Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Crisis in the Church => Topic started by: ArmandLouis on December 11, 2025, 01:51:53 PM
-
“To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!“
In Session XVI of the Sixth Ecuмenical Council (680–681), Honorius I was formally labeled a “heretic”, alongside other Monothelite leaders, yet he remained pope until his death. The council’s acclamation reads verbatim:
“To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema!
To Sergius, the heretic, anathema!
To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema!
To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!
To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul, the heretic, anathema!
To Peter, the heretic, anathema!
To Macarius, the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen, the heretic, anathema!
To Polychronius, the heretic, anathema!
To Apergius of Perga, the heretic, anathema!
To all heretics, anathema!
To all who side with heretics, anathema!”
— Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV: The Sixth Ecuмenical Council, Session XVI
The council language itself used the word “heretic” in association with his name.
The dogmatic decree itself (as recorded in Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, cols. 635‑637) also states:
“…Honorius, qui fuit Papa antiquae Romae… haeretico anathema…”
English: “…Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome… anathema to the heretic…”
The Council repeatedly identified Honorius as a heretic, both in the acclamations of the bishops and in the formal dogmatic decree.
-
You have 2 premises there so you need to divide them.
1) Pope Honorius remained the Roman Pontiff until his death.
2) The Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic and Pope Leo II ratified that condemnation.
The 1st requires no clarification.
The 2nd does and I already gave it to you TWICE.
But what the hell,
(https://i.imgur.com/piBWStU.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/td59HiA.png)
Why won't you tell me what you think of the "CatholicTrumpet"...
-
You have 2 premises there so you need to divide them.
Thanks for posting about this ArmandLouis!
From Magisterium AI...
"Yes, Pope Honorius I was declared a heretic and anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople (also known as Constantinople III, held from 680 to 681) for his role in promoting or confirming the Monothelite heresy, which posited that Christ had only one will (theandric) rather than two distinct wills (divine and human) in harmony.
This condemnation occurred in the council's thirteenth session on March 28, 681, and was reiterated in the final dogmatic decree of September 16, 681, as well as in an accompanying imperial edict."
Well gee wiz, look at that will ya? A mere 43 years after the death of a heretic pope, the Church officially declared him a heretic - but did not declare him to not be pope.
You all can stop insisting that to even say such a thing makes one an old catholic heretic.
Snip of the list of popes in historical order from the CE....
Sabinian (604-606)
Boniface III (607)
St. Boniface IV (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (615-18)
Boniface V (619-25)
Honorius I (625-38)
Severinus (640)
John IV (640-42)
Theodore I (642-49)
St. Martin I (649-55)
St. Eugene I (655-57)
St. Vitalian (657-72)
-
You have 2 premises there so you need to divide them.
1) Pope Honorius remained the Roman Pontiff until his death.
2) The Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic and Pope Leo II ratified that condemnation.
The 1st requires no clarification.
The 2nd does and I already gave it to you TWICE.
But what the hell,
(https://i.imgur.com/piBWStU.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/td59HiA.png)
Why won't you tell me what you think of the "CatholicTrumpet"...
Cease your sophistry, classic case of semantic equivocation combined with historical minimization.
Honorius I was anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council: ‘To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!’
Pope Leo II confirmed this condemnation in his letters, stating: ‘We anathematize Honorius, who did not extinguish the flame of heretical teaching as was fitting, but rather fostered it by his negligence.’
Honorius remained Pope until his death in 638. This is historical fact. The Council condemned him, Leo II confirmed it, and he continued as Pope.
-
Cease your sophistry, classic case of semantic equivocation combined with historical minimization.
Ohhhh.... Sophistry... Really?
I throw your own devices in your face!
from Magisterium A.I.:
Was Honorius a heretic or was he condemned and named as a heretic because he did not do his duty to extirpate the heresy?
Pope Honorius I (r. 625–638) was posthumously condemned by the Third Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople (680–681) not primarily for personally embracing the Monothelite heresy—that Christ possessed only one will (divine)—but for failing in his papal duty to actively suppress and extirpate it. This distinction is crucial in Catholic historical and theological understanding, as it underscores a lapse in pastoral vigilance rather than a formal endorsement of error in his official teaching capacity. The council's anathema targeted his letters to Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople, which ambiguously tolerated or even seemed to favor Monothelitism by discouraging further debate on the issue, thereby allowing the heresy to spread. In essence, Honorius was faulted for negligence in upholding orthodox doctrine, a serious dereliction for a pope tasked with guarding the faith.
This condemnation reflects the Church's emphasis on the pope's responsibility to defend unity and truth, as articulated in later teachings like those on papal primacy (e.g., Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus). However, it does not imply that Honorius was a heretic in the full sense of willfully adhering to false doctrine; the evidence points to ambiguity and inaction rather than outright heresy. The council's decree explicitly named him alongside other promoters of Monothelitism, but historical analysis, including from Catholic sources, interprets this as a rebuke for omission—failing to "extirpate the heresy" as you phrased it—rather than personal conviction.
Notably, nearly 160 years later, Pope Leo III (r. 795–816), who was later canonized as a saint, issued a formal decree in 799 absolving Honorius of the heresy charges. This exoneration, recorded in contemporary sources like the Liber Pontificalis, restored his reputation by clarifying that his errors were not heretical in intent but stemmed from a desire for ecclesiastical peace at the expense of doctrinal clarity. Leo III's action highlights the Church's nuanced approach to such historical judgments, allowing for reevaluation without undermining conciliar authority.
In Catholic doctrine today, this episode is often cited to illustrate that popes are protected from error only when teaching ex cathedra on faith and morals (as defined by Vatican I), not in private correspondence or administrative decisions. Honorius's case serves as a cautionary example of human frailty in the papal office, reinforcing the need for vigilant orthodoxy without contradicting the gift of infallibility. For deeper study, resources like the Catholic Encyclopedia or conciliar acts provide further context on how the Church reconciles such events with its magisterial tradition.
https://www.magisterium.com/search/f1856f72-0f17-4585-ad08-150c4bfe60f8 (https://www.magisterium.com/search/f1856f72-0f17-4585-ad08-150c4bfe60f8)
Argue some more like a Protestant, come on then since you love their arguments so.
And while doing so also tell me about "The Catholic Trumpet".
-
Ohhhh.... Sophistry... Really?
I throw your own devices in your face!
from Magisterium A.I.:
Was Honorius a heretic or was he condemned and named as a heretic because he did not do his duty to extirpate the heresy?
Pope Honorius I (r. 625–638) was posthumously condemned by the Third Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople (680–681) not primarily for personally embracing the Monothelite heresy—that Christ possessed only one will (divine)—but for failing in his papal duty to actively suppress and extirpate it. This distinction is crucial in Catholic historical and theological understanding, as it underscores a lapse in pastoral vigilance rather than a formal endorsement of error in his official teaching capacity. The council's anathema targeted his letters to Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople, which ambiguously tolerated or even seemed to favor Monothelitism by discouraging further debate on the issue, thereby allowing the heresy to spread. In essence, Honorius was faulted for negligence in upholding orthodox doctrine, a serious dereliction for a pope tasked with guarding the faith.
This condemnation reflects the Church's emphasis on the pope's responsibility to defend unity and truth, as articulated in later teachings like those on papal primacy (e.g., Vatican I's Pastor Aeternus). However, it does not imply that Honorius was a heretic in the full sense of willfully adhering to false doctrine; the evidence points to ambiguity and inaction rather than outright heresy. The council's decree explicitly named him alongside other promoters of Monothelitism, but historical analysis, including from Catholic sources, interprets this as a rebuke for omission—failing to "extirpate the heresy" as you phrased it—rather than personal conviction.
Notably, nearly 160 years later, Pope Leo III (r. 795–816), who was later canonized as a saint, issued a formal decree in 799 absolving Honorius of the heresy charges. This exoneration, recorded in contemporary sources like the Liber Pontificalis, restored his reputation by clarifying that his errors were not heretical in intent but stemmed from a desire for ecclesiastical peace at the expense of doctrinal clarity. Leo III's action highlights the Church's nuanced approach to such historical judgments, allowing for reevaluation without undermining conciliar authority.
In Catholic doctrine today, this episode is often cited to illustrate that popes are protected from error only when teaching ex cathedra on faith and morals (as defined by Vatican I), not in private correspondence or administrative decisions. Honorius's case serves as a cautionary example of human frailty in the papal office, reinforcing the need for vigilant orthodoxy without contradicting the gift of infallibility. For deeper study, resources like the Catholic Encyclopedia or conciliar acts provide further context on how the Church reconciles such events with its magisterial tradition.
https://www.magisterium.com/search/f1856f72-0f17-4585-ad08-150c4bfe60f8 (https://www.magisterium.com/search/f1856f72-0f17-4585-ad08-150c4bfe60f8)
Argue some more like a Protestant, come on then since you love their arguments so.
And while doing so also tell me about "The Catholic Trumpet".
I will simply supply the leading proofs that Honorius was as a matter of fact condemned by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council as a heretic:
1.Condemnation in the Acts of the Council-Honorius’s condemnation is recorded in the official conciliar acts in Session XIII, near the beginning. (Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Tomus XI, cols. 635‑637)
2. Letters Ordered to Be Burned-The Council ordered the destruction of Honorius’s two letters to Sergius because they contained error. (Mansi XI)
3. Formal Liturgical Anathema-In Session XVI, the bishops proclaimed:
“Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.” (Mansi XI)
4. Decree of Faith-In Session XVIII, the Council’s decree of faith states that the originator of all evil found a tool for his will in Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome. (Mansi XI)
5. Report to the Emperor-The Council reported to Emperor Constantine IV that “Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome, has been punished with exclusion and anathema because he followed the Monothelites.” (Mansi XI)
6. Letter to Pope Agatho-The Council wrote that it “has slain with anathema Honorius,” indicating formal recognition of his culpability. (Mansi XI)
7. Imperial Decree-The Emperor condemned “the unholy priests who infected the Church…Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself…who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.” (Mansi XI)
8. Ratification by Pope St. Leo II-Pope Leo II confirmed the decrees of the Council and explicitly anathematized Honorius. (Mansi XI; Roman Breviary, pre‑1955 editions)
9. Trullan Canons-Honorius is mentioned among the condemned in the Trullan Canons (Canon 10/11), which were received as authoritative pre-Vatican II Catholic law. (Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, pre‑1955 edition)
10. Seventh Ecuмenical Council Affirmation-The Second Council of Nicaea (787) explicitly declares adhesion to the anathemas of the Sixth Council, including Honorius. (Acts of Nicaea II)
11. Roman Copy of the Acts- Honorius’s name appears in the Roman copy of the Council’s acts, as recorded in Vita Leonis II (Life of Pope Leo II). (Mansi XI, cols. 637‑638)
12. Papal Oath in Liber Diurnus-From the fifth to the eleventh century, newly elected popes swore an oath condemning the originators of the Monothelite heresy, explicitly naming Honorius. (Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificuм, Vincenzo Forcella edition, 1888)
13. Roman Breviary-In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II (pre‑1955), Honorius is listed among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod. As Bossuet noted, “They suppress as far as they can, the Liber Diurnus: they have erased this from the Roman Breviary. Have they therefore hidden it? Truth breaks out from all sides, and these things become so much the more evident, as they are the more studiously put out of sight.” (Roman Breviary, pre‑1955; Bossuet)
With this array of Catholic sources, it is indisputable that Pope Honorius was formally condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council and recognized in subsequent papal, imperial, and liturgical sources, yet he remained pope until his death.
-
You knucklehead! :laugh1:
You addressed ZERO of the points that your own AI threw in your face, showing how he was exonerated of that charge (that means IT NEVER HAPPENED.).
He was not a heretic.
He favored heresy by not defending the faith as he should have.
That is what history remembers from Leo II's "ratification".
You are the one engaging in "sophistry".
No one is disputing that the Council named him among the heretics (boy, your no Usain Bolt on the uptake I see).
Your silly poll appends this obfuscating falsehood on the end, "...and Pope Leo II ratified that condemnation."
I didn't vote because of that.
Now, enough already!
Tell me what you think of "The Catholic Trumpet".
Are their messages good or filthy evil aimed at dividing R&R?
-
You knucklehead! :laugh1:
You addressed ZERO of the points that your own AI threw in your face, showing how he was exonerated of that charge (that means IT NEVER HAPPENED).
No one is disputing that the Council named him among the heretics (boy, your no Usain Bolt on the uptake I see).
Your silly poll appends this obfuscating falsehood on the end, "...and Pope Leo II ratified that condemnation."
Now, enough already!
Tell me what you think of "The Catholic Trumpet".
Are their messages good or filthy evil aimed at dividing R&R?
There is no reliable historical record in Catholic, OR secular primary sources that Pope Leo III issued a formal decree in 799 absolving Pope Honorius I of the heresy charges, because it never happened.
You won’t be to find a formal decree, because it does not exist.
-
There is no reliable historical record in Catholic, secular primary sources that Pope Leo III issued a formal decree in 799 absolving Pope Honorius I of the heresy charges, if you have the encyclical, post it.
No.
No.
No.
See, you are just like a Protestant.
Go read what St. Bellarmine says about it - that MIGHT do you some good.
But you are as doubting as the worst of the Orthodox in this.
I think the "Catholic Trumpet" guy is you, or you are one of his buds. Did I guess right?
-
You knucklehead! :laugh1:
You addressed ZERO of the points that your own AI threw in your face, showing how he was exonerated of that charge (that means IT NEVER HAPPENED.).
He was not a heretic.
He favored heresy by not defending the faith as he should have.
That is what history remembers from Leo II's "ratification".
You are the one engaging in "sophistry".
No one is disputing that the Council named him among the heretics (boy, your no Usain Bolt on the uptake I see).
Your silly poll appends this obfuscating falsehood on the end, "...and Pope Leo II ratified that condemnation."
I didn't vote because of that.
Now, enough already!
Tell me what you think of "The Catholic Trumpet".
Are their messages good or filthy evil aimed at dividing R&R?
And, Pope Leo II confirmed the acts of the Sixth Ecuмenical Council, which included Honorius among those anathematized as a heretic.
-
No.
No.
No.
See, you are just like a Protestant.
Go read what St. Bellarmine says about it - that MIGHT do you some good.
But you are as doubting as the worst of the Orthodox in this.
I think the "Catholic Trumpet" guy is you, or you are one of his buds. Did I guess right?
You have already evaded the affirm or deny, will you also evade producing this formal decree (which does not exist)
-
And, Pope Leo II confirmed the acts of the Sixth Ecuмenical Council, which included Honorius among those anathematized as a heretic.
So if someone you think is a Sede says, "affirm" to your little poll here then you nailed it man! SVs defeated? R&R vindicated?
You are better at attacking the other R&R for not holding to the "true position of +Lefebvre".
Here you just look like a miserable OrthoBro trying to dismantle the papacy so he can sleep well at night.
-
You have already evaded the affirm or deny, will you also evade producing this formal decree (which does not exist)
Oh there is no "evading" here other than from you.
I just flat out REFUSE to answer your poll because the premise is FLAWED.
I also see no reason to produce anything more for you beyond what the great Saints and Doctors have already laid down.
Use your fancy Magersterium AI to see what they taught about it (you know the one that blew up in your face when I asked it the RIGHT question).
What I am sensing is that you are EXTREMELY EVASIVE about answering my queries about your thoughts/relationship with "The Catholic Trumpet".
-
So if someone you think is a Sede says, "affirm" to your little poll here then you nailed it man! SVs defeated? R&R vindicated?
You are better at attacking the other R&R for not holding to the "true position of +Lefebvre".
Here you just look like a miserable OrthoBro trying to dismantle the papacy so he can sleep well at night.
I see you continue to evade. You have accused me of being a Protestant, and “OrthoBro” but it is sedevacantism that is closely related to both of those sects Outside of The Roman Catholic Church.
I think this thread speaks for itself on who is trying to dismantle the papacy and who is trying to defend it.
Honorius was anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council, and Pope Leo II confirmed the acts. He remained pope until his death.
This undeniable Church history, docuмented in the Mansi collection, Liber Diurnus, Roman Breviary, and Vita Leonis II completely destroys the grave error of sedevacantism.
-
Here I will help out.
From your favorite AI https://www.magisterium.com/search/f1856f72-0f17-4585-ad08-150c4bfe60f8 (https://www.magisterium.com/search/f1856f72-0f17-4585-ad08-150c4bfe60f8)
(https://i.imgur.com/VQ8zwjT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/7CSUwO3.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/rBzYTZr.png)
-
You have accused me of being a Protestant, and “OrthoBro”
No sparky, I accused you of being CATHOLIC TRUMPET GUY (who is arguing like a Protestant, and doubts the papacy like an OrthoBro).
-
Here I will help out.
From your favorite AI https://www.magisterium.com/search/f1856f72-0f17-4585-ad08-150c4bfe60f8 (https://www.magisterium.com/search/f1856f72-0f17-4585-ad08-150c4bfe60f8)
(https://i.imgur.com/VQ8zwjT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/7CSUwO3.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/rBzYTZr.png)
You have already used this program to promote an absolute untruth, the falsehood is Pope Leo III issued a decree absolving Honorius in 799, this is a complete fabrication, doesn’t exist, and has never taken place.
-
completely destroys the grave error of sedevacantism.
:jester::facepalm::laugh1::laugh2::laugh1::facepalm::jester::laugh1::laugh2::jester::facepalm::laugh2::laugh1:
OK.
You better let them know on "The Catholic Trumpet".
-
You have already used this program to promote an absolute untruth
Oh you mean the same AI you use to support your "truth"?
Oh, oh no... What are we to do...
Maybe the AI is lying to me but it is honest with you?
Yes, that must be it. :facepalm:
-
Oh you mean the same AI you use to support your "truth"?
Oh, oh no... What are we to do...
Maybe the AI is lying to me but it is honest with you?
Yes, that must be it. :facepalm:
I am citing Catholic sources, and you are citing AI. If you think the sources are wrong, then name which of these are “AI”:
• Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum XI
• Vita Leonis II
• Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificuм
• Roman Breviary (pre‑1955)
• Acts of the Sixth Ecuмenical Council
• Acts of Nicaea II (787)
• Denzinger (pre‑1955)
These are the primary historical and liturgical records of the Church, printed centuries before any computer existed. If you believe these texts are “lying,” then simply say so and identify which one you reject. All I have done is list the sources.
So, do you deny that Honorius was anathematized as a heretic yet remained pope until his death, or will you admit the historical record?
*Blows The Catholic Trumpet*: [The Sixth Ecuмenical Council, also known as the Third Council of Constantinople, is recognized as a dogmatic council of the Church.]
If you refuse to affirm or deny, I think I am done speaking to you, as it is clear whether you are of good will or not.
-
Whoa, whoa, whoa - don't be hasty now.
So, do you deny that Honorius was anathematized as a heretic yet remained pope until his death, or will you admit the historical record?
OK. I will tell you what I think.
Just don't hang up.
Please I am beggin you...:pray:
Though I won't vote in your rigged poll (I already made that clear).
But first,
before I answer,
you really have evaded me on this;
Tell me if you are Catholic Trumpet guy or one of his associates.
Come on. You first.
I don't got all night.
-
Well, I guess we know what that means...
-
I will leave you with more of the good and wholesome teaching of St. Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church
Hot off the press from your personal best choice of AI "Magisterium AI"
(https://i.imgur.com/9p8Wq92.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/6W1A4aZ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/uni39Rt.png)
-
Goodnight Catholic Trumpet guy - sleep tight.
-
Don't let the bedbugs bite.
Or the demonic hatred of Holy Mother Church, by slandering the papacy so you can "win" against the "evil" Sedes.
Or demonic divisivness towards your fellow R&R brethren because they don't have the same dislike and negative view of Williamson and his spiritual offspring that you do.
In fact, don't let anything bite you as it most likely will be bad for your health.
Sleep well (if you warped conscience permits)
Nighty, night.
-
If you refuse to affirm or deny, I think I am done speaking to you, as it is clear whether you are of good will or not.
It's a rare occurrence that you will get a straight answer out of sedes....
"In our view, this "unitarianism," or "Popolatry," like "Sedevacantism," should be recognized more as a syndrome than as a serious theological thesis. Its adherents are people who cannot think straight because they are anemic spirits. The disorder which the Conciliar Revolution has brought on the Church is too tragic a thing for them to bear psychologically, so that they have had to develop this subterfuge. Were it possible to communicate with them, we would say to these benighted souls...." - Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?
-
I would disagree with St. Robert's assessment that a "rebuke for omission" would be legally justifiable ... except quite possibly only because Honorius was no longer Pope, having since been deceased, since papa a nemine judicandus ... the pope is to be judged by no one. I think he knows this principle, since it factored in to his position among the "5 Opinions", but it would be interesting to see why he thinks it's OK to rebuke Honorius (because he was dead?). Not sure.
-
It's a rare occurrence that you will get a straight answer out of sedes....
"In our view, this "unitarianism," or "Popolatry," like "Sedevacantism," should be recognized more as a syndrome than as a serious theological thesis. Its adherents are people who cannot think straight because they are anemic spirits. The disorder which the Conciliar Revolution has brought on the Church is too tragic a thing for them to bear psychologically, so that they have had to develop this subterfuge. Were it possible to communicate with them, we would say to these benighted souls...." - Fr. Wathen, Who Shall Ascend?
Unfortunate that a man of Father Wathen's caliber would engage in sheer gaslighting, bringing no theological argument to bear, but gratuitously claiming that it's not "a serious theological thesis" that people who "can't think straight" just came up with for no particular reason, because the contary would cause them "psychological" trauma, and the old smear of "popolatry", as if merely agreen with Archbishop Lefebvre that the Holly Ghost protects the papacy in such as way as to prevent this degree of desturction, making it entirely possible in his mind that the See has been vacant ... constitutes "popolatry". Ridiculous.
That's just a straigh-out lie and a slander. If anything, it's the other way around, that the R&R types have to have their "security blanket" because the prospective vacancy of the See would traumatize them too much.
This ran it actually quite pathetic, but then Fr. Wathen never had any real arguments regarding this issue.
But of cours, we know that the non-Catholic heretic Stubborn here considers Father Wathen his sole rule of faith ... having discarded the actual Catholic one.
Of course, a parish preist from the backwoords of Kentucky can simply declare that an actual theologian like Bishop Guerard des Laurier, who had advanced degrees from Rome when they meant something, who ghost-wrote the Ottaviani Intervention, who collaborated on the dogmatic definition of the Assumption, who had been personal confessor to Pope Pius XII for some time ... that he was just some guy who had no serious theological thesis, but just couldn't think straight on account of psychological problems and having an "anemic spirit". This should be embarrassing for Father Wathen and all his blind followers.
-
It's a rare occurrence that you will get a straight answer out of sedes....
You're kidding, right? I always give a straight answer. As for you, you couldn't even give me a straight answer whether "the Church" canonized the writings in the New Testament!!
-
Unfortunate that a man of Father Wathen's caliber would engage in sheer gaslighting, bringing no theological argument to bear, but gratuitously claiming that it's not "a serious theological thesis" that people who "can't think straight" just came up with for no particular reason, because the contary would cause them "psychological" trauma, and the old smear of "popolatry", as if merely agreen with Archbishop Lefebvre that the Holly Ghost protects the papacy in such as way as to prevent this degree of desturction, making it entirely possible in his mind that the See has been vacant ... constitutes "popolatry". Ridiculous.
That's just a straigh-out lie and a slander. If anything, it's the other way around, that the R&R types have to have their "security blanket" because the prospective vacancy of the See would traumatize them too much.
This ran it actually quite pathetic, but then Fr. Wathen never had any real arguments regarding this issue.
But of cours, we know that the non-Catholic heretic Stubborn here considers Father Wathen his sole rule of faith ... having discarded the actual Catholic one.
Will you respond to the affirm or deny posed in this thread?
-
You're kidding, right? I always give a straight answer. As for you, you couldn't even give me a straight answer whether "the Church" canonized the writings in the New Testament!!
Stubborn has one of the most bizarre twisted minds I've ever encountered, and it's a waste of time to debate him other than to call out his grave errors and heresies for the sake of not allowing third-party readers to be persuaded by the poison he spews. He constantly begs the question, engages in circular arguments, redefines terms to create bizarre tautologies, has absolutely no comprehension of a "distinction" or a "sylllgogism", regularly denounces all 20th century theologians, later adding all 19th century theologians into the mix when someone provided citations from them to contradict his heresies.
So, when we put out the syllogistic argument with the MAJOR premise that the "Pope cannot teach error" (oversimplified here for the sake of illustration), he'll respond with ... but the Sedevacantists claim that the Pope can teach error (since it's glued inextricably into his cold dead brain that these men had to have been Popes). When you explain that the argument is in the form modo tollentis where, we affirm the proposition that Popes cannot teach error, and then because the V2 papal claimants did teach error, conclude they were not popes ... well, you might as well be speaking in Chinese, since the proposition that "Montini was not the pope" being a conclusion of a syllogism simply "does not compute", "does not comptue". Or he'll create tautologies. He says that Magisterium is inerrant, making you think he agrees with the SVs, but what he says is that untrue things that the papal claimants teach are not "Magisterium", and so he creates an absurd meaningless tautology, where "Magisterium" is just the TRUE things that the Popes teach, rendering it without error by tautological definition. Then he'll claim the SVs believe the Popes DID teach error, again begging the question that they are Popes, which is precisely what the SVs dispute. It's just mindboggling really.
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/5-04-2021/abjX4F.gif)
Sadly, however, he's not kidding. We wish he were.
-
Unfortunate that a man of Father Wathen's caliber would engage in sheer gaslighting, bringing no theological argument to bear, but gratuitously claiming that it's not "a serious theological thesis" that people who "can't think straight" just came up with for no particular reason, because the contary would cause them "psychological" trauma, and the old smear of "popolatry", as if merely agreen with Archbishop Lefebvre that the Holly Ghost protects the papacy in such as way as to prevent this degree of desturction, making it entirely possible in his mind that the See has been vacant ... constitutes "popolatry". Ridiculous.
Well, I only posted a short snip, you have the book, it has all the theological arguments necessary, read it.
From now on, always remember that a true pope and heretic, Pope Honorius I, was formally and officially declared a heretic and anathematized by the pope during the infallible Third Council of Constantinople. The pope at that Council declared that a valid, true pope to be a heretic the whole time he occupied the Chair of St. Peter until his death.
-
Stubborn has one of the most bizarre twisted minds I've ever encountered, and it's a waste of time to debate him other than to call out his grave errors and heresies for the sake of not allowing third-party readers to be persuaded by the poison he spews. He constantly begs the question, engages in circular arguments, redefines terms to create bizarre tautologies, has absolutely no comprehension of a "distinction" or a "sylllgogism", regularly denounces all 20th century theologians, later adding all 19th century theologians into the mix when someone provided citations from them to contradict his heresies.
So, when we put out the syllogistic argument with the MAJOR premise that the "Pope cannot teach error" (oversimplified here for the sake of illustration), he'll respond with ... but the Sedevacantists claim that the Pope can teach error (since it's glued inextricably into his cold dead brain that these men had to have been Popes). When you explain that the argument is in the form modo tollentis where, we affirm the proposition that Popes cannot teach error, and then because the V2 papal claimants did teach error, conclude they were not popes ... well, you might as well be speaking in Chinese, since the proposition that "Montini was not the pope" being a conclusion of a syllogism simply "does not compute", "does not comptue". Or he'll create tautologies. He says that Magisterium is inerrant, making you think he agrees with the SVs, but what he says is that untrue things that the papal claimants teach are not "Magisterium", and so he creates an absurd meaningless tautology, where "Magisterium" is just the TRUE things that the Popes teach, rendering it without error by tautological definition. Then he'll claim the SVs believe the Popes DID teach error, again begging the question that they are Popes, which is precisely what the SVs dispute. It's just mindboggling really.
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/5-04-2021/abjX4F.gif)
Sadly, however, he's not kidding. We wish he were.
From now on, always remember (https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-a-quote-by-st-francis-de-sale-too-much-for-rr/msg1010151/#msg1010151)that a true pope and heretic, Pope Honorius I, was formally and officially declared a heretic and anathematized by the pope during the infallible Third Council of Constantinople. The pope at that Council declared that a valid, true pope to be a heretic the whole time he occupied the Chair of St. Peter until his death.
-
Will you respond to the affirm or deny posed in this thread?
No, since you embed an assumption into the question that I am not certain of. St. Robert Bellarmine states that there's some reason to suspect that the condemnation of Honorius represents a later interpolation into the original decree.
"even though the Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic"
I can neither confirm nor deny that this is true, so I can't answer the question.
-
For the sake of argument, however, let's say that Honorius HAD been anathematized.
Even then I can't answer the question, since the anathematization occurred after his death, when he was no longer Pope. So the anathema had no effect on his possession of papal office. Was Honorius a manifest heretic during his lifetime? Can't say, don't know ... and I suspect nobody else can say either. I've not seen evidence that anyone considered him a heretic while he was in possession of papal office, and a decree cannot change the past and retroactively remove him from office.
-
No, since you embed an assumption into the question that I am not certain of. St. Robert Bellarmine states that there's some reason to suspect that the condemnation of Honorius represents a later interpolation into the original decree.
"even though the Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic"
I can neither confirm nor deny that this is true, so I can't answer the question.
I like the way you put it better.
-
No, since you embed an assumption into the question that I am not certain of. St. Robert Bellarmine states that there's some reason to suspect that the condemnation of Honorius represents a later interpolation into the original decree.
"even though the Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic"
I can neither confirm nor deny that this is true, so I can't answer the question.
“And in like manner we anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”
— Pope St. Leo II
Now, since Pope St. Leo II both ratified the Sixth Ecuмenical Council and personally anathematized Honorius for fostering heresy, independently of any disputed line in the conciliar acts, the condemnation cannot be dismissed as uncertain. Do you affirm or deny that Pope St. Leo II anathematized Honorius?
(Latin text of Leo II’s letter: Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, Col. 726–728, Epistola Leonis PP. II ad Caesarem et Episcopos Constantinopolitanae Synodi confirmationem)
-
“And in like manner we anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”
— Pope St. Leo II
Now, since Pope St. Leo II both ratified the Sixth Ecuмenical Council and personally anathematized Honorius for fostering heresy, independently of any disputed line in the conciliar acts, the condemnation cannot be dismissed as uncertain. Do you affirm or deny that Pope St. Leo II anathematized Honorius?
(Latin text of Leo II’s letter: Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, Col. 726–728, Epistola Leonis PP. II ad Caesarem et Episcopos Constantinopolitanae Synodi confirmationem)
Leo II was born almost 200 years after Honorius. He was basing his anathema off of the factual assumptions of others.
Again, Popes are limited human creatures. They do not have the power to time-travel. Nor do they have the power to make dogmatically certain judgements about the internal forum. Stop trying to turn disciplinary statements into dogmatic statements.
-
But NOT for formal heresy but for that he, "did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”
Catholic Trumpet,
You win nothing by this argument.
It has been hashed dozens, hundreds, thousands of times for hundreds of years.
You prove nothing, other than you adopt the arguments of heretics and schismatics against the papacy (which should be the rock of your faith rather than an object of your contempt).
This makes you look, well... heretical and schismatic.
From your favorite AI again,
Yes, both Protestants and Eastern Orthodox theologians historically invoked the case of Pope Honorius I (r. 625–638) to challenge papal primacy, infallibility, and the indefectibility of the Roman See. This controversy, stemming from the Sixth Ecuмenical Council's (680–681) post-mortem anathema against Honorius for aiding Monothelitism through ambiguous letters, provided ammunition for critics arguing that popes could err doctrinally or be judged by councils.Catholic apologists like St. Robert Bellarmine countered by distinguishing personal negligence from official teaching, textual misinterpretation, and conciliar factual error.
Even Eric Ybarra gets it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4ZubfyE2Qg (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4ZubfyE2Qg)
I am not holding him up as a beacon of orthodoxy, but for the simple fact, that he - who accepts Vatican II - makes you look ridiculous.
A Pope could fail in his duties as Pope without becoming a formal heretic and ceasing to be Pope.
A Pope could condemn someone and be wrong because he doesn't have the facts straight (otherwise where would you be without +Lefebvre if you consider JPII a valid Pope).
Honorius may have been maligned by his enemies, it is shrouded in mystery and will remain so.
How horrified might you be to meet him at your judgement and have him as one of your accusers!
One is not dogmatically bound under penalty of sin to say or think he actually WAS a heretic.
The facts of a council are one thing, the definitions are another.
BTW, I like your avatar pic, very "trumpety" of you.;)
It was actually this very point (Honorius) that made me highly suspicious you are he, as you have been stuck on this topic for quite awhile, and sound and argue JUST LIKE HIM...
(https://i.imgur.com/ytCXNan.png)
-
Pope Honorius I (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm)
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).
-
Leo II was born almost 200 years after Honorius. He was basing his anathema off of the factual assumptions of others.
Again, Popes are limited human creatures. They do not have the power to time-travel. Nor do they have the power to make dogmatically certain judgements about the internal forum. Stop trying to turn disciplinary statements into dogmatic statements.
I am sorry, but what your suggesting above is a condemned error, treating dogma or Church teaching as if it can evolve, change, or be adapted to human reason, historical circuмstances, or individual conscience. [Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1907, §13.]
Pope St. Leo II’s birth nearly 200 years after Honorius does not diminish his authority. He did not need to time-travel to exercise his office. As Pope, he confirmed the Sixth Ecuмenical Council which condemed and anathematized Pope Honorius I as a heretic, and personally anathematized Honorius for permitting heresy. This condemnation concerns objective, public error, Honorius’ failure to oppose the Monothelite heresy, not the private state of his soul. Such judgments fall squarely within the Church’s competence to define dogmatic truth and condemn public heresy and are therefore dogmatic acts, not mere disciplinary statements. To deny Leo II’s anathematization or reduce it to discipline undermines the authority of the Pope and an Ecuмenical Council, contradicting immutable Church teaching.
This absolutely destroys the grave error of sedevacantism, because Pope Honorius I remained Pope until his death!
Dieu protège le Pape, vive la Papauté !
(Latin text of Leo II’s letter: Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, Col. 726–728, Epistola Leonis PP. II ad Caesarem et Episcopos Constantinopolitanae Synodi confirmationem)
-
This absolutely destroys the grave error of sedevacantism, because Pope Honorius I remained Pope until his death!
Actually no.
The fact that he WAS Pope and remained so until his death - proves the grave error of R&Rism!
-
I am sorry, but what your suggesting above is a condemned error, treating dogma or Church teaching as if it can evolve, change, or be adapted to human reason, historical circuмstances, or individual conscience. [Pope St. Pius X, Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1907, §13.]
Pope St. Leo II’s birth nearly 200 years after Honorius does not diminish his authority. He did not need to time-travel to exercise his office. As Pope, he confirmed the Sixth Ecuмenical Council which condemed and anathematized Pope Honorius I as a heretic, and personally anathematized Honorius for permitting heresy. This condemnation concerns objective, public error, Honorius’ failure to oppose the Monothelite heresy, not the private state of his soul. Such judgments fall squarely within the Church’s competence to define dogmatic truth and condemn public heresy and are therefore dogmatic acts, not mere disciplinary statements. To deny Leo II’s anathematization or reduce it to discipline undermines the authority of the Pope and an Ecuмenical Council, contradicting immutable Church teaching.
This absolutely destroys the grave error of sedevacantism, because Pope Honorius I remained Pope until his death!
Dieu protège le Pape, vive la Papauté !
(Latin text of Leo II’s letter: Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, Col. 726–728, Epistola Leonis PP. II ad Caesarem et Episcopos Constantinopolitanae Synodi confirmationem)
I was mistaken in my previous post. Leo II was Pope during the Third Ecuмenical Council (Constantinople III). So, you are correct, he did not need to time travel.
But you seem to think that Honorius was condemned by the Council during his Pontificate. Is that what you think? If so, it is not true.
Did the Third Ecuмenical Council Condemn Pope Honorius I During His Lifetime?
No, the Third Ecuмenical Council (Constantinople III) did not condemn Pope Honorius I during his lifetime.
- Pope Honorius I died in 638 AD.
- The Third Council of Constantinople (the Sixth Ecuмenical Council) convened 42 years later, from 680 to 681 AD.
Therefore, Pope Honorius I was condemned posthumously (after his death).
-
I was mistaken in my previous post. Leo II was Pope during the Third Ecuмenical Council (Constantinople III). So, you are correct, he did not need to time travel.
But you seem to think that Honorius was condemned by the Council during his Pontificate. Is that what you think? If so, it is not true.
Did the Third Ecuмenical Council Condemn Pope Honorius I During His Lifetime?
No, the Third Ecuмenical Council (Constantinople III) did not condemn Pope Honorius I during his lifetime.
- Pope Honorius I died in 638 AD.
- The Third Council of Constantinople (the Sixth Ecuмenical Council) convened 42 years later, from 680 to 681 AD.
Therefore, Pope Honorius I was condemned posthumously (after his death).
Yes of course Pope Honorius I was condemned posthumously as a heretic by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council. Pope St. Leo II ratified the Council and personally anathematized him, this demonstrates that the Church can objectively define and condemn error across time and that dogmatic authority is not constrained by human perception or temporal limitations, and that the Magisterium’s judgment is binding and timeless, independent of historical distance or personal knowledge of the condemned.
Most importantly, Honorius I proves a pope can be a heretic and still be pope. Only an Ecuмenical Council and the Pope can declare and condemn such public heresy. Most importantly, Catholics can trust the Church’s indefectibility! Her teaching authority remains unfailing, even in extraordinary cases.
And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Dieu protège le Pape, vive la Papauté !
-
Yes of course Pope Honorius I was condemned posthumously as a heretic by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council. Pope St. Leo II ratified the Council and personally anathematized him, this demonstrates that the Church can objectively define and condemn error across time and that dogmatic authority is not constrained by human perception or temporal limitations, and that the Magisterium’s judgment is binding and timeless, independent of historical distance or personal knowledge of the condemned.
Most importantly, Honorius I proves a pope can be a heretic and still be pope. Only an Ecuмenical Council and the Pope can declare and condemn such public heresy. Most importantly, Catholics can trust the Church’s indefectibility! Her teaching authority remains unfailing, even in extraordinary cases.
And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Dieu protège le Pape, vive la Papauté !
No it doesn't prove "a pope can be a heretic and still be a pope." Honorius was condemned for not doing enough to police the heresy, not because he himself was a heretic. The quote from Leo II that you provided says:
“And in like manner we anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”
— Pope St. Leo II
Honorius "did not attempt to sanctify [the Church]" and "permitted [the Church] purity to be polluted." Which is to say, he was a Pope who did not do his job. That is different from being a "heretic."
-
No it doesn't prove "a pope can be a heretic and still be a pope." Honorius was condemned for not doing enough to police the heresy, not because he himself was a heretic. The quote from Leo II that you provided says:
“And in like manner we anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.”
— Pope St. Leo II
Honorius "did not attempt to sanctify [the Church]" and "permitted [the Church] purity to be polluted." Which is to say, he was a Pope who did not do his job. That is different from being a "heretic."
Pope St. Leo II anathematizes Honorius for permitting the Monothelite heresy, while the inventors of the error are not explicitly called heretics in the same formula, since the dogmatic Sixth Ecuмenical Council had already condemned and anathematized them as heretics:
“To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!“
In Session XVI of the Sixth Ecuмenical Council (680–681), Honorius I was formally labeled a “heretic”, alongside other Monothelite leaders, yet he remained pope until his death. The council’s acclamation reads verbatim:
“To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema!
To Sergius, the heretic, anathema!
To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema!
To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!
To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul, the heretic, anathema!
To Peter, the heretic, anathema!
To Macarius, the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen, the heretic, anathema!
To Polychronius, the heretic, anathema!
To Apergius of Perga, the heretic, anathema!
To all heretics, anathema!
To all who side with heretics, anathema!”
— Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV: The Sixth Ecuмenical Council, Session XVI
The council language itself used the word “heretic” in association with his name.
The dogmatic decree itself (as recorded in Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, cols. 635‑637) also states:
“…Honorius, qui fuit Papa antiquae Romae… haeretico anathema…”
English: “…Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome… anathema to the heretic…”
The Council repeatedly identified Honorius as a heretic, both in the acclamations of the bishops and in the formal dogmatic decree.
Notice in Pope St. Leo II’s own words:
“And in like manner we anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also Honorius…”
-
Pope St. Leo II anathematizes Honorius for permitting the Monothelite heresy, while the inventors of the error are not explicitly called heretics in the same formula, since the dogmatic Sixth Ecuмenical Council had already condemned and anathematized them as heretics:
“To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!“
In Session XVI of the Sixth Ecuмenical Council (680–681), Honorius I was formally labeled a “heretic”, alongside other Monothelite leaders, yet he remained pope until his death. The council’s acclamation reads verbatim:
“To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema!
To Sergius, the heretic, anathema!
To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema!
To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!
To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul, the heretic, anathema!
To Peter, the heretic, anathema!
To Macarius, the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen, the heretic, anathema!
To Polychronius, the heretic, anathema!
To Apergius of Perga, the heretic, anathema!
To all heretics, anathema!
To all who side with heretics, anathema!”
— Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV: The Sixth Ecuмenical Council, Session XVI
The council language itself used the word “heretic” in association with his name.
The dogmatic decree itself (as recorded in Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, cols. 635‑637) also states:
“…Honorius, qui fuit Papa antiquae Romae… haeretico anathema…”
English: “…Honorius, who was Pope of Old Rome… anathema to the heretic…”
The Council repeatedly identified Honorius as a heretic, both in the acclamations of the bishops and in the formal dogmatic decree.
Notice in Pope St. Leo II’s own words:
“And in like manner we anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, betrayers rather than leaders of the Church of Constantinople, and also Honorius…”
Those people were using the word "heretic" in a way that is not defined by the Church. The Church provides the definition in Canon Law. What Leo II describes Honorius as doing does not meet the criterion of what the Church call heresy today. And that definition has been in place for quite a while.
We must use terminology the way that the Church authorizes it. And Pope Leo II, in his declaration, did not call Honorius a "heretic." He simply described what he failed to do and anathematized him for his failures. You will notice that failures in governance do not fit the definition of "heresy," which you will find in bold below.
Canon 1325 (1983 CIC 209, 751, 755)
§ 1. The faithful of Christ are bound to profess their faith whenever their silence, evasiveness,
or manner of acting encompasses an implied denial of the faith, contempt for religion, injury to
God, or scandal for a neighbor.
§ 2. After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously
denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one
is] a heretic; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, [such a one is] an apostate; if
finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the
Church subject to him, he is a schismatic.
§ 3. Let Catholics beware lest they have debates or conferences, especially public ones, with
non-Catholics without having come to the Holy See or, if the case is urgent, to the local Ordinary.
-
Those people were using the word "heretic" in a way that is not defined by the Church. The Church provides the definition in Canon Law. What Leo II describes Honorius as doing does not meet the criterion of what the Church call heresy today. And that definition has been in place for quite a while.
We must use terminology the way that the Church authorizes it. And Pope Leo II, in his declaration, did not call Honorius a "heretic." He simply described what he failed to do and anathematized him for his failures. You will notice that failures in governance do not fit the definition of "heresy," which you will find in bold below.
Canon 1325 (1983 CIC 209, 751, 755)
§ 1. The faithful of Christ are bound to profess their faith whenever their silence, evasiveness,
or manner of acting encompasses an implied denial of the faith, contempt for religion, injury to
God, or scandal for a neighbor.
§ 2. After the reception of baptism, if anyone, retaining the name Christian, pertinaciously
denies or doubts something to be believed from the truth of divine and Catholic faith, [such a one
is] a heretic; if he completely turns away from the Christian faith, [such a one is] an apostate; if
finally he refuses to be under the Supreme Pontiff or refuses communion with the members of the
Church subject to him, he is a schismatic.
§ 3. Let Catholics beware lest they have debates or conferences, especially public ones, with
non-Catholics without having come to the Holy See or, if the case is urgent, to the local Ordinary.
Canon Law governs discipline, not dogma, and cannot reinterpret or nullify the judgment of an Ecuмenical Council, as St. Robert Bellarmine explains in De Romano Pontifice, Book IV.
The Sixth Ecuмenical Council judged Honorius in the external forum and condemned and anathematized him as a heretic without presuming to judge the internal state of his soul before God. The council records and acclamations read in the Sixteenth Session: “Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to Pyrrhus, to Paul, to Peter, and to all heretics and those who side with heretics” as recorded in Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV, Session XVI and in Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, cols. 635‑637.
Pope St. Leo II ratified the Council and personally anathematized Honorius for permitting the Monothelite heresy to corrupt apostolic doctrine. This judgment concerns public doctrinal failure and heretical deviation and not mere administrative negligence. The text of his letter to the Emperor and the bishops of Constantinople confirming the Council reads in Mansi XI, cols. 726‑728 and is included in the Roman Breviary prior to 1955.
An anathema is a juridical and doctrinal act of the Church against heresy or its culpable promotion, whether or not the word heretic is explicitly repeated in every formula. St. Thomas Aquinas explains in Summa Theologiae, II-II, q.11, a.2, that such acts concern external forum judgments.
Honorius remained Pope until death and was condemned posthumously. This demonstrates that a pope can objectively fall into heresy and still remain pope and that only the Church, through an Ecuмenical Council confirmed by a Pope, can render such a judgment without compromising indefectibility.
Council-Ordered Letter Destruction, Mansi XI, which burned Honorius’s letters to Sergius for heretical content.
Decree of Faith, Session XVIII, Mansi XI, which declares Honorius a tool of error for Monothelitism.
Report to Emperor Constantine IV, Mansi XI, confirming Honorius “has been punished with exclusion and anathema.”
Letter to Pope Agatho, Mansi XI, formally recognizing his culpability.
Imperial Decree, Mansi XI, condemning Honorius as “the confirmer of heresy.”
Trullan Canons, Canon 10/11, Denzinger, pre‑1955 edition, listing Honorius among those condemned.
Seventh Ecuмenical Council Affirmation, Acts of Nicaea II, 787, confirming adherence to the Sixth Council’s anathemas.
Roman Copy of the Acts, Vita Leonis II, Mansi XI, cols. 637‑638, preserving Honorius’s name.
Papal Oath in Liber Diurnus, Forcella edition, 1888, in which newly elected popes swore against Monothelite originators, explicitly naming Honorius.
Roman Breviary Pre‑1955 and Bossuet Commentary, listing Honorius among those excommunicated by the Sixth Council.
-
Canon Law governs discipline, not dogma, and cannot reinterpret or nullify the judgment of an Ecuмenical Council, as St. Robert Bellarmine explains in De Romano Pontifice, Book IV.
The Sixth Ecuмenical Council judged Honorius in the external forum and condemned and anathematized him as a heretic without presuming to judge the internal state of his soul before God. The council records and acclamations read in the Sixteenth Session: “Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to Pyrrhus, to Paul, to Peter, and to all heretics and those who side with heretics” as recorded in Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV, Session XVI and in Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, cols. 635‑637.
Pope St. Leo II ratified the Council and personally anathematized Honorius for permitting the Monothelite heresy to corrupt apostolic doctrine. This judgment concerns public doctrinal failure and heretical deviation and not mere administrative negligence. The text of his letter to the Emperor and the bishops of Constantinople confirming the Council reads in Mansi XI, cols. 726‑728 and is included in the Roman Breviary prior to 1955.
An anathema is a juridical and doctrinal act of the Church against heresy or its culpable promotion, whether or not the word heretic is explicitly repeated in every formula. St. Thomas Aquinas explains in Summa Theologiae, II-II, q.11, a.2, that such acts concern external forum judgments.
Honorius remained Pope until death and was condemned posthumously. This demonstrates that a pope can objectively fall into heresy and still remain pope and that only the Church, through an Ecuмenical Council confirmed by a Pope, can render such a judgment without compromising indefectibility.
Council-Ordered Letter Destruction, Mansi XI, which burned Honorius’s letters to Sergius for heretical content.
Decree of Faith, Session XVIII, Mansi XI, which declares Honorius a tool of error for Monothelitism.
Report to Emperor Constantine IV, Mansi XI, confirming Honorius “has been punished with exclusion and anathema.”
Letter to Pope Agatho, Mansi XI, formally recognizing his culpability.
