Naming Names - is it always wrong?

[Bill_B_NY]

I suspect we may be talking past each other.

Yes, I think we’re not on the same wavelength here. I’m not following your commentary as I would wish to.

The names in the OP were not and are not heretics.

I disagree with that.
Dr. Wolfgang Smith’s book on Teilhard de Chardin made that clear to me beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Because someone has escaped censure temporarily does not mean it will never happen in the future. I have hope in future popes and future magisteria - if I live that long.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I would hope you would be praying for these folks you deem heretical. Who knows, when you get to Heaven you may see them opening the door for you.

 

[otjm]

Because someone has escaped censure temporarily does not mean it will never happen in the future.

Cardinal Ottaviani was head of the dicastery when de Chardin’s books were condemned - but interestingly not put on the List.

Subsequently, Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Avery Dulles and Cardinal Schonborn all have spoken favorably.

So I will see your Dr. Smith and trump you three Cardinals (with no reference implied as to any President).

You may consider smarter than Pope Benedict 16th, But I would suggest the he is widely considered to be the most brilliant theologian alive; and I don’t think there are a large number of people saying the same thing about Dr. Smith.

Understand that I am in no way advocating reading de Chardin and am in agreement that some of his thoughts are less than tightened down’: it is also a fact that he died well before the dicastery cast aspersions on his writings. He never was given the chance to clarify or to rephrase anything, and the presumption that he was heretical flies in the face of holdings by Cardinal theologians as well a one Pope.

What little I have read of de Chardin is far too poetic for my style, and in that alone it does not make for a textbook on a theological subject, but rather a meditation - as exemplified by comments he had made on the Eucharist.

He had a BA in Philosophy and mathematics and taught chemistry and physics in the
College de la Sainte Famille in Cairo (probably as scholastic); his study of theology was prior to ordination. His training was in paleontology and geology and he worked in that area in China.

So his writings were, to put it not entirely politely, a mish-mash of paleontology, evolution and theological reflections on those two studies.

In short, he was not a PhD. in Theology; his degree was in science - geology, botany and zoology. Those who hold him out as a theologian have started off on the wrong foot entirely.

As of 1981, prior to Cardinal Ratzinger becoming head of the dicastery. an affirmation was made continuing the prior letter which warned that his work contained ambiguities and grave theological errors. However, having died in 1955, he never had the opportunity to amend or clarify. He was not censured, but rather his work was; he had the equivalent of a Masters in theology and his main focus was not on theology but rather paleontology, and he was attempting to expand, from a paleontologist point of view, the writings of St Paul, and particularly Col. 1: 15-17.

Was he wroing? Yes. Did that make him an intentional heretic? N., and I submit that when a theologian as bright as (then) Cardinal Ratzinger does not find him so, then your Dr. Smith is wrong in pressing that point.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

Subsequently, Cardinal Ratzinger, Cardinal Avery Dulles and Cardinal Schonborn all have spoken favorably.

I had to read to the end to notice how your perspective curved around on this. As we know there’s a big problem here. It’s a contradiction.

You may consider smarter than Pope Benedict 16th, But I would suggest the he is widely considered to be the most brilliant theologian alive; and I don’t think there are a large number of people saying the same thing about Dr. Smith.

Intelligence is not a measure that really counts. Fidelity is. Whether Teilhard was smart or not is irrelevant. Whether Pope Benedict was smarter than Pope Pius XII is not something we should be thinking about. Does the doctrine align with the deposit of faith? I say “No” to Teilhard’s evolutionary theology. Dr. Smith proves that conclusively. It is possible that other prominent church leaders are mistaken? I think so.

Understand that I am in no way advocating reading de Chardin and am in agreement that some of his thoughts are less than tightened down’: it is also a fact that he died well before the dicastery cast aspersions on his writings.

