Replies

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.

I have said the Pontiff was unorthodox, not that he broke with dogma and is heretical. There is a difference. I stand by this. I am not being "hateful" when I say this--that is your construction. The truth is we have a pope who is radical in his behavior and policies and nothing you argue changes this. It is UNORTHODOX to promote to the cardinalate someone who doubts the Resurrection. There is no dogma against doing this; it does not make the Pope a heretic. But it is highly UNORTHODOX for a pope to award the red hat to an individual who is a heretic. It is a radical thing to do and this should be pointed out, not glossed-over. It is not hateful to sound the alarm on this, as you say, nor is it false.

No, you are incorrect, not I. Dogmas are doctrines of the Church--but not all doctrines of the Church are dogmas. We say someone is unorthodox who teaches or follows unsound doctrine. Heresy, on the other hand, always involves a break with dogma, which is much more serious.