Imperial Decree, Mansi XI, condemning Honorius as “the confirmer of heresy.”
Trullan Canons, Canon 10/11, Denzinger, pre‑1955 edition, listing Honorius among those condemned.
Seventh Ecuмenical Council Affirmation, Acts of Nicaea II, 787, confirming adherence to the Sixth Council’s anathemas.
Roman Copy of the Acts, Vita Leonis II, Mansi XI, cols. 637‑638, preserving Honorius’s name.
Papal Oath in Liber Diurnus, Forcella edition, 1888, in which newly elected popes swore against Monothelite originators, explicitly naming Honorius.
Roman Breviary Pre‑1955 and Bossuet Commentary, listing Honorius among those excommunicated by the Sixth Council.
The juridical act of anathematizing the Honorius for his bad behavior related to his not properly policing "heresy" is not "heresy" itself. But the person doing that could be "suspected to heresy." A Pope doing that, however, could not be judged in that way while alive because "the First See is judged by no one."
Canon 2315 (1983 Code NA)
One suspected of heresy who, having been warned, does not remove the cause of suspicion is
prohibited from legitimate acts; if he is a cleric, moreover, the warning having been repeated
without effect, he is suspended from things divine; but if within six months from contracting the
penalty, the one suspected of heresy does not completely amend himself, let him be considered as
a heretic and liable to the penalties for heretic.
BUT
Canon 1556 (1983 CIC 1404)
The First See is judged by no one.
-
The juridical act of anathematizing the Honorius for his bad behavior related to his not properly policing "heresy" is not "heresy" itself. But the person doing that could be "suspected to heresy." A Pope doing that, however, could not be judged in that way while alive because "the First See is judged by no one."
Canon 2315 (1983 Code NA)
One suspected of heresy who, having been warned, does not remove the cause of suspicion is
prohibited from legitimate acts; if he is a cleric, moreover, the warning having been repeated
without effect, he is suspended from things divine; but if within six months from contracting the
penalty, the one suspected of heresy does not completely amend himself, let him be considered as
a heretic and liable to the penalties for heretic.
BUT
Canon 1556 (1983 CIC 1404)
The First See is judged by no one.
“To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!” -Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV, Session XVI
— Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, cols. 635–637
He was still Pope.
This has been settled by the dogmatic council.
End of discussion.
-
For my very limited money, the real issue isn't whether or not a particular man wearing a white cassock is legit. The real issue is that the society of which the man in white is unquestionably the head is a complete fraud, a counterfeit of Holy Mother Church, devouring its own members and endeavoring to eradicate supernatural faith from this world. We don't just keep our distance from one man, but from the entire, clearly-problematic society/institution/etc. The fact that we refer to it as the Conciliar Church indicates it is an illegitimate invader -- something not limited to just the one man or his predecessors. While the lack of any sort of juridical acknowledgement of this reality is a presently-insurmountable obstacle, we all know that thing headquartered in Rome is not Holy Mother Church and is to be avoided at all costs.
Just as Jesus Christ truly died, why do we think it is impossible that His Mystical Body could die a mystical death, if you will? If you argue that such a thing simply cannot ever happen, how is what has clearly already occurred substantially different?
-
For my very limited money, the real issue isn't whether or not a particular man wearing a white cassock is legit. The real issue is that the society of which the man in white is unquestionably the head is a complete fraud, a counterfeit of Holy Mother Church, devouring its own members and endeavoring to eradicate supernatural faith from this world. We don't just keep our distance from one man, but from the entire, clearly-problematic society/institution/etc. The fact that we refer to it as the Conciliar Church indicates it is an illegitimate invader -- something not limited to just the one man or his predecessors. While the lack of any sort of juridical acknowledgement of this reality is a presently-insurmountable obstacle, we all know that thing headquartered in Rome is not Holy Mother Church and is to be avoided at all costs.
Just as Jesus Christ truly died, why do we think it is impossible that His Mystical Body could die a mystical death, if you will? If you argue that such a thing simply cannot ever happen, how is what has clearly already occurred substantially different?
Well many of us believe that it is not only possible that the Mystical Body will die a mystical death, but that it is a certainty that it will.
See the Catechism of the Catholic Church
The Church's ultimate trial
675 Before Christ's second coming the Church must pass through a final trial that will shake the faith of many believers.573 The persecution that accompanies her pilgrimage on earth574 will unveil the "mystery of iniquity" in the form of a religious deception offering men an apparent solution to their problems at the price of apostasy from the truth. The supreme religious deception is that of the Antichrist, a pseudo-messianism by which man glorifies himself in place of God and of his Messiah come in the flesh.575
676 The Antichrist's deception already begins to take shape in the world every time the claim is made to realize within history that messianic hope which can only be realized beyond history through the eschatological judgement. The Church has rejected even modified forms of this falsification of the kingdom to come under the name of millenarianism,576 especially the "intrinsically perverse" political form of a secular messianism.577
677 The Church will enter the glory of the kingdom only through this final Passover, when she will follow her Lord in his death and Resurrection.578 The kingdom will be fulfilled, then, not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God's victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from heaven.579 God's triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgement after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world.580
573 Cf. Lk 18:8; Mt 24:12.
574 Cf. Lk 21:12; Jn 15:19-20.
575 Cf. 2 Th 2:4-12; I Th 5:2-3; 2 Jn 7; I Jn 2:1 8, 22.
576 Cf. DS 3839.
577 Pius XI, Divini Redemptoris, condemning the "false mysticism" of this "counterfeit of the redemption of the lowly"; cf. GS 20-21.
578 Cf. Rev 19:1-9.
579 Cf Rev 13:8; 20:7-10; 21:2-4.
580 Cf. Rev 20:12 2 Pt 3:12-13.
-
“To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!” -Nicene and Post‑Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. XIV, Session XVI
— Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum, Tomus XI, cols. 635–637
He was still Pope.
This has been settled by the dogmatic council.
End of discussion.
Right ... just because you increase the font size and declare "end of discussion", this makes it true. What a loser! Get lost, twit.
St. Robert Bellarmine felt it was questionable, that Honorius' name might have been interpolated later.
Finally ... are you retarded? How was Honorius still pope at the time of his condemnation, in 681, when he had died in 638?
Losers and morons everywhere on CathInfo anymore.
-
Honorius remained Pope until death and was condemned posthumously. This demonstrates that a pope can objectively fall into heresy and still remain pope and that only the Church, through an Ecuмenical Council confirmed by a Pope, can render such a judgment without compromising indefectibility.
So ... listen up, moron. "Objective" heresy, whatever you retardedly mean by the term, which never enters the debate anywhere in the entire discussion of the "5 Opinions" ... has nothing to do with losing membership in the Church. You can be "objectively" in heresy in an occult manner also. Occult "objective" heresy does not result in loss of membership in the Church (except if you adhere to one extremely minor opinion).
Despite your bloviations, which not a few people dispute, according to what's by far the most widely accepted opinion, it's MANIFEST heresy that results in loss of membership in the Church, and subsequent loss of office. If it had become manifest in 681, by that time Honorius was no longer Pope, and loss of office would have been moot, since he had long prior lost his office due to ... having died.
You need to prove that Honorius' heresy had been MANIFEST ... WHILE HE WAS STILL POPE, i.e. during his lifetime, when a loss of office could still have occurred.
He remained Pope until the end of his life because his heresy had not become manifest at any time during his lifetime. You can be sure in the early 7th century, Catholics were not shy about denouncing heresy, so it if had been evident and manifest to Catholics during his reign that he had been a heretic, the would have risen up and driven him out of the city.
You need to demonstrate that his heresy was manifest during his lifetime ... and stop being an idiot.
-
So ... listen up, moron. "Objective" heresy, whatever you retardedly mean by the term, which never enters the debate anywhere in the entire discussion of the "5 Opinions" ... has nothing to do with losing membership in the Church. You can be "objectively" in heresy in an occult manner also. Occult "objective" heresy does not result in loss of membership in the Church (except if you adhere to one extremely minor opinion).
Despite your bloviations, which not a few people dispute, according to what's by far the most widely accepted opinion, it's MANIFEST heresy that results in loss of membership in the Church, and subsequent loss of office. If it had become manifest in 681, by that time Honorius was no longer Pope, and loss of office would have been moot, since he had long prior lost his office due to ... having died.
You need to prove that Honorius' heresy had been MANIFEST ... WHILE HE WAS STILL POPE, i.e. during his lifetime, when a loss of office could still have occurred.
He remained Pope until the end of his life because his heresy had not become manifest at any time during his lifetime. You can be sure in the early 7th century, Catholics were not shy about denouncing heresy, so it if had been evident and manifest to Catholics during his reign that he had been a heretic, the would have risen up and driven him out of the city.
You need to demonstrate that his heresy was manifest during his lifetime ... and stop being an idiot.
Ok Ladislaus, please affirm or deny: Pope Honorius remained the Roman Pontiff until his death, even though the Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic.
-
Right ... just because you increase the font size and declare "end of discussion", this makes it true. What a loser! Get lost, twit.
St. Robert Bellarmine felt it was questionable, that Honorius' name might have been interpolated later.
Finally ... are you retarded? How was Honorius still pope at the time of his condemnation, in 681, when he had died in 638?
Losers and morons everywhere on CathInfo anymore.
Yes, although the dogmatic council condemned and anathematized him as a heretic after his death, he never ceased to be Pope.
[He is traditionally listed as the 71st Pope in the official papal succession.]
-
For my very limited money, the real issue isn't whether or not a particular man wearing a white cassock is legit. The real issue is that the society of which the man in white is unquestionably the head is a complete fraud, a counterfeit of Holy Mother Church, devouring its own members and endeavoring to eradicate supernatural faith from this world. We don't just keep our distance from one man, but from the entire, clearly-problematic society/institution/etc. The fact that we refer to it as the Conciliar Church indicates it is an illegitimate invader -- something not limited to just the one man or his predecessors. While the lack of any sort of juridical acknowledgement of this reality is a presently-insurmountable obstacle, we all know that thing headquartered in Rome is not Holy Mother Church and is to be avoided at all costs.
Well said.
Just as Jesus Christ truly died, why do we think it is impossible that His Mystical Body could die a mystical death, if you will? If you argue that such a thing simply cannot ever happen, how is what has clearly already occurred substantially different?
Sedes need to remember, as popes Pius IX and Pius XII and others have taught, that Christ and the Church are one and the same thing, as such, the Church on earth can no more be destroyed or cease to exist than Christ can be destroyed or cease to exist - because they are "one and the same thing." This is the indefectibility of the Church, which requires a strong faith to believe in - especially in these days.
"Knowing that Christ rising again from the dead, dieth now no more, death shall no more have dominion over him."
-
Ok Ladislaus, please affirm or deny: Pope Honorius remained the Roman Pontiff until his death, even though the Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic.
This is something Lad cannot get himself to do because he has said that if he ever believed such a thing that he would be bound to follow the pope and go whole hog Novus Ordo. He's either pope or a heretic, there is no being both at the same time.
Otherwise, what he repeatedly accuses of others of being umpteen times over the years, he would now be. He would have to admit that he is a vile old catholic heretic because it's blasphemous to believe that popes can be a heretic and remain pope.
But before any of that, please know and believe that we forgive you Lad.:incense:
-
Sedes need to remember, as popes Pius IX and Pius XII and others have taught, that Christ and the Church are one and the same thing, as such, the Church on earth can no more be destroyed or cease to exist than Christ can be destroyed or cease to exist - because they are "one and the same thing." This is the indefectibility of the Church, which requires a strong faith to believe in - especially in these days.
All Sedes remember that very well.
It's actually destroying the Church when one thinks a true pope can promote heresy throughout the Church.
-
Again, Popes are limited human creatures. They do not have the power to time-travel. Nor do they have the power to make dogmatically certain judgements about the internal forum. Stop trying to turn disciplinary statements into dogmatic statements.
Correct. Human judgments about the internal forum can be had at most with moral certitude.
-
To this I respond that I do not deny the condemnation; on the contrary, I admit it according to what I said moments ago; but I distinguish the word heretic, which is quite imprecise and was still more so at the time of the councils in question. It was designated not only to those who professed the heresy knowingly and obstinately, but also to those who benefited it in any manner whatsoever, be it by their silence and negligence when their responsibilities obliged them to take action, be it by defending persons or the writings of heretics, be it even due to their communication with these heretics, or that they involuntarily admitted their doctrines. You see that under the same appellation were found comprised a throng of individuals whose culpabilities were very different, or even non-existent when the will did not take part.
Fr. Louis-Nazaire Bégin, 1873
https://novusordowatch.org/primacy-infallibility-pope-honorius-i/ (https://novusordowatch.org/primacy-infallibility-pope-honorius-i/)
-
All Sedes remember that very well.
It's actually destroying the Church when one thinks a true pope can promote heresy throughout the Church.
If the doctrines of the Church's indefectibility and infallibility be true, then as a Catholic, you have to have enough faith in you to believe that whatever the conciliar popes have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church's attribute of infallibility hence indefectibility. Catholics believe with certainty of faith that no matter what anyone says or does whether from within or without, he will not succeed in destroying the Church.
Catholics believe this with certainty of faith. It is only the enemies of Christ's Church who do not believe this, which is why they keep trying (in vain) to destroy the Church.
-
If the doctrines of the Church's indefectibility and infallibility be true, then as a Catholic, you have to have enough faith in you to believe that whatever the conciliar popes have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church's attribute of infallibility hence indefectibility. Catholics believe with certainty of faith that no matter what anyone says or does whether from within or without, he will not succeed in destroying the Church.
Catholics believe this with certainty of faith. It is only the enemies of Christ's Church who do not believe this, which is why they keep trying (in vain) to destroy the Church.
Wow. :facepalm:
Even though the statistics show extremes of charts of harms to Catholics every since Vatican II. That cannot happen with a true pope approving of a General Council. Impossible.
-
Wow. :facepalm:
Even though the statistics show extremes of charts of harms to Catholics every since Vatican II. That cannot happen with a true pope approving of a General Council. Impossible.
The Second Vatican Council (https://www.cathinfo.com/the-library/the-second-vatican-council-51899/)
-
This is something Lad cannot get himself to do because he has said that if he ever believed such a thing that he would be bound to follow the pope and go whole hog Novus Ordo. He's either pope or a heretic, there is no being both at the same time.
Otherwise, what he repeatedly accuses of others of being umpteen times over the years, he would now be. He would have to admit that he is a vile old catholic heretic because it's blasphemous to believe that popes can be a heretic and remain pope.
But before any of that, please know and believe that we forgive you Lad.:incense:
-
If the doctrines of the Church's indefectibility and infallibility be true, then as a Catholic, you have to have enough faith in you to believe that whatever the conciliar popes have said or done, whatever they ever say or do, will not be a violation of the Church's attribute of infallibility hence indefectibility.
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.
-
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.
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=78609.0;attach=25052;image)
Major: If someone is a legitimate Pope, then he cannot be a heretic.
Minor: Honorius I was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the dogmatic Third Council of Constantinople.
Conclusion (historical reality): Honorius I never ceased to be Pope.
-
(https://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=78609.0;attach=25052;image)
Major: If someone is a legitimate Pope, then he cannot be a heretic.
Minor: Honorius I was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the dogmatic Third Council of Constantinople.
Conclusion (historical reality): Honorius I never ceased to be Pope.
Major (claim): If someone is a legitimate Pope, then he cannot be a heretic.
Minor (historical fact): Honorius I was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the dogmatic Third Council of Constantinople.
Strict modus tollens conclusion: Therefore, Honorius I was not a legitimate Pope, if we blindly follow the logic.
Reality (historical fact): Honorius I never ceased to be Pope, despite being condemned as a heretic.
Historical Counterexample:
Major: If someone is a legitimate Pope, then he cannot be a heretic.
Minor: Honorius I was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the dogmatic Third Council of Constantinople.
Conclusion (historical reality): Honorius I never ceased to be Pope.
-
Just stop it, moron.
Let's try this again. We know you've got this stupidity stuck in your cold dead brain, and it'll be nearly impossible to extract it.
By far the majority opinion among theologians is that MANIFEST heresy causes loss of office. Honorius was not a manifest heretic at any point during his lifetime. Nobody considered him a heretic or knew of his heresy. Consequently, he never lost papal office, since at not point while he was in possession of his office did he become a manifest heretic. If in 381 his heresy became manifest (something that's highly disputed but you lie about and claim that it's certain), Honorius no longer held the office at that time, since he had already been separated from it by death for several decades.
I'm so utterly sick of the liars everywhere even on a Traditional Catholic forum.
You also pretend that the issue is just cut and dry, certain, solemnly affirmed by the pope, etc. --- because it's necessary that it be so for your stupid-ass bullshit lying argument.
If you actually look into the matter, many pages have been spent on the question, and it is by no means as cut and dry as you claim with your lies.
St. Robert Bellarmine, along with Baronius, Pighi, and others ... believe that the insertion of Honorius' name into Third Constantinople was a later interpolation by the Greeks, and there had in fact been precedent for that prior to this scenario. Others don't believe that. But there are the later statements by Pope Leo II. But Leo II in his statements did NOT actually call out Honorius for heresy, but for his failure by omission to condemn heresy. So some theologians held that Leo's "endorsement" of III Constantinople included an amendment of the reference to Honorius as a heretic ... even among those who believe that the inclusion of his name on the list was real.
Just the summary of the debate goes on for pages ...
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
But you lie about how it's cut-and-dry, that an Ecuмenical Council said it and that Leo II solemnly endorsed it. Bullshit. Both statements are disputed, and then, of course, in the end, some recognition of heresy long after someone's dead cannot result in a loss of office during the person's lifetime. Honorius finished his life with a good reputation, without anyone accusing him of heterodoxy, much less heresy at any time.
Let's say now that someone today uncovered some letter from Pius IX where he admits to being some Masonic agent bent on destroying the Church, and so they decide to anathematize Pius IX. Let's say this letter was dated to 1848. So, what?, then ... does the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception now become an un-dogma, after the fact, after untold millions had accepted it as dogma with the certainty of faith for many decades? Does Papal Infallibility become an un-dogma now also? Does Vatican I now become an un-Ecuмenical-Council? But, then, wait. Pius IX reigned for 31 years. In that case, nearly all the Cardinals who elected the next Pope, Leo XIII, weren't even legitimate. So we've not had a Pope since 1846 either.
Ridiculous. Manifest Heresy removes from office only when it becomes manifest. Occult heresy does not remove from office. Both are "objective" heresy. Heresy that becomes manifest later cannot retroactively depose a Pope.
Next I will pull some quotations from Pope Leo II where he describes the condemnation of Honorius.
-
Here are some of the judgments made by Pope Leo II against Honorius:
first is his endorsement of a judgment against Honorius, with the latter two being letters he wrote to various bishops later, reaffirming the exact same judgment
We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodore, Sergius, ...and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted.
And with them Honorius, who allowed the unspotted rule of Apostolic tradition, which he received from his predecessors, to be tarnished.
With Honorius, who did not, as became the Apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence.
So, the actual heretics, Theodore and Sergius were called as as the actual heretics, "inventors of the new error", whereas Honorius is mentioned as having PERMITTED the purity of Apostolic doctrine to be polluted.
In the second, he says the exact same thing, that he ALLOWED it to be tarnished.
And the third is even more explicit, stating that he DID NOT EXTINGUISH (the heresy from the beginning) by fostered it BY HIS NEGLIGENCE.
At no point did Pope Leo II declare Honorius to have actively been a heretic, but distinguished him from the actual heretics as deserving condemnation for his negligence, inaction, for permitting the heresy to flourish instead of stamping it out at the very beginning.
If you read the Catholic Encyclopedia article, ALL OF THE CATHOLIC THEOLOGIANS who dealt with the question hold that Honorius himself was no monothelite. That wasn't in fact the controversy about Honorius, as no one held him to be a heretic. Where the controversy arose was in connetion with the dogmatic definition of papal infallibility, as to whether the ambiguous teaching of Honorius would violate the prospective definition of papal infallibility.
There's a current-day controversial issue right now that perfectly illustrates this point.
Conciliar Anti-Popes have regularly omitted and permitted the omission of the FILIOQUE from the Nicene Creed. Does this mean they personally believe in the single procession? Let's take the case of Wojtyla. Wojtyla was one of the first to permit the Catholic Eastern Rites to drop the FILOIOQUE, but then in some general audiences that he gave confirmed his own personal belief in the dual procession ... from the Father AND the Son. What they're doing here is to remove "obstacles" to Ecuмenism. This is very similar to what Honroius did, where he permitted the heresy to go uncondemned by playing with ambiguous and equivocal formulas where he could make both sides "happy", even though it's quite clear from his own writing that he personally did not adhere to the heresy.
-
Just stop it, moron.
Let's try this again. We know you've got this stupidity stuck in your cold dead brain, and it'll be nearly impossible to extract it.
By far the majority opinion among theologians is that MANIFEST heresy causes loss of office. Honorius was not a manifest heretic at any point during his lifetime. Nobody considered him a heretic or knew of his heresy. Consequently, he never lost papal office, since at not point while he was in possession of his office did he become a manifest heretic. If in 381 his heresy became manifest (something that's highly disputed but you lie about and claim that it's certain), Honorius no longer held the office at that time, since he had already been separated from it by death for several decades.
I'm so utterly sick of the liars everywhere even on a Traditional Catholic forum.
You also pretend that the issue is just cut and dry, certain, solemnly affirmed by the pope, etc. --- because it's necessary that it be so for your stupid-ass bullshit lying argument.
If you actually look into the matter, many pages have been spent on the question, and it is by no means as cut and dry as you claim with your lies.
St. Robert Bellarmine, along with Baronius, Pighi, and others ... believe that the insertion of Honorius' name into Third Constantinople was a later interpolation by the Greeks, and there had in fact been precedent for that prior to this scenario. Others don't believe that. But there are the later statements by Pope Leo II. But Leo II in his statements did NOT actually call out Honorius for heresy, but for his failure by omission to condemn heresy. So some theologians held that Leo's "endorsement" of III Constantinople included an amendment of the reference to Honorius as a heretic ... even among those who believe that the inclusion of his name on the list was real.
Just the summary of the debate goes on for pages ...
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm
But you lie about how it's cut-and-dry, that an Ecuмenical Council said it and that Leo II solemnly endorsed it. Bullshit. Both statements are disputed, and then, of course, in the end, some recognition of heresy long after someone's dead cannot result in a loss of office during the person's lifetime. Honorius finished his life with a good reputation, without anyone accusing him of heterodoxy, much less heresy at any time.
Let's say now that someone today uncovered some letter from Pius IX where he admits to being some Masonic agent bent on destroying the Church, and so they decide to anathematize Pius IX. Let's say this letter was dated to 1848. So, what?, then ... does the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception now become an un-dogma, after the fact, after untold millions had accepted it as dogma with the certainty of faith for many decades? Does Papal Infallibility become an un-dogma now also? Does Vatican I now become an un-Ecuмenical-Council? But, then, wait. Pius IX reigned for 31 years. In that case, nearly all the Cardinals who elected the next Pope, Leo XIII, weren't even legitimate. So we've not had a Pope since 1846 either.
Ridiculous. Manifest Heresy removes from office only when it becomes manifest. Occult heresy does not remove from office. Both are "objective" heresy. Heresy that becomes manifest later cannot retroactively depose a Pope.
Next I will pull some quotations from Pope Leo II where he describes the condemnation of Honorius.
Can you show me what is “highly disputed” here and where the “lie is”?
I am stating the historical fact that a dogmatic ecuмenical council anathematized Honorius by name. Honorius nevertheless never ceased to be Pope.
This is represented in the original poll and post:
Affirm or deny: Pope Honorius remained the Roman Pontiff until his death, even though the Sixth Ecuмenical Council formally condemned and anathematized him as a heretic and Pope Leo II ratified that condemnation.
The bold is also a historical reality, but doesn’t even need to be included for my response to you.
Honorius nevertheless never ceased to be Pope.
I’m not discussing whether or not St. Robert Bellarmine thought Honorius was a manifest heretic; I am stating what a dogmatic council of the Church stated for verbatim.
-
I'm so utterly sick of the liars everywhere even on a Traditional Catholic forum.
You also pretend that the issue is just cut and dry, certain, solemnly affirmed by the pope, etc. --- because it's necessary that it be so for your stupid-ass bullshit lying argument.
If you actually look into the matter, many pages have been spent on the question, and it is by no means as cut and dry as you claim with your lies.
St. Robert Bellarmine, along with Baronius, Pighi, and others ... believe that the insertion of Honorius' name into Third Constantinople was a later interpolation by the Greeks, and there had in fact been precedent for that prior to this scenario. Others don't believe that.
As noted in Catholic historiography, including the Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), the theory that Honorius’ name was interpolated into the Acts of the Sixth Ecuмenical Council has been abandoned by most defenders of papal authority:
“…there has been in the past, owing to Gallicanism and the opponents of papal infallibility, much controversy concerning the proper sense of this council’s condemnation of Pope Honorius, **the theory (Baronius, Damberger) of a falsification of the Acts being now quite abandoned (Hefele, III, 299–313).”
— Catholic Encyclopedia (1913), “Councils of Constantinople” (Sixth Ecuмenical Council section)
One of the principal reasons the interpolation theory was rejected is that if the Greek Acts of the council were corrupted, then by the same logic, Pope Leo II’s confirming letter, which also names Honorius among the condemned, would also have to be corrupted, a conclusion historians consider untenable. ([Hefele, History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 7, 1896])
This claim that Honorius’ condemnation is a later interpolation is not accepted in mainstream Catholic historiography.
-
By far the majority opinion among theologians is that MANIFEST heresy causes loss of office. Honorius was not a manifest heretic at any point during his lifetime. Nobody considered him a heretic or knew of his heresy. Consequently, he never lost papal office, since at not point while he was in possession of his office did he become a manifest heretic. If in 381 his heresy became manifest (something that's highly disputed but you lie about and claim that it's certain)
I have shared the historical facts to you and throughout this thread, as fully sourced and verified: the Sixth Ecuмenical Council (Third Council of Constantinople, 680–681) condemned Honorius by name as a heretic, and Pope Leo II ratified that condemnation. I will leave this discussion with you here, trusting that the truth has been clearly presented for consideration.
-
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 (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm)
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)
-
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 (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm)
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!
-
Typical side. :facepalm:
-
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 (https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm)
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)
-
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.
-
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.
Thank you PV!
Hey "Catholic Trumpet guy (AL)" dare we hope that you will say...
(https://media1.giphy.com/media/v1.Y2lkPTc5MGI3NjExMWo5bTlsZGk3MmtyZDR5YXQyOWF0OG55eDhxYW83aGRrN2E3M2t4NSZlcD12MV9naWZzX3NlYXJjaCZjdD1n/ToMjGpo96PvWxkiRa6I/200.gif)
-
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.
Although I agree that theologians have long exercised caution in assessing Honorius’s personal culpability. However, the question at issue is not our personal readiness to judge him, but the historical fact that the Sixth Ecuмenical Council anathematized Honorius by name, that Pope Leo II confirmed that judgment, and that the Eighth Ecuмenical Council explicitly reaffirmed the Sixth and repeated its list, including Honorius.
A pope can be personally negligent or doctrinally erroneous in a non-definitive way, and even be posthumously condemned, without having taught heresy ex cathedra or thereby automatically losing the papal office.
-
However, the question at issue is not our personal readiness to judge him, but the historical fact that the Sixth Ecuмenical Council anathematized Honorius by name, that Pope Leo II confirmed that judgment, and that the Eighth Ecuмenical Council explicitly reaffirmed the Sixth and repeated its list, including Honorius.
Oh, I thought the question was "heretic but pope until death? (Pope Honorius I case)".
The answer seems to be: "not at all certain that he was a heretic, quite possibly (perhaps even probably) not".
-
Oh, I thought the question was "heretic but pope until death? (Pope Honorius I case)".
The answer seems to be: "not at all certain that he was a heretic, quite possibly (perhaps even probably) not".
Perhaps you are making the point that these Councils considered him to be a heretic, yet he was not posthumously stripped of office.
There seems to be some merit in that argument, yet it still does not involve the Church's infallible magisterium.
-
Perhaps you are making the point that these Councils considered him to be a heretic, yet he was not posthumously stripped of office.
There seems to be some merit in that argument, yet it still does not involve the Church's infallible magisterium.
Just as Pope Honorius I did not teach heresy ex cathedra, an impossibility, he remained pope until his death, despite being anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council, confirmed by Pope Leo II, and reaffirmed by the Eighth Ecuмenical Council. The councils judged his theological error, not the legitimacy of his office. By the same principle, no earthly authority can remove a pope, and post-Vatican II popes likewise retain the papal office until death or valid resignation, even if their non-ex cathedra teachings are or were theologically erroneous propositions, opinions suspected of heresy, or opinions approaching heresy. Such teachings may also render a pope materially heretical, meaning the error exists in the teaching without imputing formal, obstinate heresy to the person. They can, however, be posthumously condemned and anathematized as heretics by a council and ratified by a pope, just as Honorius I was.
-
According to the platform, this post has been read 2,587 times. By God’s grace through the Blessed Virgin Mary, it continues to reach many more souls. By this same grace, it is hoped that it may help them reject the spiritual death of human reason alone that the error of sedevacantism spreads, and guide those called to truly embrace the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX of old.
I can say no more without risking verbosity. May God forgive me if I have exceeded its bounds. It is time to sign off and leave the work in the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Vive le Christ-Roi! Vive la papauté! Vive le pape! Vive sa Mère, la Reine, et son Cœur Immaculé! Et vive les bons prêtres!
-
According to the platform, this post has been read 2,587 times. By God’s grace through the Blessed Virgin Mary, it continues to reach many more souls. By this same grace, it is hoped that it may help them reject the spiritual death of human reason alone that the error of sedevacantism spreads, and guide those called to truly embrace the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX of old.
I can say no more without risking verbosity. May God forgive me if I have exceeded its bounds. It is time to sign off and leave the work in the hands of the Blessed Virgin Mary.
Vive le Christ-Roi! Vive la papauté! Vive le pape! Vive sa Mère, la Reine, et son Cœur Immaculé! Et vive les bons prêtres!
I basically agree with your position, even if your logic is not always spot on.
Let us follow the wonderful guide given to us by Providence in Archbishop Lefebvre.
And if you are that 'Catholic Trumpet Guy' as was previously posted, get your priest back in line with all the good bishops and priests of the Resistance for his own good and the good of all the faithful, so that you can "truly embrace the mission of Archbishop Lefebvre and the SSPX of old".
-
Perhaps you are making the point that these Councils considered him to be a heretic, yet he was not posthumously stripped of office.
There seems to be some merit in that argument, yet it still does not involve the Church's infallible magisterium.
Not, there's zero merit in the argument ... it's just more bullshit to try backing up those who adhere to heretical versions of R&R theory.
This really isn't hard, but it's only when you're brain has been depraved by the heretial paradigm (that Archbishop Lefebvre didn't hold, BTW, despite those heretics who hide behind him to justify their errors) ...
You cannot poshumously and retroactively strip someone of office, an office that he already lost at death. It's only manifest heresy that deposes from office, and at no time did the heresy become manifest during his lifetime where it would have caused loss of office. I'm sure that if various orthodox Cardinals would have stood up and called out Honorius, he would have backed down.
And what part of where I cited Pope Leo II 3 different times did not compute to those heretics among you who deny the indefectibility of the Church to bolster your heretical ecclesiology?
He stated no fewer than 3 times that Honorius was anathema for not defending the dogma, and in fact was distinguished from the inventors of the dogma.
Theologians unanimously agree that he was no monothelite himself, and there are about a half dozen variations on how to reconile this with Constantinople.
1) Bellarmine, Baronius, Pighi -- this was an interpolation by Theodore into the original Council docuмents
2) Third Constantinople did call him a heretic, but then Leo II clarified the intent or modified it in his endorsement when he clearly stated that Honorius was no heretic.
You also beg the question and play time paradox games. Popes cannot be stripped of authority after they had already lost it in death. Church cannot go back and depose Pius IX in 1848. That's the reason that Honorius stayed in office until his death, since the "heresy" (which he never actually held, but he failed to protect the Church against it) never became manifest during his lifetime And then, if you DO somehow claim that Honorius could be declared a manifest heretic after the fact, then you can pinpoint the time when it became manifest, and then the question you beg about his having remained pope his entire life would become disputed. To this day there are about a half dozen Popes in history that theologians dispute whether they were actually popes, and if theologians did agree with this principle of retroactive deposition by manifest heresy, then Honorius too would have to fall in that category.
-
Just as Pope Honorius I did not teach heresy ex cathedra, an impossibility, he remained pope until his death, despite being anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council, confirmed by Pope Leo II, and reaffirmed by the Eighth Ecuмenical Council. The councils judged his theological error, not the legitimacy of his office. By the same principle, no earthly authority can remove a pope, and post-Vatican II popes likewise retain the papal office until death or valid resignation, even if their non-ex cathedra teachings are or were theologically erroneous propositions, opinions suspected of heresy, or opinions approaching heresy. Such teachings may also render a pope materially heretical, meaning the error exists in the teaching without imputing formal, obstinate heresy to the person. They can, however, be posthumously condemned and anathematized as heretics by a council and ratified by a pope, just as Honorius I was.
Now you're just a lying piece of excrement. You've been correct already repeatedly with three different citations where Pope Leo II clearly declares that Honorius was not a heretic but was condemned for not having defended dogma.
But you're a lying heretic who tries to reject the indefectibility of the Church ... just like the heretics used Honorius to bring an assault against papal infallibility.
Scuм like you, after you've been repeatedly corrected, when you ignore clear citations from Leo II and then repeat your lies and slanders ... that demonstrates pertinacity in your heresy, and you too are anathema.
As for how "no earthly authority can remove a pope", you seem to be spouting the lie of pseudo-bishop Schneider that the only Catholic position is the one that maybe 2 theologians ever held, that a Pope can never lose office. While it is true that no eartly authority can REMOVE a pope, a Pope can be removed ipso facto by God for manifest heresy, the opinon that's held by most thoelogians, and then Cajetan's opinion, second, that the Church can "ministerially remove" a Pope, by which he means that the Church can declare him deposed ... and it's a blend of these two opinions that the sedeprivationists and sedeimpoundists (like Fr. Chazal) hold.
Your fake lying syllogism has been exposed. Per the Bellarmine opinion, heresy severs membership in the Church only when it's become MANIFEST, and not if it's occult. You deliberately blur the issue by throwing out there this gabage about "objective" heresy, which does not enter into the debate, since both manifest and occult heresy are "objective" heresy. So just pull that out of your ass to deliberately confuse the issue.
At not time did Honorius' heresy become manifest during his lifetime, and he was held to be completely orthodox, and ther'es no principle by which the Church can retroactively depose a pope from office.
What can happen is that the Church can issue a future declaration indicating that a Pope who was doubted during his lifetime, and disputed, was or was not actually a Pope. There are several such that theologians are not sure about today, where they're sometimes listed as popes, sometimes as antipopes, and the Church can make a clarification on the matter.
But your lie of Pope Leo II confirming him to be a heretic has been refuted, with actual citations from Pope Leo II where he clearly distinguishes between the heretics (the inventors of the heresy) and Honorius for failing to defend it. In the mind of the Church, over and over again, and sometimes explicitly taught, the Church declares that not only the heretics but those who fail to condemn the heretics are anathema and lumps them together in the anathema, but as far as membership in the Church is concerned, it's only heresy that deposes, whereas an anathema for failing to defend the faith would be a form of punitive excommnication.
This might be another Salza account ... and this time he's not pretending to be a female.
But you ignore everything that's been posted and regurgitate your heretical lies. That renders you a pertinacious heretic and you're outside the Church. Unless you repent, you're going to end up in Hell, since you lack the Catholic faith.
-
Just as Pope Honorius I did not teach heresy ex cathedra, an impossibility, he remained pope until his death, despite being anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecuмenical Council, confirmed by Pope Leo II, and reaffirmed by the Eighth Ecuмenical Council. The councils judged his theological error, not the legitimacy of his office. By the same principle, no earthly authority can remove a pope, and post-Vatican II popes likewise retain the papal office until death or valid resignation, even if their non-ex cathedra teachings are or were theologically erroneous propositions, opinions suspected of heresy, or opinions approaching heresy. Such teachings may also render a pope materially heretical, meaning the error exists in the teaching without imputing formal, obstinate heresy to the person. They can, however, be posthumously condemned and anathematized as heretics by a council and ratified by a pope, just as Honorius I was.
