Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Historians Question the Beatification of Blessed Charles
Deutsche Welle ^ | 19.01.2004

Posted on 01/19/2004 3:16:27 PM PST by Lessismore

A man of peace or a blundering buffoon? The Catholic Church thinks Charles was a miracle worker.

The last emperor of the Habsburg dynasty, Charles the First of Austria, is to be beatified by the Pope. News that the deceased monarch will become Blessed Charles has prompted many to question the pontiff’s choice.

Controversy is brewing over reports that the Pope is to beatify Charles I of Austria, the last Habsburg emperor who came to the throne during World War I and ended his days in exile on the island of Madeira in 1922 at the age of 35.

Some, including Cardinal Christoph Schönborn, the Archbishop of Vienna, a leading campaigner among the admirers calling for the monarch’s beatification, consider Charles to have been "a man of peace," a gentle person surrounded and overwhelmed by the backstabbing diplomats, ministers, and generals who conspired to bring about the end of his reign and the end of his empire.

A final failure on the Habsburg throne?

But others consider the Kaiser to have been an incompetent leader who brought about his own demise, consigned his lineage to the annals of history and instigated the fall of the Habsburg Empire.

These same critics believe that Charles was the man responsible for ordering the use of poison gas by his troops during the war; the man whose leadership led to hundreds of thousands of Austrian soldiers being captured during the closing days of the conflict and a man with such an ability to spin great untruths that his claims to Christian grace are considered a mockery.

Sole wartime leader in pursuit of peace?

However, in the eyes of the Catholic Church, Charles I of Austria was a devout man, a worker of miracles, a man whose actions proved that politicians could be good Christians and man deemed to be worthy of being set on the road to becoming a religious icon.

These conflicting views are accepted by the Church which maintains that the decision to beatify is a suitable one. "The figure of the Kaiser is viewed differently," admitted Erich Leitenberger, the church's spokesman in Vienna in an interview with the British daily broadsheet The Guardian. "But he led a very religious life, especially in his latter stages."

Experts confirmation

In December, the Congregation for the Causes of Saints -- the Vatican commission responsible for examining claims to sainthood -- officially declared that Charles was to be credited with a miracle that occurred in 1960, backed up with the requisite evidence of three expert medical opinions needed to pursue the case for beatification.

The alleged miracle was experienced by a nun in a Brazilian convent who prayed for the late emperor's beatification and woke up the next morning able to walk for the first time in years. Since this event has been certified by the Catholic Church, Charles is now well on his way to his imminent beatification, the intermediate stage to canonisation, which will be formally acknowledged in September.

Sainthood just a miracle away

Despite this fast track to piety, his supporters will have to wait a while if they hope to see the soon-to-be Blessed Charles reach sainthood. One more miracle has to be attributed to him before that step can be taken.

The ascension to beatified status is unlikely, however, to alter the views of those historians who have plotted the career of Charles and have recorded less than Christian behaviour in their accounts.

Helmut Rumpler, a history professor who heads the Habsburg commission of the Austrian Academy of Sciences told The Guardian, “He was a dilettante, far too weak for the challenges facing him. Out of his depth, not really a politician. I don't know why he is being beatified.”

Ridiculed by staff and entourage

Coming to the throne on the death of Emperor Franz Josef in 1916 mid-way through “The Great War” and with the Austro-Hungarian Empire in tatters, many within the royal entourage viewed the new Kaiser with contempt. "He can't even write properly," complained his chief of staff while one of his prime ministers quipped: "He is 30 years old, looks 20, and thinks like a 10-year-old."

In 1917, with the war still raging, Charles made a secret plea for peace with France assisted by his French brother-in-law. The proposed agreement would have seen the Austrian emperor deserting his German ally at a critical stage of the conflict.

Denial leads to widespread mockery

When news of the proposal leaked, Charles denied having ever entertained such an idea. The furious French then published letters signed by him, infuriating the Germans and making him a comic figure on both sides.