I appreciate you saying this. I asked Ignatius Press, recently, why they don’t publish Telihard de Chardin since they publish his “friends” who supported him. I received a response that addressed other of my concerns, but not that one. The answer is clear - just as you said you would in no way “advocate” reading it. I’m just saying that it goes far beyond a need to “tighten down”. There are major problems that Pope Pius XII indirectly addressed. There was an attempt to subvert the magisterium. As you mention later: “grave theological errors”. That is putting it nicely. If you haven’t investigated Teilhard, you won’t really know how “grave” it really is.

So his writings were, to put it not entirely politely, a mish-mash of paleontology, evolution and theological reflections on those two studies.

Mish-mash. You’re being polite, yes. But that’s a good starting point. His science was laughable - as his fellow evolutionists point out. His theology? The best one could say, and his fans would say, it was incomprehensible and contradictory. But they don’t bother to really analyze what he was actually saying. Wolfgang Smith does this in a painstaking manner. I admire his courage to dive into that mish mash and sort it out. The end result - is a mish mash of doctrine, conjecture and heresy. Teilhard was open about his rejection of Catholic teaching, not publicly, but in letters.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

As of 1981, prior to Cardinal Ratzinger becoming head of the dicastery. an affirmation was made continuing the prior letter which warned that his work contained ambiguities and grave theological errors.

Well, here we go. They praised it, but it has “grave theological errors”.
You’re trying to rehabilitate him because he wasn’t put on trial, as he should have been. But that’s irrelevant to the faithful Catholic who may read or believe the Teilhardian teaching. Whether the theologian intended it or not is not the point.
So, we have a quandry. Was Cardinal Ratzinger mistaken when he found those “errors”? If so, did he correct himself later? Or was he right – and the errors are, indeed, present in the work? It’s the latter case. Teilhard should not be praised. He was wrong.

However, having died in 1955, he never had the opportunity to amend or clarify.

That’s sad. I hope God will have mercy on him for his hatred of the magisterium of the Church, his egoism and his disobedience and for all the false, atheistic teaching he spread. Because he died without recanting any of it. He knew that Pope Pius XII had tried to censure him. He knew he was not permitted to publish - but he leaked out his “theology” because he thought he was right and he did not want to obey.

Was he wroing? Yes. Did that make him an intentional heretic?

Intentional or not - the work is heretical.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

I would hope you would be praying for these folks you deem heretical. Who knows, when you get to Heaven you may see them opening the door for you.

Those who are excommunicated lose many benefits the Church offers to the faithful. There’s a reason for that. We are not permitted to pray for Satan and demons to convert. We have a limited amount of time. We have to give our time and prayer to where God wants us to direct it first.
Yes, you are right however. Praying for sinners, lost souls, those in most need of Jesus’s mercy - it is necessary for us. Heretics like Teilhard are included.
We should train ourselves to love God’s will. God has a place for Teilhard now. Wherever it is, it is right and we can be thankful.
Yes, we pray for sinners, heretics – and we must love our enemies.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

An excommunicated person is not “Satan” and is not a “Demon” and you seem to be very confident in your own judgment about who is a “heretic”. I’d be careful about that if I were you.

 

[Bill_B_NY]

you seem to be very confident in your own judgment about who is a “heretic”

Did you see that Cardinal Ratzinger stated that the work has “grave theological errors”? I’m pretty confident about what that means. I have read the work, and read an analysis that showed the errors with crystal clarity.
Whether the individual is personally guilty of heresy is not mine to judge. It’s not my concern.
You do not like the terminology I used. I am happy to revise it:

“Teilhard published seriously erroneous doctrine and never recanted it.”

What level of guilt he has is for God to decide. Teilhard receives all the benefit of prayers we offer for sinners - as all of us are. We cannot pray for his conversion. We can pray that God reduces his Purgatory, if he made it there.

Putting the focus on his legal status is one way to avoid the very serious problem raised here. Teilhard’s “grave errors” are taught and believed by many. Heretic or not, intentional or not - it’s not my concern. The books are bad. I’ve confirmed that with theologians. We have Cardinal Ratzinger stating it.

Being a heretic is merely a form of being a sinner. Am I permitted to say that the man who owns the pornographic shop is a pornographer? That’s how we become confident - we see the problem and identify it.

A heretic is one who denies a truth of divine and Catholic faith: i.e.k, a truth which has been revealed by God and proposed by the Church for our belief. Heretics are classified as “public” or “occult,” “formal” or “material” . A public (notorious) heretic is one whose heresy is known to a large number of people, even if he has not formally joined the ranks of a heretical church ; an occult heretic is one whose errors in faith are either totally unknown, or known only to a few. A formal heretic is one who stubbornly and guiltily adheres to heresy; a material heretic is one who innocently and in good faith subscribes to some heretical doctrine. [ 152 pg. 239]

Public heretics (and a fortiori, apostates) are not members of the Church. They are not members of the Church because they separate themselves from the unity of Catholic faith and from the external profession of that faith. Obviously, therefore, they lack one of the three factors—baptism, profession of the same faith, union with the hierarchy—pointed out by Pius XII as requisite for membership in the Church…The same pontiff has explicitly pointed out that unlike other sins, heresy, schism, and apostasy automatically sever a man from the Church….By the term public heretics at this point we mean all who externally deny a truth (for example Mary’s Divine Maternity), or several truths of divine and Catholic faith, regardless of whether the one denying does so ignorantly and innocently (a merely material heretic), or willfully and guiltily (a formal heretic).

 

[otjm]

Intelligence is not a measure that really counts. Fidelity is.

I would be more than a bit cautious of making a stalemate like that, unless you want to take on Pope Benedict as lacking fidelity to the Church and to Christ. And no, I do not accept that Dr. Smith proves anything the Church had not already said.

You may not like the way the Church handles matters; but you are not objecting to one Pope or one head of the dicastery; you are taking on all Popes since Pius 12th, And considering that Pius 12th’s encyclical covered ground re: Communism, it is not as if he wrote concerning a couple of theologians you and/or Dr. Smith don’t like.

I am not promoting de Chardin. I am commenting on the fact that the dicastery, and 5 Popes have all had the opportunity to name individuals and call them heretics, and the Church has pointedly not done so. It has not done so with a number of individuals unless and until they will not amend their writings/positions.

The Church has said he erred in theology and said that his books were to be removed - post mortem. Hans Kung was also censured; as were a number of other people, and the Church has seen fit to not say they are heretics.

You seem to need to declare de Chardin a heretic, which the Church has not done; I will leave it at that. There is a segment within Catholicism which appears to need to declare him a heretic (and I would include OnePeterFive) and I am not interested in pursuing them or this matter.

This thread started off with an apparent need to find certain individuals as heretics; one was not charged by the Church; one was silenced and subesquently that was revoked and he was a central person in Vatican 2, and one head his work post mortem declared wrong in error as to theology,

For some reason I suspect that behind all of this is a negative attitude towards Vatican 2; if so, I will not go further in the conversation.

I do not read de Chardin; I would not recommend him to anyone even if Rome had not declared his theology to be in error. As Rome has not declared him a heretic, neither will I and I suggest you do not either. Stating that his theology was in error should be sufficient.

 

[InThePew]

Being a heretic is merely a form of being a sinner. Am I permitted to say that the man who owns the pornographic shop is a pornographer? That’s how we become confident - we see the problem and identify it.

It’s not quite the simple when it comes to heresy and it’s not for us to “see the problem and identify it”. Heresy is a canonical crime and so besides the fact that a person has to intend to be heretical and have an opportunity to respond to the accusation, there also has to be proof - which is where of course the role of the CDF and local bishops comes into play. In this way, it’s not simply one person’s opinion - thankfully - but a matter of considered judgment, dialogue and consideration aimed at seeking the truth rather than persecuting people (admittedly, a fair amount of that went on in the past). We leave it up to those responsible trusting their prudent judgment otherwise, it ends up becoming a free for all which is essentially a heresy in itself!