If someone has studied the faith, but not yet become a Catholic, or has rejected Catholic teaching, after studing is, they would not be a formal heretic. Now if you ask me, (and I am biased, because I became a Catholic) they are someone who needs to ask more questions, or has been prejudiced against the faith by false ideas, or needs to pray, and be prayed for, so they can accept the truth that Jesus founded one Church, promised to remain with it, and has not turned away from His promise.

As far as the Pope having Political Power, and the Vatican being a sovern country, you betcha. If the Vatican was on the soil of another country it would be influenced by that country. The United Nations is in New York City, however the UN sits on International Property, with it’s own police, and laws. This way the UN is able to work independently of the USA, or the influence of any other country.

The Political power of the Vatican allowed it to help people like my family escape from Europe during WWII, it allowed for relief in POW and refugee camps over the past century. Italy was actually very Anti-Catholic from the early 1800s to recently. The Anti-Clerical crowds who massed in Rome at the Funeral of Pope Pius IX threatened to toss his body into the Tiber River. In order to protect Catholics from undue influence by Civil Governments, the Vatican should be independent. If you look at other Groups like the Calvanists, and the Anglicans, as well as many Lutherans when they where founded, they had to depend on the graces of the local Prince or King. In the case of Calvin, he ran both the Civil and Religious life of Geneva in his lifetime, and instituted public hangings of those who disagreed with his religious teachings.

James:

I don’t claim infallibility, nor as I have mentioned before can a computer forum be exhaustive in covering all aspects of any given topic.

Your citation from a secular dictionary does give one aspect of heresy. However if you look in the Catholic Encyclopedia, you will find further (also not exaustive) aspects.

[quote:s7ni6bj0]Both matter and form of heresy admit of degrees which find expression in the following technical formula of theology and canon law. Pertinacious adhesion to a doctrine contradictory to a point of faith clearly defined by the Church is heresy pure and simple, heresy in the first degree. But if the doctrine in question has not been expressly “defined” or is not clearly proposed as an article of faith in the ordinary, authorized teaching of the Church, an opinion opposed to it is styled sententia haeresi proxima, that is, an opinion approaching heresy. Next, a doctrinal proposition, without directly contradicting a received dogma, may yet involve logical consequences at variance with revealed truth. Such a proposition is not heretical, it is a propositio theologice erronea, that is, erroneous in theology. Further, the opposition to an article of faith may not be strictly demonstrable, but only reach a certain degree of probability. In that case the doctrine is termed sententia de haeresi suspecta, haeresim sapiens; that is, an opinion suspected, or savouring, of heresy[/quote:s7ni6bj0]
[url:s7ni6bj0]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm#REF_III[/url:s7ni6bj0]
As for the section of my comments above, I stand by them, as there was a question in the early 20th Century about Vincible and Invincible Ignorance, which my comment touched upon. That being, if someone is unaware that he or she has denied the teachings of the Catholic Church, or has been prejudiced against hearing the teachings of the Church he or she cannot be held liable. So a Protestant or a Catholic who does not understand the teachings of the Church and is misled into renouncing what he falsely believes is the Catholic Faith is not a formal heretic, because he is rejecting not what the Church teaches, but what he has been falsely led to believe is what the Church teaches.

I’ll keep him in my prayers. I hope if there is something that he either does not understand or has been misled about that the situation is corrected.

I know many lifelong Catholics who have been persuaded by the arguments of various Protestants which misrepresent either an aspect of the Faith that they are not well versed in, or contort the Catholic Truth to make it represent what it does not really teach. The reality is we can’t get into your friend’s mind and really know what is motivating him. Sometimes in youth, a person rebels against what he has been told as an assertion of his independence, anyone who has been raised without questioning or exposure to other opinions can be shocked by what they hear and question the authority they grew up with. If your friend is going through that, or you yourself, the best we can do is to try and offer correct, and honest answers, and pray for God’s grace to enlighten us all.

Some of the greatest Saints have gone through times where they questioned their faith. Sometimes these periods in our life strengthen our faith, because rather than just believe the teachings because someone in authority taught them, we assent to them for ourselves.

James:

Do you live in the U.S.?

If you would like, send me your address off line and some of the major issues you are questioning and I’ll send you a couple of books (no charge) to review later in the week when I go to the post office.

Back home Wednesday, I did think of another historian an Philosopher, Jaques Martain, started life a Rationalist, very anti-Catholic, converted with his wife Raissa in 1904. Studied Science, became interested in History and Philosophy while in College. Wrote a book called, [u:u2asqzdz][i:u2asqzdz]“Three Reformers Luther Descartes Roussea”[/i:u2asqzdz][/u:u2asqzdz] which covers some of the issues between Catholic Philosophy and Luther.

They are, Hughes and Jedin are the only Historians (by profession) the others are Philosophers and in the case of Newman, he was a great scholar, but wrote on several issues. Erik Erikson was a non-Catholic, and a Psychiatrist, he wrote, “Young Man Luther” which was a forensic psychiatric history.

As I posted previously, I trust them, and posted them because they all came from Anti-Catholic backrounds, prior to the study of history, philosophy and theology, coming to the conclusion that they could no longer support the previous belief systems. Louis Bouyer, was a Lutheran Minister prior to his conversion. His book, the Spirit and Forms of Protestantism is a very good review of the issue.

The only one I would warn you about is John Henry Cardinal Newman, is one of the most respected scholars and writers of the 1800s in England, I do think he is a little harsh in his treatment of Martin Luther, he tends to put his personal opinions in his treatment of the subject, and is not as objective as the others.