A year later when the war was over, Charles fled to Switzerland, leaving his empire to collapse without him, and yet he refused to abdicate the throne. After two failed, and embarrassing, attempts at reclaiming the throne in Budapest, Charles was taken by the British and forced into exile on the island of Madeira where he eventually died of pneumonia.

If Charles does eventually make it to sainthood, the Austrian weekly Profil already has a section of the population earmarked for his patronage. The magazine believes that Charles should be nominated as the patron saint of losers.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

1 posted on 01/19/2004 3:16:28 PM PST by Lessismore
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Lessismore
Being an incompetent statesman does not mean that one cannot be a saint, since logically two different criteria apply.
2 posted on 01/19/2004 3:45:42 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
These same critics believe that Charles was the man responsible for ordering the use of poison gas by his troops during the war;

Well, if he ordered the use of poison gas, he might be in heaven, but canonizing him is a PR blunder.

But, who knows?

3 posted on 01/19/2004 4:02:37 PM PST by sinkspur (Adopt a shelter dog or cat! You'll save one life, and maybe two!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur; Unam Sanctam; Lessismore
Well, if he ordered the use of poison gas.....

These "historians" have never heard anything about the "Devil's Advocate."

4 posted on 01/19/2004 9:06:56 PM PST by heyheyhey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: heyheyhey
These "historians" have never heard anything about the "Devil's Advocate."

I wish they would bring back the Devil's Advocate. What a cool title and a rather necessary function, as I am not sure that the historical-critical method is always as objective as one might wish.

5 posted on 01/19/2004 9:17:07 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
Here we go again. The entire process has been compromised. We had a well-functioning system of checks and balances worked out over centuries of trial and error. It wasn't good enough for the conciliar Church which now uses the process to score p.r. points. What a fraud.
6 posted on 01/19/2004 9:36:26 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Nonsense.

The process still exists; only the exact name and the office are not used anymore. A Pope established the thing - a Pope could change the thing. Ever heard of "Papal Infallibility"? You may ask any knowledgeable Catholic person or a priest to explain it to you.

7 posted on 01/19/2004 9:58:20 PM PST by heyheyhey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: heyheyhey
The Pope has made a real mess. The office of Devil's Advocate has indeed been eliminated. The so-called "miraculous" recovery recently of a woman who had been praying to Mother Teresa has been firmly debunked by secular physicians who attributed the recovery to appropriate medication exclusively; and the recent canonization of the founder of Opus Dei was actually totally controlled by Opus Dei itself--the Order even used its own physicians to investigate the necessary number of "miracles". Escriva, a friend of the Pope, was canonized in record time and investigators refused to listen to the testimony of associates who knew the man intimately and charged he was very far from saintly. Much has been made of this in the secular press--which is justifiably scornful of such chicanery. Rome's credibilty on all this is zilch.
8 posted on 01/19/2004 10:44:36 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Your points about recent canonisations are well expressed and (alas!) quite factual.

Another problem is just the way that all this is being rushed. There is nothing like the passing of time to reveal the true nature of events, and people's lives and reputations. The haste of these new canonisations is in itself a risky experiment.

Some historians are just appalled by the shoddy research for certain recent canonisations. There is a lot more information still to come, and it could cause a re-think about some of the individuals.
9 posted on 01/20/2004 4:23:10 AM PST by BlackVeil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Until the time of Gregory IX, beatification was done locally.
The pope, a friend of St. Francis, canonized Francis without any lengthy process.
10 posted on 01/20/2004 8:48:17 AM PST by RobbyS (XPqu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Personally, I don't have any objections whatsoever to the beatification and canonization of Mother Teresa regardless of what the "secular" media says.

I had followed closely for years a pre-beatification procedure of one particular saintly monk who died in 1950's, a contemporary of John Paul II. The whole process stalled because of ONE detail in his life. Unless the evidence of his weakness (it's nothing criminal or terribly sinful) is clarified in favorable way, the monk will not be beatified.

