Introduction
The Orthodox Church (Eastern Orthodox Church) is founded on the belief in Apostolic Succession. This is the notion that present Church leaders can trace their ministry’s lineage to Christ’s disciples (Howard, 2018). The idea is critical in the sense that Christianity is recognized to have begun with the disciples who spent most of their time with Jesus with four of them contributing to the Bible’s authorship. Due to the importance and respect of these disciples within the religion, the Apostolic Succession tradition is vital among various religious (Christian) groups, including the Catholic and Orthodox Churches (Howard, 2018). Through the succession, major figures have held leading positions in the Church and come up with ideas that have shaped and made “orthodoxy.” Prior to the establishment of a hierarchical and officially recognized “Church,” various Christians had different versions of what they deemed authentic Christianity. As a result, there were numerous versions of Christianity. The majority of these past authors’ writings have not been preserved in the text, but those who were later qualified as orthodox wrote harsh polemics against competing Christian theologies. These differing positions are the focus of this paper whose objective is to investigate the boundary formation rhetoric and orthodoxy and heresy creation. The rationale is that through such probing, it is possible to have a clear picture of the heretics and how their ideas resulted in the formation of the Catholic Church. Among the major figures who contributed to the establishment of the Catholic Church as it is today is St John Paul II. The purpose of this paper is to compare different Christianities largely lost to history through the lenses of the saints who survived, specifically explaining how St John Paul was considered a heretic by Saints, Relics, and Popes.
St. John Paul II, A Heretic: Argument by Saints, Relics, and Popes
The late Fr. Dominique Bourmaud of the United States (US) District of the Society of Saint Pius X (FSSPX) noted that John Paull II ascended to the throne of the Catholic Church during a period when there was an alarming tone of the loss of faith in the Church (Bourmaud, 2011). Saint Pius X noted that Paul II held and pushed for ideas that contradicted revealed truths and spread heresies that have been propagated in dogmatic and moral domains, creating doubt, confusion, rebellion, and the manipulation of the liturgy (Bourmaud, 2011). His teachings introduced intellectual and moral relativism and incorporated everything, including what is considered worldly knowledge, tempting Christians to atheism, agnosticism, a vague moralist illuminism lacking clearly defined dogmas, and objective morality (Bourmaud, 2011). For Pius X, a person who had full awareness of the stakes and dangers against the Faith would have acted in the practice of the true theological virtue of faith, recall perpetual teachings, and safeguard the deposit entrusted to Peter (Bourmaud, 2011). However, Paul II did the opposite in multiple instances based on multiple pieces of evidence in his teaching leading Peter’s barque and the entire Catholic Church into new roads that are perilous for the Faith and labeled a heretic.
John Paul II believed in the universality of salvation. The doctrine referred to as Apokatastasis or Apocatastasisperilous was for centuries deemed heterodox but is today orthodox. Paul II maintained the doctrine during the Vatican and is promoted by modern Catechism in the Church and post-Vatican II liturgy. This position has been considered among the principles heresies that emerged from Vatican II. His Excellency, the Most Reverend Daniel Dolan (1951-2022) an Alma mater of The International Seminary of Saint Pius X just like his influencer, St. Pius X, did not only consider the universalistic argument an apostasy of Paul II as he felt the error was heretical and an apostasy (Dolan, 2000). According to Dolan (2000), the claim of universalism implies that all religions are true. While responding through a letter to some of the Pope’s writings and speeches on universalism, Dolan (2000) indicates that while on one hand, Pope II professes the Catholic Faith’s truths by reciting Catholic Credo, on the other hand, he professes a complete repudiation of the Faith through abominable acts against the First Commandment. By communicating universality, the implication is that he only sees the Catholic Faith’s value and utility and the Church as an instrument to unite humanity instead of leading them to the true savior, but to a pantheistic Christ embracing everyone regardless of their religious differences (Dolan, 2000). For Dolan, Paul had created a church lacking dogma that sought to unite humanity under a dogma less Christ. In this context, Paul II was considered to profess multiple doctrines and did not adhere to the true Catholic faith with the required certitude and firmness of divine faith.
