Send CathInfo's owner Matthew a gift from his Amazon wish list:
https://www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls/25M2B8RERL1UO

Poll

Affirm or deny: Pope Honorius remained the Roman Pontiff until his death, even though the Sixth Ecumenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic and Pope Leo II ratified that condemnation.

Affirm
7 (63.6%)
Deny
4 (36.4%)

Total Members Voted: 11

« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 29

Author Topic: Affirm or Deny: Heretic Yet Pope Until Death? (Pope Honorius I case  (Read 179556 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Affirm or Deny: Heretic Yet Pope Until Death? (Pope Honorius I case
« Reply #55 on: December 13, 2025, 05:59:18 PM »
Quote from: Ladislaus on December 13, 2025, 02:45:46 PM
I'm not sure if there's any way to get you to understand this, but I'll try one more time.  You would not have to believe that what these putative Conciliar popes have done cannot violate the Church's indefectibility ... IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE THEY ARE POPES.

Every time you post, you simply assume that they are Popes.

Let's try a simple example ...

MAJOR:  Dogs cannot walk upright on two legs.
MINOR:  This animal walks upright on two legs.
CONCLUSION:  This animal is not a dog.

This is an argument in the form referred to as modus tollens or modo tollentis.

MAJOR:  IF P, THEN Q.
MINOR:  NOT Q.
CONCLUSION:  THEN NOT P.

This is the SV argument.

MAJOR:  Legitimate Popes cannot teach grave error to the Universal Church or promulgate a Mass that's offensive to God and harmful to souls.
MINOR:  Montini (aka "Pope" Paul VI) taught grave error to the Universal Church and promulgated a Mass that's offensive to God and harmful to souls.
CONCLUSION:  Montini was not a legitimate pope.

I'm not interested in debating the details, since that's precisely what the SV vs. R&R debate is about ... but here I'm simply trying to explain that in the SV framework, the Popes have not taught error or promulgated a harmful / offensive Mass ... BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT POPES.

For whatever reason, this most basic of logical arguments doesn't not sink through into your skull, and it's really not that hard.
First, I do not assume they are popes, I believe they are popes - why? because that is the Catholic default position. This default position, among other things, is based on reality. 

I already know the sedes believe that "the Popes have not taught error or promulgated a harmful / offensive Mass ... BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT POPES." Everybody knows this. They believe this even though their starting (and ending) point, i.e. the MAJOR, is wrong. IOW, their opinion-turned-doctrine is based on a false premise per the Council of Constantinople. This false premise is the sede default position.

I'm now waiting for you to start calling both Pope Agatho and Pope Leo II old catholic heretics and condemn the whole Third Council of Constantinople while you're at it. 

Pope Honorius I

Pope (625-12 October, 638), a Campanian, consecrated 27 October (Duchesne) or 3 November (Jaffé, Mann), in succession to Boniface V. His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680)

Logged

Offline Freind

Re: Affirm or Deny: Heretic Yet Pope Until Death? (Pope Honorius I case
« Reply #56 on: December 13, 2025, 06:18:31 PM »
Quote from: Stubborn on December 13, 2025, 05:59:18 PM
First, I do not assume they are popes, I believe they are popes - why? because that is the Catholic default position. This default position, among other things, is based on reality. 

I already know the sedes believe that "the Popes have not taught error or promulgated a harmful / offensive Mass ... BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT POPES." Everybody knows this. They believe this even though their starting (and ending) point, i.e. the MAJOR, is wrong. IOW, their opinion-turned-doctrine is based on a false premise per the Council of Constantinople. This false premise is the sede default position.

I'm now waiting for you to start calling both Pope Agatho and Pope Leo II old catholic heretics and condemn the whole Third Council of Constantinople while you're at it. 

Pope Honorius I

Pope (625-12 October, 638), a Campanian, consecrated 27 October (Duchesne) or 3 November (Jaffé, Mann), in succession to Boniface V. His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680)

Reading this I am beginning to think you cannot remember things you read even yesterday!
Logged

Offline Stubborn

  • Supporter
Re: Affirm or Deny: Heretic Yet Pope Until Death? (Pope Honorius I case
« Reply #57 on: December 13, 2025, 06:45:54 PM »
Typical side. :facepalm:
Logged

Offline ArmandLouis

Re: Affirm or Deny: Heretic Yet Pope Until Death? (Pope Honorius I case
« Reply #58 on: December 13, 2025, 08:32:23 PM »
Quote from: Stubborn on December 13, 2025, 05:59:18 PM
First, I do not assume they are popes, I believe they are popes - why? because that is the Catholic default position. This default position, among other things, is based on reality. 

I already know the sedes believe that "the Popes have not taught error or promulgated a harmful / offensive Mass ... BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT POPES." Everybody knows this. They believe this even though their starting (and ending) point, i.e. the MAJOR, is wrong. IOW, their opinion-turned-doctrine is based on a false premise per the Council of Constantinople. This false premise is the sede default position.

I'm now waiting for you to start calling both Pope Agatho and Pope Leo II old catholic heretics and condemn the whole Third Council of Constantinople while you're at it. 

Pope Honorius I

Pope (625-12 October, 638), a Campanian, consecrated 27 October (Duchesne) or 3 November (Jaffé, Mann), in succession to Boniface V. His chief notoriety has come to him from the fact that he was condemned as a heretic by the sixth general council (680)
And if one were to deny Honorius was condemned and anathematized, one would also have to deny the authority and affirmation of the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eighth Ecuмenical), because it explicitly confirms the Sixth Council’s condemnations.

“Further, we accept the sixth, holy and universal synod {6 Constantinople III}, which shares the same beliefs and is in harmony with the previously mentioned synods in that it wisely laid down … So, we anathematize Theodore … and with these, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria as well as Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, who followed the false teachings of the unholy heresiarchs…”

— Definition of the holy and universal Eighth Synod (Fourth Council of Constantinople, 869–870)
Logged

Offline Plenus Venter

Re: Affirm or Deny: Heretic Yet Pope Until Death? (Pope Honorius I case
« Reply #59 on: December 13, 2025, 09:42:16 PM »
Quote from: ArmandLouis on December 13, 2025, 08:32:23 PM
And if one were to deny Honorius was condemned and anathematized, one would also have to deny the authority and affirmation of the Fourth Council of Constantinople (Eighth Ecuмenical), because it explicitly confirms the Sixth Council’s condemnations.

“Further, we accept the sixth, holy and universal synod {6 Constantinople III}, which shares the same beliefs and is in harmony with the previously mentioned synods in that it wisely laid down … So, we anathematize Theodore … and with these, Honorius of Rome, Cyrus of Alexandria as well as Macarius of Antioch and his disciple Stephen, who followed the false teachings of the unholy heresiarchs…”

— Definition of the holy and universal Eighth Synod (Fourth Council of Constantinople, 869–870)
This is very controversial history. 

I would simply say that no one should be too ready to consider Pope Honorius to have been a heretic without first reading St Robert Bellarmine's very thorough consideration of the question in his defence.

In relation to this affirmation, in particular, St Robert has this answer:

What if someone were brought in that could not believe that the Sixth Council would be corrupted; he could look to another solution, which is in Juan de Torquemada. He teaches that the Fathers of the Sixth Council condemned Honorius but from false information, and hence erred in that judgement. Although a legitimate general council could not err in defining dogmas of faith (and the Sixth council did not), still it could err in questions of fact. Therefore, we can safely say that those Fathers were deceived by false rumours and did not understand the epistles of Honorius, and wrongly enumerated Honorius with the heretics.

So one would not have to deny the authority of these councils. We are not dealing with definitions of faith or morals.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 10 11 [12] 13 14 ... 29
« previous next »