11 posted on 01/20/2004 10:10:26 AM PST by heyheyhey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: heyheyhey
The point is that the process itself has been compromised--so much so that someone like Escriva get canonized in record time while others far more worthy are indefinitely stalled.
12 posted on 01/20/2004 11:16:10 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: heyheyhey
get=gets
13 posted on 01/20/2004 11:17:52 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
It may have been somewhat compromised, but not completely. There is still the two miracle requirement for confessors. And the historical/critical method could work if indeed the historical researchers carefully and objectively weigh the pros and the cons of the individuals' life. And I applaud the effort to find more examples of sanctity from recent years and from a wider geographical dispersion than previously. Finally, I don't see how anyone can object to recognition of those brave souls who have died for the faith in modern times. They certainly deserve the recognition and public veneration.
14 posted on 01/20/2004 11:28:15 AM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
The two-miracle threshold is a sham. Opus Dei physicians were in charge of "investigating" Escriva's two "miracles." In other words, the fix was in.
15 posted on 01/20/2004 11:56:12 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
But we can't know what's p.r. and what's genuine heroic sanctity anymore under current procedures. That is what is at issue. The process is dishonest.
16 posted on 01/20/2004 11:59:39 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
On this pope you sound like Democrats commenting on what George Bush does. At least these saints are real people, unlike mythical persons like St. Christopher.
17 posted on 01/20/2004 12:22:05 PM PST by RobbyS (XPqu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
How so? --Specifics, please. Everything I have said is documentable, including this Pontiff's recent retreat into silence on Gibson's movie--despite the attacks on the Gospels on which it was based and the desperate need in the culture for a film like this after years of anti-Christian attacks in the media. Yet his defenders will insist he is a supporter of tradition. When it is demonstrated he is highly unorthodox--and in fact has placed in high places extremely unorthodox churchmen--the response is like yours--that I must hate the Pope, just as Dean hates Bush. But I am merely being factual and underscoring that the traditional faith and Catholic culture in general has been savagely undermined under the leadership of JPII. Supporters will blame everybody else but him for the long decline and the pandemic scandals, but in the end he alone must be held responsible since he alone has appointed the men who do these things. Having said this, of course we must respectful in our criticism--but this does not mean being willfully blind; nor does it mean we must not cry out when we experience so painfully how the faith is being daily weakened by men this Pontiff appoints and controls.
18 posted on 01/20/2004 12:46:04 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
The process is dishonest.

1J 5:10
Whoever believes in the Son of God has this testimony within himself. Whoever does not believe God has made Him a liar by not believing the testimony God has given about His Son.

19 posted on 01/20/2004 12:54:16 PM PST by heyheyhey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Let's focus on the question of canonization. It is well-known that most Christian saints have been picked by popular acclaim, or because their cause has been pushed by religious orders. As for the number of saints proclaimed, there are more than a billion Catholics in this world. I hope that more than a select handful qualify for public recognizion of sanctity.
20 posted on 01/20/2004 1:07:46 PM PST by RobbyS (XPqu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Great point!
21 posted on 01/20/2004 1:37:20 PM PST by heyheyhey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
When it is demonstrated he is highly unorthodox

You have demonstrated nothing of the kind. I'm sorry, but unorthodox means teaching heresy, nothing more, nothing less. The Pope has not done so. It is unjust and inaccurate to throw the word around like that without any substantiation.