If a future pope condemns any of the conciliar popes as a heretic, that future pope would declare that he never attained the papacy in the first place. The term "heretic" is clearly defined in moral theology and Canon Law, which derives its definition from moral theology.
-
Perhaps you are making the point that these Councils considered him to be a heretic, yet he was not posthumously stripped of office.
There seems to be some merit in that argument, yet it still does not involve the Church's infallible magisterium.
Yes PV, the whole point is that 2 different popes, both of the popes of the Council, said that a Pope (Honorius I) was both a heretic and a true pope at the same time.
Obviously these 2 popes did not first consult with Lad and the other sedes who would have corrected and educated those popes by telling them that there can be no pope who is a heretic, that such a thing was impossible and a vile heresy to even say and if they said it again, then the sedes would be forced to anathematize both pope Agatho and Pope Leo II and strip them of their papacy for spewing heresy.
-
Human judgments about the internal forum can be had at most with moral certitude.
(https://i.imgur.com/hKXVObG.png)
If I am morally certain as to someone's interior dispositions/motivations and guilt or innocence before God - am I not "judging them" and stepping on God's toes?
-
Yes PV, the whole point is that 2 different popes, both of the popes of the Council, said that a Pope (Honorius I) was both a heretic and a true pope at the same time.
Obviously these 2 popes did not first consult with Lad and the other sedes who would have corrected and educated those popes by telling them that there can be no pope who is a heretic, that such a thing was impossible and a vile heresy to even say and if they said it again, then the sedes would be forced to anathematize both pope Agatho and Pope Leo II and strip them of their papacy for spewing heresy.
Yes, yet another pretinacious heretic lying about what Pope Leo II said, despite my having actually cited the Pope, where Leo explicitly differentiated between the actual heretics and Honorius, the latter being condemned for permitting heresy. It's not about "consulting" with me, you lying filth ... it's about you lying about what Pope Leo II actually said.
Pertinacious non-Catholic heretic Stubborn also ignores the fact that MANIFEST heresy causes loss of membership in the Church and therefore papal authority, and something having become manifest decades after his death cannot cause the deposition from office of someone who's long death.
We have the wicked heretics here atttempting to smear the Church just so they can pretend they're Catholic by putting Prevost's picture up in the vesibule, even though their actual ecclesiology is heretical.
-
(https://i.imgur.com/hKXVObG.png)
If I am morally certain as to someone's interior dispositions/motivations and guilt or innocence before God - am I not "judging them" and stepping on God's toes?
No, because you recognize that your judgment is not absolute. What is rash judgment?
Rash judgment is believing a person guilty of sin without a sufficient cause.
Baltimore Catechism (1891)
(https://www.intratext.com/ixt/ENG0104/_P2F.HTM)But what is there is a sufficient cause? Then it is not a rash judgment.
Do you think, for example, that a canonical judge would condemn one with the crime of heresy if that judge did not hold with moral certitude that the one condemned is guilty of the sin of heresy? No. The judge must have moral certitude that he is guilty of the sin of heresy. Otherwise, the judgment would be unjust. The crime of heresy is based upon the sin of heresy.
-
Do you think, for example, that a canonical judge would condemn one with the crime of heresy if that judge did not hold with moral certitude that the one condemned is guilty of the sin of heresy? No. The judge must have moral certitude that he is guilty of the sin of heresy. Otherwise, the judgment would be unjust. The crime of heresy is based upon the sin of heresy.
(https://i.imgur.com/3lkk4qT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/yJOovjJ.png)
I think this ^ is what Ladislaus was trying to tell you...
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Ag5bNbF.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/CgkUAGK.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/3lkk4qT.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/yJOovjJ.png)
I think this ^ is what Ladislaus was trying to tell you...
Please stop with AI interpretation and read MacKenzie directly.
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/The-Delict-of-Heresy-MacKenzie.png)
In Canon Law, the concept of crime necessarily supposes the existence of sin.
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Canon-Law-Supposes-Sin-MacKenzie.png)
Heresy consists precisely in holding firmly to error which is in some way known to be error, for reasons which may be true in themselves, but which do not justify the assent given to the error. Without this quality of pertinacity, there may be material sins of heresy,—erroneous acts of judgment which de facto are opposed to revealed truth. With this quality, such acts are formally sinful, and constitute the subjective element in the delict of heresy, and are the subjective reason for the serious penalties inflicted by the Church.
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Subjective-Element-of-the-Delict-of-Heresy-MacKenzie.png)
It is only when the sin of heresy is externalized that the individual is guilty of a delict, and subject to judgment in the external forum of the Church, and punishable by the penalties contained in the penal legislation of the Fifth Book of the Code of Canon Law.
That heresy in general is a violation of laws to which have been added canonical punishments, is too patent to need proof. But it may be advisable to note that these punishments are incurred only by an external and morally imputable act, and to indicate how these limitations affect the status of those who have committed sins of heresy.
The principle was established from early times that canonical punishments cannot be incurred by subjective sins. There must be some external act, whose malice derives from the subjective sin, but whose effect is a disturbance of the life of the Church as a social body.
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Malice-of-External-Act-Derives-from-Sin-MacKenzie.png)
The second essential characteristic of a delict is that it be morally imputable. The external act must be (or at least must seem to be), the expression of a mind that is aware of, and a will that is freely committed to, a sinful act. The preservation of order, and the elimination of quibbling excuses, make necessary the provision that where the external delinquent act has been committed, the existence of sin be presumed.
We therefore deal hereafter with heresy as an externalized, morally imputable violation of the Church’s law.
(https://ecclesiamilitans.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/Delict-Is-Externalized-and-Morally-Imputable-MacKenzie.png)
-
Please stop with AI interpretation and read MacKenzie directly.
Well, it seems to understand it better then you.
Even if an act bears the marks of a morally imputable sin freely committed, it does not authorize judgment of the internal forum.
An act that bears the qualities of a morally imputable sin freely committed does not, of itself, fall within the competence of the external forum. The judge of the external forum must possess moral certitude only regarding the delict, established through external and juridically verifiable evidence, without presuming to judge the internal forum of conscience.
-
Well, it seems to understand it better then you.
An act that has the characteristic of a morally imputable sin that one freely commits - does not mean you are to judge the internal forum.
If the judge does not believe that the person on trial is guilty of the sin of heresy, then he must not judge him guilty of the crime of heresy. It is that simple. Without sin, there is no crime.
-
If the judge does not believe that the person on trial is guilty of the sin of heresy, then he must not judge him guilty of the crime of heresy. It is that simple. Without sin, there is no crime.
(https://i.imgur.com/pt2fxHo.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/8tK913M.png)
I have a copy of McKenzie. You are understanding it wrong. The AI can help you with this.
-
Augustine says similiar:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-a-quote-by-st-francis-de-sale-too-much-for-rr/msg1010541/#msg1010541
.....for every crime is a sin, though not conversely.
-
Augustine says similiar:
https://www.cathinfo.com/crisis-in-the-church/is-a-quote-by-st-francis-de-sale-too-much-for-rr/msg1010541/#msg1010541
Similar to you?
I thought we were talking about McKenzie.
I thought we were discussing the crime/sin of heresy according to CANON LAW.
-
The AI seems to define interior sin as sin that is not externalized.
-
The AI seems to define interior sin as sin that is not externalized.
(https://i.imgur.com/fOcSKwG.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/CB2KrMv.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/gYAKDFN.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/shNtLu9.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ibUaicS.png)
-
(https://i.imgur.com/ibUaicS.png)
So what?
He is convinced it has the matter of sin... That is NOT judging his internal forum.
That is what you are claiming, that the judge must judge the internal forum of the accused as guilty of sin before he can justly deliver a judgement. That is wrong. You are not understanding it correctly, I can see why Ladislaw was niggling you.
Actually you are being quite pertinacious about this, should I be morally certain you are sinning somehow?
-
Define "internal forum".
-
(https://i.imgur.com/1x6bKCt.png)
-
Judging a man to NOT be a pope does not judge sin. It judges that the man cannot be a pope because of what he has allowed. The promise of Infallibility/indefectibility prevents a true pope from allowing heresy into the universal magisterium, and creating a harmful liturgy. But the man might have never been pope in the first place. The judgment merely posits that the man cannot be a pope. If the man were a robot, a secret female, an atheist intruder, any of them could be the cause.
-
Judging a man to NOT be a pope does not judge sin. It judges that the man cannot be a pope because of what he has allowed. The promise of Infallibility/indefectibility prevents a true pope from allowing heresy into the universal magisterium, and creating a harmful liturgy. But the man might have never been pope in the first place. The judgment merely posits that the man cannot be a pope. If the man were a robot, a secret female, an atheist intruder, any of them could be the cause.
Have you ever been the leader of a large organization? Do you think that the Pope can police every action of every person in the Vatican or every bishop? Do you not realize that he depends on subordinates to carry out what he desires? And if the subordinate doesn't do it, what can he do?
Do you realize that the liturgy was created by a committee, not the Pope himself? Do you realize that the head of the committee was Bugnini, a Freemason appointed by Pius XII? Do you realize that the Paul VI only knew as much as Bugnini and Cardinal Villot wanted him to know? Do you realize that Cardinal Villot was the real power in the Vatican during those years? Do you realize that the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum speaks of adding a New Rite of Concelebration to the Missal, not replacing the Rite of Mass with the New Rite of Concelebration? It was a snow job carried out by the Curia.
We must be careful not to oversimplify the situation and blame the Popes for everything. The doctrine of indefectibility does not prevent harmful things from being introduced into the Church by evil people who masquerade as members of the Church. The Arian Crisis is an example of how bad things can get.
-
Have you ever been the leader of a large organization? Do you think that the Pope can police every action of every person in the Vatican or every bishop? Do you not realize that he depends on subordinates to carry out what he desires? And if the subordinate doesn't do it, what can he do?
Do you realize that the liturgy was created by a committee, not the Pope himself? Do you realize that the head of the committee was Bugnini, a Freemason appointed by Pius XII? Do you realize that the Paul VI only knew as much as Bugnini and Cardinal Villot wanted him to know? Do you realize that Cardinal Villot was the real power in the Vatican during those years? Do you realize that the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum speaks of adding a New Rite of Concelebration to the Missal, not replacing the Rite of Mass with the New Rite of Concelebration? It was a snow job carried out by the Curia.
We must be careful not to oversimplify the situation and blame the Popes for everything. The doctrine of indefectibility does not prevent harmful things from being introduced into the Church by evil people who masquerade as members of the Church. The Arian Crisis is an example of how bad things can get.
Sure, he sits in a closet without the Internet. C'mon!!!
-
Sure, he sits in a closet without the Internet. C'mon!!!
So you think Paul VI used the internet?
-
Not, there's zero merit in the argument ... it's just more bullshit to try backing up those who adhere to heretical versions of R&R theory.
This really isn't hard, but it's only when you're brain has been depraved by the heretial paradigm (that Archbishop Lefebvre didn't hold, BTW, despite those heretics who hide behind him to justify their errors) ...
You cannot poshumously and retroactively strip someone of office, an office that he already lost at death. It's only manifest heresy that deposes from office, and at no time did the heresy become manifest during his lifetime where it would have caused loss of office. I'm sure that if various orthodox Cardinals would have stood up and called out Honorius, he would have backed down.
I tend to agree, not they my opinion coming from my profound ignorance of this topic is worth much!
But I don't think we can make the case that any of these Popes or Councils condemned Pope Honorius for being a manifest heretic, but rather that they judged him very harshly with the term 'heretic' for not condemning heresy when they judged that he ought to have.
If anyone can bring forth quotes to prove otherwise, let him do so... The truth seems to be that the most Honorius was condemned for, the most that these Popes and Councils considered Honorius guilty of, was not condemning heresy - and history seems to judge them to have been incorrect in their judgement of Pope Honorius in this respect, but that is another question.
By my comment about posthumously stripping him of office I was referring to a judgement of the Church that he was not Pope from the moment that he fell into heresy, after all that is what this thread is all about.