In addition, Paul II was considered a heretic through his declaration of Orientalium ecclesiarum which was a decree made to eastern Catholic Churches and the eastern Schismatic sects that are the Orthodox “non-Catholic churches. The implication is that Penance sacraments, the Holy Eucharist, and the anointing of the sick can be conferred on Eastern Christians who are separated from the Catholic Church in good faith if they request based on their accord and are properly disposed (Tanner, 2016). However, according to Catholic Apologetics (n.d), this decree is an error and heretical in the sense that for about 20 centuries, the Catholic Church has been consistent in teaching that heretics cannot receive such penance, the eucharist, and extreme unction hence such a decree is based on dogma external to the Catholic Church, arguing no remission of sin as earlier defined by Pope Boniface VIII. According to Boniface, with faith urging us Catholics are forced to believe and hold to the one, holy, Catholic Church and firmly believe and simply confess the Church and outside of which there is no salvation nor remission of sin (Clerus, n.d). Brother Michael Dimond argues that Pope II’s argument is dogma as it legalizes the giving of Holly Communion to persons outside the Catholic Church despite popes throughout the ages teaching that those who receive the Communion outside the Church do it to their damnation (Dimond, 2007). For instance, Pope Pius VIII in the Traditi Humilitati (# 4) stated anyone who ate the Lamb outside this house will perish in a similar way as those outside the Naoh’s ark during the flood (Carlen, 1981). For, Dimond (2007) the heresy by Paull II is in three areas, the sharing of sacraments, more importantly, the Holy Eucharist. In addition, the justification of this sharing by invoking the spiritual profits taught by Eugene IV who taught receiving sacraments outside the Church has no salvation-related benefits. Finally, Paul II further emphasizes the universalism argument as he implies the persons they are sharing sacraments with are part of the Church of Christ (Dimond, 2007). The heresy herein us the Catholic Church considers itself to be the same as those it gives communion to and other churches.
In addition, Paull II’s heresy is founded on his religious liberty (Dignitatis Humanae) position. Here the Vatican declared that every human had a right to religious freedom and hence should be immune from coercion by individuals, groups, and human power and that on religious issues, one should not be forced to act against their conscious publicly or privately (Dignitatis Humanae # 2) (Tanner, 2016). The right to non-interference holds even for those that fail to carry out their duty of seeking the truth and defending it and exercising this right should not be curtailed as long as public order is maintained (Tanner, 2016). The decree according to Catholic Apologetics (n.d) is dogmatic in the sense that it provides states the right and duty to protect false religions while they propagate and practice their untruthful faiths publicly. However, this is against traditional Catholic teaching which has always taught Catholicism as the only religion of the state. This position required the state to prevent public proclamations and professions of any other religion. States should unquestionably undertake this obligation to protect the common good (good of the souls) that may be harmed by evil disseminated in public. As noted by Fr. Matthias Gaudron, saints never hesitated to break idols, destroy temples, or legislate against pagans and other heretical practices (Gordon, 2010). The Catholic Church without using fear or favors to baptize souls and make new believers has always recognized its right and duty to protect its faithful and prevent when possible and necessary, the exercise and propagation of cultism. Therefore, the teaching by Paul II according to Gordon (2010) is accepting that for two millennia by saints, Fathers, Popes, bishops, and Catholic kings have been violating human rights without anyone within the Church noticing. For him, such a the is absurd as it is heretical (Gordon, 2010). The Catholic Apologetics (n.d) in this context highlights that the teaching on religious liberty was considered so heretical and significantly contradicting the Catholic Magisterium teaching to an extent that the most liberal heretics found rationalizing it challenging.
Conclusion
The paper highlights the various Christianities that have been lost through time via the surviving saints and offers significant insight into the reasons why St John Paul II was considered a heretic. As rightly indicated, the period of Paul II’s leadership of the Catholic Church was a tumultuous one as the world was going through a lot of changes and modernization. Paul II also felt the Church needed to change and adapt and in this case made reforms to the foundational tenets and beliefs. He called for a meeting of the leading council of the Church which culminated in the release of Vatican II and this is why his accusations of heresy and his consideration as a heretic emerged. Vatican II proposed radical changes to Catholic beliefs and practice but these did not auger well with the Church’s leadership. Most of the teachings and decrees by Paul II were a complete shift from what the Church had taught and practiced for two millennia. He took a more liberal stance in his decrees and hence was considered a heretic.
References
Bourmaud, F. (2011, May). Doubts of the society of St. Pius X about beatifying Pope John Paul II. pp. 16-21. sspx.org. https://sspx.org/sites/sspx/files/sspxs_doubts_about_beatification_of_john_paul_ii_bourmaud.pdf
Carlen, C. (Ed.). (1981). The Papal Encyclicals, 1740-1981 (Vol. 5). New York: McGrath/Consortium.
Catholic Apologetics. (n.d). For 20 centuries the Catholic Church has consistently taught that heretics cannot receive the sacraments of penance, holy Eucharist, and extreme unction. This teaching is founded on the dogma that outside the Catholic Church there is no remission of sins. Catholicapologetics.info. Retrieved from http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/Privatican.htm
Clerus. (n.d). Denzinger EN 468. Clerus.org. http://www.clerus.org/bibliaclerusonline/en/dwv.htm
Dimond, B. (2007, February 5). Orientalium ecclesiarum – Vatican II’s decree on eastern Catholic Churches. Vaticancatholic.com. https://vaticancatholic.com/orientalium-ecclesiarum/
Dolan, M. L. (2000, August 13). The apostasy of John Paul II: A Catholic response. Traditionalmass.org. Retrieved from http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=29
Gordon, F. (2010). Catechism of the crisis. Saint Marys, KS: Angelus Press.
Howard, C. (2018). World religions. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: EdTech.
Tanner, N. P. (Ed.). (2016). Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils (Vol. 2). Georgetown University Press: George Town University Press.
write