22 posted on 01/20/2004 2:47:43 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
Being heretical would involve a break with Catholic dogma whereas being unorthodox implies espousing doctrines which are unconventional and untraditional, but not necessarily heretical. Big difference.
23 posted on 01/20/2004 4:26:03 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: heyheyhey
Your citation is irrelevant to the issue I raise. If a process is rigged, pretending to be above board when it's not, it's dishonest. No pious citation from Scripture changes this. Truth is truth.
24 posted on 01/20/2004 4:29:38 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
No, let's not. You claimed when I write about this Pope I sound like the Democrats when they oppose Bush. I assume you mean they attacked Bush unfairly--and that I do the same with the Pontiff. So I ask again--how do I do this? How have I been unfair in my criticism?
25 posted on 01/20/2004 4:36:23 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
You are using the term orthodox, which from the Greek roots, means "correct teaching", in a casual way, not in a precise and accurate way. Your meaning is unorthodox in the sense of "that isn't the way we've always done things". It is misleading to use the term in this sense to refer to the Pope, when it could be misinterpreted to mean that you are calling the Pope unorthodox in a precise sense of the term. The precise meaning of unorthodox relates to doctrine, and it means heretical.
26 posted on 01/20/2004 4:39:46 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
I have always insisted this Pope is unorthodox but not heretical, though he may at times have fallen into a material heresy unwitingly. "Orthodoxy" does, indeed, mean "correct teaching." But as you say, I am using the term in a less strictly theological, sense--to mean "unconventional." But even as you use the term, to be "unorthodox" does not mean to be "heretical". "Heresy" always involves a break with dogma, "heterodoxy" does not.
27 posted on 01/20/2004 5:11:55 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
Given that you don't mean to accuse the Pope of incorrect teaching, I think it highly improper, inaccurate, misleading, disrespectful and unnecessary to use the term in reference to the Pope. Heterodox means "different teaching", and thus would mean the teaching of heresy.
28 posted on 01/20/2004 5:18:58 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
The unfairness in this particular is that there is no truly traditional way of choosing saints. or rather discovering them. The martyrs are the easiest, but as you know it was a longwhile before confessors made the cut, and through the centuries many suspect ones were included in the cult. But maybe the ignorant peasants who observed and marveled at some obscure but holy life and made pilgrimage to their graves were truest witnesses and canonists after all.
29 posted on 01/20/2004 7:43:45 PM PST by RobbyS (XPqu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
The text is perfectly relevant. You either believe in the Church as institution founded by Our Lord on the foundation of the Apostles or you don’t. We call it "cafeteria" religiosity when one picks and chooses different things to their own liking.

According to the Catholic faith, Pope John Paul II has exactly the same ecclesiastical authority as Popes St. Pius X, St. Peter the Apostle, and all other Popes in history. Criticizing the Pope is the same as criticizing Christ - Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me - Lk 10:16.

If you ever decide to become a Catholic they will enroll you in RCIA classes and explain it to you.

30 posted on 01/20/2004 8:05:26 PM PST by heyheyhey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Lessismore
Well, the source of this article is German, and considering the events at the end of WWI, my guess is the Germans are still bitter about the whole thing. The idea that the leader of their incompetant ally could be made a saint must grate on some nerves--particularly as the Germans themselves are typically cast as the most evil nation on the planet while Austrians are generally given a pass.
31 posted on 01/20/2004 8:07:01 PM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus
Don't forget that the German Empire was a Protestant nation, dominated by Prussians who never let the Austrians forget that they were now top-dogs. Prussian arrogance was at the root of the gamble they were about to make, which was to go to war with the United States.
32 posted on 01/20/2004 8:34:19 PM PST by RobbyS (XPqu)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: heyheyhey
It is always proper for subordinates to criticize superiors if they stray from the truth--and this would include the Pope. The greatest Doctors of the Church have recognized this right. The Pope is not an absolute monarch. Nor is he a kind of angelic being. He is man subject to error, a steward of the faith only, not its creator. He may, indeed, be criticized--and it's high time we did so with this particular pontiff whose popularity as a celebrity has masked much of his radical agenda.
33 posted on 01/20/2004 9:35:16 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
I think it is highly proper to call this Pope unorthodox. Praying with animists to the Great Thumb is highly unorthodox. It is not formally heretical, perhaps, but it is not in conformity with traditional Catholic thinking either. It is indeed unorthodox for a pontiff to behave this way--and shocking--no matter how the Vatican bureaucracy tries to spin such actions afterwards. The problem this Pope poses is that no Catholic in his heart wants to even think about the evidence: that the man at the very top frequently does act--and teach--in ways that do not conform to traditional Catholic doctrine of long standing. His position on capital punishment, for instance, is highly unorthodox and breaks with long-held Catholic doctrine. Justice Scalia has weighed in on this not too long ago. The Pope's position can't be reconciled with past teachings of past popes or even with Scripture. It is, in a word, unorthodox.
34 posted on 01/20/2004 9:52:39 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
The Pope is not unorthodox or heretical. You don't have a leg to stand on. You are just maliciously twisting words and using them incorrectly in a malicious way to slander a good person and to cause dissension in the Church for no good reason. It demonstrates very ill will and is an insult to all who have died for the Catholic faith for you to insult the Holy Father this way. For shame!
35 posted on 01/20/2004 10:19:04 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
UNORTHODOX=HERETICAL! That is the plain sense of the words. You sir are a Marxist casuist with no sense of truth or decency. You manipulate language to serve your anti-Papal agenda. That is precisely what Marx and Lenin and the Modernists and Liberation Theologians did. You have apparently learned at their school.
36 posted on 01/20/2004 10:21:20 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
The Pope is neither unorthodox nor heretical in any way shape or form. You have roved nothing. Your unremitting hostility to the Pope and the Catholic Church and your devious methods of subverting language are absolutely despicable.
37 posted on 01/20/2004 10:26:55 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
Subverting language? I have said the Pope is unorthodox--and he is--in both senses of the word. I stand by this. I was once a great admirer of JPII. But I have come to believe he has caused great harm to the Church. While he is conservative in his moral theology, he has been a modernist on most other matters. This has endangered the faith.
38 posted on 01/20/2004 11:25:20 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
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.
39 posted on 01/20/2004 11:37:45 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
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.
40 posted on 01/21/2004 6:43:54 AM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
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.
41 posted on 01/21/2004 8:10:29 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
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.
42 posted on 01/21/2004 10:16:48 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
Being an incompetent statesman does not mean that one cannot be a saint, since logically two different criteria apply. 2 posted on 01/19/2004 3:45:42 PM PST by Unam Sanctam

Excellent point.

43 posted on 01/21/2004 10:24:47 AM PST by Kermit the Frog Does theWatusi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
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.

Nonsense. Your definition of heresy is much too narrow. Scripture and tradition contains plenty of teaching forming the deposit of faith that has never been dogmatically defined in a precise formula. Heresy is the teaching of unsound or unorthodox doctrine contrary to the deposit of faith. We know something is part of the revealed truth if it is a dogmatic definition of an ecumenical council or a pope, or if it has always and everywhere been taught in the Church (the Vincentian canon definition of orthodox belief or the "ordinary and universal magisterium). Dogma is merely a verbally defined doctrine. The Pope has not taught in contradiction to any dogmatic definition of an ecumenical council or a pope or in contradiction to the ordinary and universal magisterium. He is therefore not unorthodox and does not teach or follow unsound doctrine. Your statement is therefore false and calumniatory. Your complaints relate to prudential matters, or perhaps reformable ordinary magisterial matters not part of the ordinary and universal magisterium (although I won't concede that unless you want to discuss specific issues). They do not show that the Pope is unorthodox.

BTW, I wish to correct myself. After some etymological research, I see that the Greek root behind both the words orthodox and dogma is "dokein" meaning "to think". Thus orthodoxy is a matter of correct thought, not correct teaching. However, that does not change my analysis materially. The word dogma, as you can see from the online Catholic Encyclopedia discussion, means "opinion", and by extension "decree", on doctrinal matters, e.g., like an "opinion" of the Supreme Court or a "fatwa" of an ayatollah.

Finally, I did not mean to say that you were Marxist in philosophy, but only your tactics, e.g., abusing the meaning of words and making them mean what you want them to mean.

44 posted on 01/21/2004 10:33:11 AM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
Prussian arrogance was at the root of the gamble they were about to make, which was to go to war with the United States.

