Why do you say that oh great one?

So ... you don't think it's dogma that the Church cannot defect?  Well, now that I put it that way ... you actually do NOT, but say in fact that the Church has defected.

No, you vile heretic ... thus says every Catholic pope, Doctor, theologian, and every Catholic in general for the entire history of the Church.  You've lost your faith and will end up in hell unless you convert first.  Don't fool yourself that you're Catholic simply because of the externals, where you go to Latin Mass and read Catholic docuмents.  Since, as St. Thomas Aquinas describe of all heretics, you have made your own judgment your rule of faith, you cannot have supernatural faith, but only something that might superfically resemble it by outward appearances.

Yes, Canon 1556 is a good one to hold on to, especially for you since you constantly judge the First See by calling the person you say it sitting in that See a "heretic."

But it is also important because is explains why Canon 188 is worded the way that it is. The Canon is saying that he loses his office by the law itself. So no person is "judging" the First See. He "tacitly resigns" his office. He is not told to resign by others.

Canon 188 (1983 CIC 194)

Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation
recognized by the law itself if a cleric:

4.° Publicly defects from the Catholic faith;

We don't live by the rules that were in place at the Third Council of Constantinople. We live by the rules of Canon Law.

If what you are trying to suggest is that truth or dogma can change over time, this is condemned by Pope Saint Pius X as part of the heresy of Modernism.

The truth is that Honorius was condemned for heresy by the dogmatic Sixth Ecuмenical Council, and no human law, past or present, can undo that divine judgment. Pope Leo II later confirmed this condemnation, ratifying the Council’s judgment and reinforcing its already binding authority.

No, what I am talking about is the disciplinary guidelines about how "heresy" is handled ordinarily in the Church. These disciplinary guidelines do not get into the substance of each heresy. That is handled elsewhere by the Magisterium.

Canon Law determines only the disciplinary guidelines and procedures on must follow when heresy is recognized. Those disciplinary guidelines have developed over many centuries. The procedures in the 7th century have been superseded by later procedures clarified in Canon Law.

The Sixth Ecuмenical Council’s condemnation of Honorius is a divine judgment, infallibly declaring his objective heresy; to claim it was not is to deny the guidance of the Sanctus Spiritus and the binding authority of an Ecuмenical Council. This principle is reinforced by the Council of Trent (Session 6, Canon 3), which affirms that the decrees of the Church, when defining doctrine, are binding on all the faithful.

I tend to agree.

Condemnations are secondary objects of infallibility. But that is concerning doctrines.

No one but God can read the internal forum, so if one is declared a heretic, that judgment must be followed in the external forum out of obedience.

Not only that, if you are morally certain someone is a manifest, public heretic that judgement MUST BE followed as well.

Now why was his name removed then?...



Bares repeating, "a legitimate council errs on facts but not faith definitions."

Which I would argue where a council ratified by the Pope cannot error would include condemnations of doctrines.

Whereas, the facts about WHO were actually heretical can be subject to human error, and are open to later revision.

But the idea he is pushing is basically, "if you don't affirm that Honorius was condemned as a heretic then you are a heretic."

What a loopy thing.

It proves nothing, but it is one of those flimsy attempts the Prots and Orthos grab at as well to undermine the papacy.