It is not impossible that this hypothesis will one day be confirmed by the Church.

Quote from: Ethelred

Today Archbishop Lefebvre would be expelled by Bp Fellay from the SSPX.
... for many reasons!

Thanks SJB. :-)

To: Fr. Paul Schoonbroodt 2/28/2009

Dear Fr.

I received your letter upon my return from the U. S. I can see why a priest or a layman can entertain doubts as to the validity of a Pope such as J.P. II or Benedict XVI; did not Msgr. Lefebvre entertain them? However just as our venerable founder, I myself do not wish to make this legitimate doubt the main reason for my combat or as a justification for my actions. My combat is based totally on the duty to defend the faith as per St. Paul. As for him who is seated on the See of Rome: Because there is a doubt, the presumption is in favour of the possessor; and since the Sede-Vacante arguments are not accepted by the vast majority of the traditionalist Catholics, it is necessary to apply Can. # 209: “in dubio positivo....juridictionem supplet ecclesia pro fors tum externo tum interno.” (in case of positive doubt... jurisdiction is supplied by the Church in both the internal and external forums.); that is why the SSPX maintains contact with Benedict XVI; of course, not to embrace his errors, but to convert him.
Please accept dear Fr. The assurance of my religious devotion in spite of all this in Our Lord Jesus Christ.

+Bernard Tissier de Mallerais

Did they treat him as pope? Sede-plenists do not.

Quote from: Hermenegild

Quote from: lefebvre_fan

If by "treat him as pope" you mean "accept every word that comes from his mouth (or his pen) as an infallible dogma...

No, I mean accept every word that comes from his mouth (or his pen) when he is teaching to the Church on a point of faith or morals.

Now have another go...

Um, I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at. So are you saying that Honorius I wasn't a legitimate pope?

4. It is alleged of Pope Honorius I (625-38) that: (a) in two letters to Sergius, bishop of Constantinople, he taught Monotheletism † and, did so, indeed, so clearly that (b) he was afterwards for this very reason condemned as a heretic by the sixth ecuмenical council (Third Constantinople) in the year 680.

† Monotheletism (from manas "single" and thelo "I will") is the last of the great Christological heresies and an offshoot of Monophysitism. It maintained that Christ had only one will – a divine will – and consequently denied to Christ's human nature that which is connatural to it – a human will. See Parente, Dictionary, op. cit., p. 194-5.

a. The letters of Honorius do not contain any ex cathedra statement. The pope made no doctrinal decision; he approved the request of Sergius that silence should be observed in the question of "a single or double operation" in Christ, "Exhorting you that avoiding the use of the newfangled term of a single or double operation…" (Kirch 1064); and again, "It is not necessary for us to give a definitive decision on this matter of one or two operations" (Kirch 1068).

But to urge silence on a matter is just the reverse of a peremptory definition!

The letters of Honorius do not contain any doctrinal error. Even though the pope does refrain from using the term of a double will or double operation, he does teach in equivalent terms the existence of two wills and a twofold operation by asserting that Christ possesses two complete, unconfused natures, which operate and are sources of operation, and one operator.

The phrase: "We confess that there is one will of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Kirch 1073) in nowise prevents this conclusion. In the context in which the clause occurs, the meaning is simply this: In Christ's human nature there is perfect harmony between His rational will and His sensitive appetite (for the latter is perfectly subject to the former), hence there is in Christ's humanity but one will, one that is to say, not physically but morally. (17) Pope John IV (640-42) ratified this orthodox meaning in his Apologia pro Honorio coauthored, it is interesting to note, by the same John Sympon who had cosigned the letters of Honorius himself.

It must be admitted, however, that the clause "we confess one will," even though it did not have a Monotheletic meaning in Honorius' mind and does not have such a meaning objectively – provided the context be considered carefully, not casually – could be easily twisted to give it a perverted sense. (18)

b. Before anything else, this much is absolutely sure: Honorius was not condemned as guilty of preaching heresy in his official capacity (ex cathedra). Something more, he was not even condemned as being privately a heretic. Strictly speaking, he was condemned for being a helper of heresy. Whatever might have been the intention of the fathers of the sixth ecuмenical council, this much is certain: the decree of the council would be of no value except insofar as it was ratified by the Apostolic See. Now Leo II, who had succeeded Agatho as pope before the end of the council, in his ratification of the fathers' decree either explained the decree in such fashion or so mitigated it that the upshot was that Honorius was to be stigmatized not as a heretic, but as a helper of heresy.

Here are Leo's words to Constantine Pogonatus ratifying the council's decree: "We anathematize the inventors of the new error, that is, Theodosius, Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter . . . and also Honorius who did not enlighten this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but allowed its immaculate faith to be soiled by profane betrayal" (Kirch 1085). (19) A short time later, Leo wrote to the bishops of Spain explaining the matter. Honorius was condemned along with the others: "because instead of extinguishing the incipient flame of heretical doctrine, as befits the holder of apostolic authority, he rather fanned it by his negligence."

Was, then, Honorius actually a helper of heresy? Prescinding from the question of serious subjective guilt, from which many authors excuse the pope, this much must be said: Honorius was a bit gullible in relying so readily on Sergius' advice and he acted unwisely in persuading people not to preach about the twofold operation – which he himself, nonetheless, personally admitted. He acted still more unwisely by adding that odd-sounding clause about "one will in Christ." Because of these imprudences he did (unwittingly) help to fan the rising blaze of the Monotheletic heresy. Instead, he should have combatted the heresy energetically with a clear and distinct explanation of apostolic doctrine as befitted his apostolic office. Finally, it seems probable that the only reason the Apostolic See acquiesced in this grave censure of Honorius was to prevent even further damage by making some concessions to the Greeks who were quite incensed about the condemnation of some of their leaders. (20)

All this explanation is offered on the hypothesis that both the letters of Honorius and the acts of the sixth council are completely authentic. Quite a few scholars – whose opinion has not won wide acceptance, however – have tried to show that a number of interpolations have been inserted in either the letters of Honorius or the acts of the council.