That's absolutely correct. I think it was von Moltke who, when asked what he would do if the American army landed in Europe, boasted, "I will send the Berlin police out to arrest them."
45 posted on 01/21/2004 10:47:19 AM PST by Antoninus (In hoc signo, vinces )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
The deposit of faith is comprised of DOGMAS, whether formally defined or not. In fact, a dogma is not always "precisely defined" as you say. Orthodoxy, on the other hand, refers to articulating or practicing correct DOCTRINES. A doctrine is simply a TEACHING, it is NOT always a dogma.

Heresy always involves a break with dogma. And yes, a dogma is a doctrine (or teaching). But not all teachings of the Church are dogmas and therefore part of the deposit of faith. You seem very confused about this. Moreover, heresy has nothing to do with behavior per se, except insofar as it is a judgment. Heterodoxy (being unorthodox), on the other hand, may involve PRACTICING unsound teachings. That is to say, it does not always involve merely articulating some unsound doctrine, it may involve wrongful behavior as well.

Thus I am correct to note that it is UNORTHODOX for a pope to give honor to heresy by elevating to the cardinalate someone who has publicly doubted the Divinity of Christ and the Resurrection. It is not heretical for him to do so; but it is unorthodox behavior. And this, remember, is only one of this Pope's many unorthodox actions. Pouring out a libation to an animist god or kissing the Koran would be equally unorthodox behaviors. But neither deny any dogmas.

I will grant the Pope speaks often in orthodox ways. For instance, when he urges priests to eliminate liturgical abuses, particularly in regard to the Blessed Sacrament, he is speaking in a wholly orthodox way. But when he himself celebrates public Masses in which the worst of such abuses take place--and does so repeatedly and apparently by design--then he is being highly unorthodox.

Try to be fair and objective about this. JPII has had a very radical and troubling pontificate. We cannot blame lesser churchmen for the multiple ills which have beset our Church when the man at the top is so deeply implicated by reason of his own actions and inactions.
46 posted on 01/21/2004 11:41:13 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
You say, "Heresy is the teaching of unsound or unorthodox doctrine contrary to the deposit of faith."

Agreed. Heresy is always unorthodox, but being unorthodox is not always heresy--just as all rabbits are animals, but not all animals are rabbits.

I am not incorrect therefor when I say this Pope is unorthodox. I refer to his behavior in not following sound doctrines. But I do not suggest by this that he is guilty of making a break with dogma. I am not a sedevacantist.
47 posted on 01/21/2004 11:56:52 AM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
No, I don't except the premise. Heresy is unorthodoxy and unorthodoxy is heresy, except that to be convicted of heresy under canon law, one has to be continual in the maintenance of heretical doctrines. Sorry, you are just wrong.
48 posted on 01/21/2004 12:45:29 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ultima ratio
I refer to his behavior in not following sound doctrines.

Behavior does not mean unorthodoxy. If anything that is "unorthopraxy". But in any event, the Pope has done nothing contrary to sound doctrine. And I challenge you once again, and I will continue to do so until you give me an example, where has the Pope taught contrary to any defined dogma of ecumenical council or pope, or against the ordinary and universal magisterium. Since he has not done so, he is not in the least bit unorthodox and it is calumnious of you to say he is.

49 posted on 01/21/2004 12:49:05 PM PST by Unam Sanctam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Unam Sanctam
You ask me once again, "Where has the Pope taught contrary to any defined dogma of ecumenical council or pope"?

I never made this claim. I have said the contrary over and over--that this pontiff has not broken with dogma. He is not heretical--so why should I demonstrate this? I have said many times the Pope is not a heretic. How many ways can I put it? "Heresy" has a very specific denotation whereas "unorthodoxy" has a much more broad connotation and does not necessarily mean a break with the faith--though it can indeed include this. Notice the following, as cited in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

"the ORTHODOX, that is, the custodians of sound doctrine and followers of right teaching" (De Vera Relig., cap. v)."


50 posted on 01/21/2004 1:21:54 PM PST by ultima ratio
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson