorrect. One is heretical only if one breaks with a dogma of the Church. But one may be unorthodox in the opinions one holds about many matters other than dogmas. Literally "orthodoxy" means "correct doctrine." But not all doctrines are dogmas.

As for being a Marxist--that is laughable. I'm a Bush conservative. Nor am I a casuist. I speak honestly and truthfully as I understand the truth. What annoys you is that although I am a Catholic, I simply don't believe the Pope should be beyond criticism. Such criticism, in fact, is long overdue. Perhaps if he got a little less adulation and more honesty from subordinates, he would weigh the damaging effects of his behavior more realistically.

You are incorrect. A dogma is "a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful." The dogma must therefore be proposed to the faithful by the Church in a fairly definite verbal form. However, the doctrines included in the deposit of faith through Scripture and Tradition may or may not be in choate form or verbal formulas. Thus to be heretical does not merely mean to formally teach contrary to particular dogmatic definitions, but to teach against the teachings of the deposit of faith handed down from the Apostles through Scripture and Tradition. Teachings of the ordinary magisterium may be in line with the deposit of faith, simply giving verbal form to what has always and everywhere been taught(the "ordinary and universal magisterium"), or applying it to new situations. However, to the extent it is not part of the deposit of faith, it is reformable. The Pope has not in any way taught in opposition to infallible dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils or popes, nor has he taught in opposition to the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church. Consequently, he can in no way be said to be unorthodox. If he has done so, then you might have an argument. Since he has not, you are in error to call him unorthodox.

I never said one could not criticize the Pope. I have done so often on prudential matters. But criticism should be constructive and respectful. And one should not lie and say he is unorthodox when he is no such thing. That is just false, hateful, unconstructive and aimed at tearing down the Church of Christ. Come back to me when you have proof that the Pope has taught in opposition to infallible dogmatic definitions of ecumenical councils or popes, or the ordinary and universal magisterium of the Church, and then we will talk.