He was not declared heretical, yet the condemnation of some (and most crucial) of his teachings made him de facto a heretic in the conscience of the church.
This move is important not only as such, but mainly because the Meister’s position belongs among the greatest saints and fathers, along with Augustine. You can imagine the magnitude of this distortion, I guess, when such a saint and theologian is not allowed to guide the church, but, on the contrary, is covered with (at least) suspicion.
You say that in certain senses the condemned teachings of Meister Eckhart can be understood as heretical. Can not the Bible itself sound heretical in certain senses?
Should we condemn the biblical teachings because of the heretic interpretations and senses that the papal church discovered and used in order to excuse the burning of ‘heretics’ and the selling of absolution papers?
The second part of your letter, the attempt to approve the condemnation because ‘Christ’s Vicar on earth’ is infallible and we should follow him as if Christ himself was leading and speaking, is also a proof about what was said above for probable heretical readings of the Bible itself.
Of course, a person who is ready to accept and accepts that Peter magically is transformed into each and every pope, would not agree with my calling the papal supposed absolute authority a heresy.
You suggest that Eckhart would agree with you, but we cannot base our discussion on such guesswork. It is true that Eckhart addressed his accusers with explicit contempt, being so sure and confident about his theology, de facto and in advance refusing any papal decision that would reject his teachings essentially.
Beyond these, if your devotion to the Vicar has not been shaken by all the falls and criminal activities coming from the papal see, there is no reason for me to offer arguments against infallibility, authority, or the pope being a ‘reincarnation’ of Peter and Vicar of Christ on earth… — all of this madness that presents itself as holy doctrine.
Jose de Jesus
Reading here both the mail and the commentary I want to say that I agree with the commentary or response to the mail. I recognize the Bishop of Rome as being in the seat of Peter the apostle, and as such having a symbolic presidency, but cannot accept that from that follows infallibility. There is not such a thing in humans. I was born in the Roman Catholic Church, and as soon as I learned about the Orthodox Catholic Church wonder about the fact that it has the word Orthodox as his name, recognized by the Roman Church and felt that for some reason it is so. Later, with the years I learned also that something very important seems to be lacking in the Roman Church and then found that this very thing is not lacking in Eckhart teachings and it is also not missing in the Orthodox Church. Now that a new Bishop of Rome has been chosen and looking at the invitation and assistance of the Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, I have great hopes that these things are going to be properly addressed. Maybe, this is precisely the Pope called Petrus Romanus, as in Malachy words, and if the unity of the Church is going to be achieved, it certainly requires a redefinition, on the part of the Roman Church, of what the Presidency of the Roman Bishop means and, who knows, maybe we will not need another Pope, as we know now, and the Bishop of Rome will only be that, which is already all it is. My is the view of a lay christian that calls himself just Catholic and living in Latin America. I just discovered this very interesting website while reading and searching about Meister Eckhart.
Jose de Jesus.