Author Topic: Pope Liberius and Pope Honorius (Read 1593 times)

2Vermont · « **on:** July 17, 2014, 06:33:29 AM »

I was hoping we could discuss these two popes. I have often seen these popes mentioned when refuting the idea that a heretical pope does not become an anti-pope because this is not what happened with them.

My knowledge of these two is pretty fuzzy. I have read conflicting stories about them and I am not sure what the truth is and how it relates to the post Vatican II papal claimants.

Please learn me. ;-)

TKGS · « **Reply #1 on:** July 17, 2014, 07:15:26 AM »

One source: http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=756

My knowledge of these popes is also "fuzzy" but they seem to be paraded about by the anti-sedevacantists as evidence that the thesis cannot be correct. The Church, during the Vatican Council (1869-1870), explored the issues surrounding these popes and demonstrated that they were not heretics nor did they teach heresy.

Rather than having a bunch of laymen discussing these popes on a forum, I think it would be better to read the referenced articles from The American Catholic Quarterly Review.

MarylandTrad · « **Reply #2 on:** July 17, 2014, 09:18:28 PM »

If a Catholic were convinced that Pope Francis is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?

No, he should not, because according to the "common" opinion (Suarez), or even the "more common" opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even a heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.

“According to the more common opinion, Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church” (Billuart, De Fide, diss. V, a. III, § 3, obj. 2).

Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.

But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. Indeed, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. “The reason is that – whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul – a moral head, as is the [Roman] Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.”

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by jurisdiction and authority that can co-exist with heresy.

www.dominicainsavrille.fr/les-dominicains-davrille-sont-ils-devenus-sedevacantistes

2Vermont · « **Reply #3 on:** July 17, 2014, 09:25:14 PM »

Quote from: MarylandTrad

If a Catholic were convinced that Pope Francis is a formal, manifest heretic, should he then conclude that he is no longer pope?

No, he should not, because according to the "common" opinion (Suarez), or even the "more common" opinion (Billuart), theologians think that even a heretical pope can continue to exercise the papacy. For him to lose his jurisdiction, the Catholic bishops (the only judges in matters of faith besides the pope, by Divine will) would have to make a declaration denouncing the pope’s heresy.

“According to the more common opinion, Christ, by a particular providence, for the common good and the tranquility of the Church, continues to give jurisdiction to an even manifestly heretical pontiff until such time as he should be declared a manifest heretic by the Church” (Billuart, De Fide, diss. V, a. III, § 3, obj. 2).

Now, in so serious a matter, it is not prudent to go against the common opinion.

But how can a heretic, who is no longer a member of the Church, be its leader or head?

Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, basing his reasoning on Billuart, explains in his treatise De Verbo Incarnato (p. 232) that a heretical pope, while no longer a member of the Church, can still be her head. Indeed, what is impossible in the case of a physical head is possible (albeit abnormal) for a secondary moral head. “The reason is that – whereas a physical head cannot influence the members without receiving the vital influx of the soul – a moral head, as is the [Roman] Pontiff, can exercise jurisdiction over the Church even if he does not receive from the soul of the Church any influx of interior faith or charity.”

In short, the pope is constituted a member of the Church by his personal faith, which he can lose, but he is head of the visible Church by jurisdiction and authority that can co-exist with heresy.

www.dominicainsavrille.fr/les-dominicains-davrille-sont-ils-devenus-sedevacantistes

And this answers my OP, how?

2Vermont · « **Reply #4 on:** July 19, 2014, 06:26:59 PM »

Quote from: TKGS

One source: http://sedevacantist.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=756

My knowledge of these popes is also "fuzzy" but they seem to be paraded about by the anti-sedevacantists as evidence that the thesis cannot be correct. The Church, during the Vatican Council (1869-1870), explored the issues surrounding these popes and demonstrated that they were not heretics nor did they teach heresy.

Rather than having a bunch of laymen discussing these popes on a forum, I think it would be better to read the referenced articles from The American Catholic Quarterly Review.

Thanks for the link....will definitely check into.....

Mithrandylan · « **Reply #5 on:** July 19, 2014, 08:25:32 PM »

2Vt,

Honorius was not a heretic. Those who say he was are just repeating a game of telephone that turned into a soundbyte for non-sedevacantists.

Honorius failed to condemn heresy. He did not teach it, not even privately. His failure to condemn it was private as well (not as if it would make him a heretic were his failure public). So he doesn't even meet the material of heresy. But more importantly (or at least, as importantly) the supposed "anathema" given him was very likely a forgery-- various saints believe this to be the case, including St. Bellarmine. Here is a very good article on the matter: http://www.eclipseofthechurch.com/HonoriusCalumny.htm

So, Honorius:

Wasn't a heretic, even privately
Died with his reputation intact (was not considered a heretic)
Was the victim of a forgery purporting to anathematize him

--Forgeries in the early Church were not uncommon, especially from the East. They looooove their forged docuмents.--

As far as Liberius, it's a similar case. He was a prisoner when he wrote the letters he was alleged to have written, so there is the question of whether or not he was acting freely; the letters themselves I don't think actually contained heresy; even if they had they're also regarded as forgeries, or at least dubiously authentic. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm#IV

roscoe · « **Reply #6 on:** August 01, 2014, 09:29:23 PM »

While reading the eclipseofthechurch article i was struck by the sophisticated way the enemies of Honorius resorted to forging docuмents--- very similar to the calumnies against Card Rampolla & Fr Feeney. :detective: