When one cares enough to pray for someone ...

Thanks, Stubborn, for this reminder. I hope we all do recall to frequently pray for each other, that we may all be sanctified and saved, and one day meet in Heaven. Our Lady has promised, all who persevere in praying the Rosary, who devoutly wear the Scapular, She will not allow to be lost; and so let us hope for ourselves and for each other that we all grow in grace every day of our life and ultimately go to Heaven when we pass into eternity. 

I also believe a Pope will not actually become a heretic, although that is only, as St. Robert puts it, "a pious and probable opinion", but not considered absolutely certain dogma. Now, I have a question for Rev. Fr. Kramer: 

Father, what do you believe about Pope Honorius? Do you believe he was a heretic? I don't think even those who claimed he was a heretic said "he was never Pope to begin with, since he became a heretic". Does it really work like that? Popes are once and for all proven to be Popes infallibly shortly after their election when they receive unanimous episcopal acceptance. Can you show any Saint, Doctor or Theologian who said, "Pope Honorius was never Pope to begin with, since he became a heretic"?

It's more likely than not imho that Pope Honorius was not a heretic, as per two great Doctors, St. Alphonsus and St. Robert, though he was imprudent and made some mistakes:

St. Alphonsus: “Not alone the heretical, but even some Catholic writers, have judged, from these expressions of Pope Honorius, that he fell into the Monothelite heresy; but they are certainly deceived; because when he says that there is only one will in Christ, he intends to speak of Christ as man alone, and in that sense, as a Catholic, he properly denies that there are two wills in Christ opposed to each other, as in us the flesh is opposed to the spirit; and if we consider the very words of his letter, we will see that such is his meaning. ‘We confess one will alone in Jesus Christ, for the Divinity did not assume our sin, but our nature, as it was created before it was corrupted by sin.’ This is what Pope John IV. writes to the Emperor Constantine II., in his apology for Honorius: ‘Some,’ said he, ‘admitted two contrary wills in Jesus Christ, and Honorius answers that by saying that Christ—perfect God and perfect man—having come to heal human nature, was conceived and born without sin, and therefore, never had two opposite wills, nor in him the will of the flesh ever combated the will of the spirit, as it does in us, on account of the sin contracted from Adam.’ He therefore concludes that those who imagine that Honorius taught that there was in Christ but one will alone of the Divinity and of the humanity, are at fault. St. Maximus, in his dialogue with Pyrrhus, and St. Anastasius Bibliothecarius, make a similar defence for Honorius. Graveson, in confirmation of this, very properly remarks, that as St. Cyril, in his dispute with Nestorius, said, in a Catholic sense, that the nature of the Incarnate Word was one, and the Eutychians seized on the expression as favourable to them, in the same manner, Honorius saying that Christ had one will (that is, that he had not, like us, two opposite wills—one defective, the will of the flesh, and one correct, the will of the Spirit), the Monothelites availed themselves of it to defend their errors."

St. Robert: "Then they say, however, that a little below he [Pope Honorius I] clearly preaches only one will in these words: “Wherefore, we profess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ.” I respond: In that place, Honorius spoke only on the human nature, and wished to say that in the man, Christ, there were not two wills opposing each other, one of the flesh and the other of the spirit; but only one, namely the spirit. For the flesh in Christ desired absolutely nothing against reason. Moreover, this is the mind of Honorius, and that is plain from the reason that he gave. Thus he says: “Wherefore, we affirm one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, because certainly our nature was assumed by the divinity, there is no fault, certainly that which had created sin, not that which was damaged after sin.” This reasoning is null, if it is advanced to prove in Christ, God and man there is only one will: it is very efficacious, if thence it must be proved, that in Christ the man where there not contrary wills of the flesh and spirit. That contrariety is born from sin, but Christ has a human nature without sin.

The dogmatic letter of Pope St. Agatho to the Sixth Council, the Byzantine monk St. Maximus the confessor, and many others, also stated the Church of Rome never erred in this Monothelite controversy, but rather some enemies of Rome, in order to confuse the issue, and mask the fact that it was really the Patriarch of Constantinople who initiated this heresy.

Your thoughts on the Monothelite controversy and the historical case of Pope Honorius, Fr. Kramer? Was the Pope a heretic?

THE HERESY OF JOHN SALZA & ROBERT SISCOE

 “The Church must render a judgment before the pope loses his office.” Robert J. Siscoe — Article in The Remnant (Nov. 18, 2014)

 “After the Church establishes that the Pope is guilty of the crime of heresy, she renders a judgment of the same (and, as we will see, this is to be done during an “imperfect” ecuмenical council).” — John F. Salza & Robert J. Siscoe — True or False Pope? p. 331 

  St. Thomas quoted by Pope Gregory XVI in Chapter 5 of The Triumph of the Holy See snd the Church Against the Attacks of the Innovators [Venice, 1832, p. 324] - "Ad illius ergo auctoritatem pertinet editio symboli, ad cuius auctoritatem pertinet FINALITER DETERMINARE ea, quae sunt fidei, ut ab omnibus inconcussa fide teneantur." -  [Summa Theol. II - II q. 1 a. 10] 

Translation - "To his authority belongs the promulgation of the creed, to whose authority it pertains to DETERMINE WITH FINALITY the matters of faith, so that they may be held by all with unshakable faith." This point was defined by the First Vatican Council: Pastor Æternus defines the pope as the supreme judge in all cases that refer to ecclesiastical examination: «iudicem supremum … in omnibus causis ad examen ecclesiasticuм spectantibus » 

Full text: «Et quoniam divino Apostolici primatus iure Romanus Pontifex universae Ecclesiae praeest, docemus etiam et declaramus, eum esse iudicem supremum fidelium (Pii PP. VI Breve, Super soliditate d. 28 Nov. 1786), et in omnibus causis ad examen ecclesiasticuм spectantibus ad ipsius posse iudicium recurri (Concil. Oecuм. Lugdun. II); Sedis vero Apostolicae, cuius auctoritate maior non est, iudicium a nemine fore retractandum, neque cuiquam de eius licere iudicare iudicio (Ep. Nicolai 1 ad Michaelem Imporatorem). Quare a recto veritatis tramite aberrant, qui affirmant, licere ab iudiciis Romanorum Pontificuм ad oecuмenicuм Concilium tamquam ad auctoritatem Romano Pontifice superiorem appellare. » 

Translation - «Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecuмenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.» 

PASTOR ÆTERNUS: «Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem huius supremae potestatis; aut hanc eius potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias, sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles; anathema sit.» 

 Translation: “So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the entire fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.” 

      Since the pope, while in office, is the supreme judge with universal primacy of jurisdiction, he alone is the final and infallible judge in matters of faith and morals, against whose judgment no one may appeal, not even to an ecuмenical council. Cardinal Manning observes, «Mauro Cappellari, afterwards Gregory XVI., affirms that the supreme judge of controversies is the Pontiff, "distinct and separate from all other Bishops; and that his decree in things of faith ought by them to be held without doubt." » Pope Gregory bases this doctrine expressed in this proposition on the teaching of St. Thomas : «St. Thomas offers here a most minute prospectus of the privileges, which In the Roman Pontiff the lovers of truth in glory to venerate. Speaking of the symbol of faith, he seeks who is the supreme judge of disputes, to whom belongs the solemn edition of the symbol, that is, the norm of our belief, and concludes: 1. º That it is the Pope: 2. º distinct, and separate from all the other bishops, having to Indeed be held by these, inconcussa fide, what he determines as the dogma of faith: 3. º He proves it from Christ's Prayer and Precept: 4. º from the unity of faith which is to be professed throughout the Church, which unity would be lacking, if the Pope were not the supreme judge of the disputes, and the only promulgator of the dogmatic definitions: 5., nor can it be said that he does it by usurpation and private authority, nor that this should be done only by the general councils independently of him: since all that is done by them has no force to oblige absolutely, without the involvement of the Pope, from whom depends the convocation and the authoritative confirmation of the councils themselves: cuius auctoritate synodus congregatur, et eius sententia confirmatur» In virtue of his office as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the universal Church, the pope is always able to freely exercise supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the Church (CIC 1983, Can. 331); and therefore he alone possesses the authority to preside over a council, and to designate and constitute the business to be transacted by the council; and to transfer, suspend or dissolve the council, and to confirm its decrees. (CIC 1917, Can. 222. §2) The objection that says in deposing a heretical pope a council’s judgment would not exercise power of jurisdiction over the pope as a superior is specious, and fatally flawed insofar as every judgment hinges directly on the power of a true jurisdiction, without which the act cannot consist, since the basis and foundation of judgment is jurisdiction, so that a judgment lacking jurisdiction would be incurable and irreparable * ; and, furthermore, no judgment whatsoever pronounced by a council would have any juridical effect unless it would be confirmed by the pope and promulgated by his order. ** [...] In a deposition there are enumerated three acts, 1) the declaration of heresy, 2) the desisting of the papacy in the person, and 3) penal expulsion from the Church; all of which are judicial acts, and therefore require the power of jurisdiction in whoever would provide the act.*** From this it necessarily follows, that if a manifestly pertinacious heretic pope would not fall from office entirely by himself, he would remain in office until judged and declared a heretic and deposed from the papacy by a council possessing a superior jurisdiction over him; or else he would remain in office even without any possibility of being legitimately deposed. It is de fide that there does not exist, nor can there exist, even by way of exception, a jurisdiction on earth superior to the pope’s universal primacy of jurisdiction. 
 * P. Francesco Bordoni, Op. cit. cap. VI, p. 154: «Deinde per illam quandam ordinarionem factam a Concilio vel intelligitur vera, & propria poteſtas, & iurisdictio Concilii in Papam, […] vel intelligitur aliquid aliud, quod tamen conſonum non eſt, quia omnis actus iudicialis pendet à vera iurisdictione, ſine qua nullus actus conſiſtere poteſt, quia baſis, & fundamentum iudici¡ reputatur iurisdictio Bald. C . ſi a compet. íud. in Rubr._Paris de confidet. q.79. num. 22 ita quod defectus iurisdictionis dicicur inſanabilis, & irreparabilis, ex Staphil. Sarnen, & Vantio ex eodem Pariſio num.24. » 
 ** CIC 1917: «Can. 227. Concilii decreta vim definitivam obligandi non habent, nisi a Romano Pontifice fuerint confirmata et eius iussu promulgata. » *** Bordoni, Sacrum Tribunal Iudicuм In Causis Sanctæ Fidei Contra Hæreticos Et Hæresi Suspectos, Romæ, MDCXLVIII, p. 154 – «Numerantur autem tres actus, declarario hæreſis, deſitio Papatus, & eiectio extra Eccleſiam, qui omnes ſunt iudiciales, ac proinde requirentes iurisdictionem in eo, qui illa tria præſtare debet, » 

Against Fr. Wathen's opinion is the teaching of Pope Innocent III, who said in Sermo IV De Diversis, “Since the Roman Pontiff has no other superior than God … who could cast him out or trample him under foot? … But he ought not vainly flatter himself because of his power … because the less he is judged by men, the more he is judged by God. I say the less, because he can be judged by men, or rather he can be shown to be already judged, if he should wither away into heresy; because «he who does not believe has already been judged (John III)»” Again, in another passage, in Sermo II, he explains that faith is so necessary for his office, that for other sins God alone is his judge; but for committing the sin against faith, he could be judged by the Church: «In tantum enim fides mihi necessaria est ut cuм de caeteris peccatis solum Deum judicem habeam, propter solum peccatum quod in fide commititur possem ab Ecclesia judicari. Nam qui non credit, iam iudicatus est. (Joh.3 18).» Pope Innocent III, teaches that the pope has no superior but God (post Deum alium superiorem non habet [Sermo III]) to judge him; thus, “Vir autem iste [Romanus Pontifex] alligatus uxori, [Ecclesiæ Romanæ] […] non deponitur; nam « suo domino aut stat, aut cadit » (Rom. XIV). — «Qui autem judicat, dominus est» (I Cor. IV).” And again: “The Roman Pontiff has no superior but God. Who, therefore, should a pope ‘lose his savour’, could cast him out or trample him under foot — since of the pope it is said ‘gather thy case (causa) into thy fold’ [fold of the toga over the breast]? Truly, he should not flatter himself about his power, nor should he rashly glory in his honour and high estate, because the less he is judged by man, the more he is judged by God. I say less, because he can be judged by men, or rather, can be shown to be already judged, if for example he should wither away into heresy; because he who does not believe is already judged. In such a case it should be said of him: If salt should lose its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trampled under-foot by men.” By “cast out”, Innocent means “deposed”, and by “trampled underfoot by men, “despised by the people”: (mittatur foras, id est ab officio deponatur: et concucetur ab hominibus, id est a populo contemnatur). He clearly teaches that the pope as pope cannot be judged by men, since the servant is judged by his own superior, and the Roman Pontiff has no superior but God: “Servus enim, secundum Apostolum, «suo domino stat aut cadit (Rom. xiv). » Propter quod idem Apostolus ait; «Tu quis es, qui judicas alienum servum?» (lbid.) Unde cuм Romanus pontifex non habeat alium dominum nisi Deum, quantumlibet evanescat, quis potest eum foras mittere, aut pedibus conculcare?” So, the pope asks, “Since the Roman Pontiff has no superior but God, if he were to lapse, who can cast him out and trample him underfoot?” The answer he gives explains, quoting St. John, that as a heretic, he is already judged (quoniam «qui non credit, jam judicatus est » (Joan. iii).), and therefore, for reason of fornication, not carnal but the error of infidelity, the Roman Church can divorce the Roman Pontiff; since the matrimony can only exist between legitimate persons (solus consensus inter legitimas personas efficit matrimonium). By the sin of infidelity, the necessary disposition for the spiritual matrimonial union between the Roman Pontiff and the Church ceases to exist; and thus the heretic, no longer a legitimate spouse, would cease to be pope, and could then be judged by men. This is what St. Robert Bellarmine teaches in De Romano Pontifice lib. ii cap. xxx: “Est ergo quinta opinio vera, papam hæreticuм manifestum per se desinere esse papam et caput, sicut per se desinit esse christianus et membrum corporis Ecclesiæ; quare ab Ecclesia posse eum judicari et puniri. Hæc est sententia omnium veterum Patrum, qui docent, hæreticos manifestos mox amittere omnem jurisdictionem.” “Therefore, the true opinion is the fifth, according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” In this manner, the pope, who has no judge but God, can be judged by men upon having ceased to be pope: «Fundamentum hujus sententiæ est quoniam hæreticus manifestus nullo modo est membrum Ecclesiæ, idest, neque animo neque corpore, sive neque unione interna, neque externa. » "The foundation of this argument is that the manifest heretic is not in any way a member of the Church, that is, neither spiritually nor corporally, which signifies that he is not such by internal union nor by external union.”

Against Fr. Wathen's opinion ...

You'll never succeed with Stubborn on this point, since he holds Father Wathen to be his rule of faith ... as the final interpreter of Catholic doctrine.

THE HERESY OF JOHN SALZA & ROBERT SISCOE

 “The Church must render a judgment before the pope loses his office.” Robert J. Siscoe — Article in The Remnant (Nov. 18, 2014)

 “After the Church establishes that the Pope is guilty of the crime of heresy, she renders a judgment of the same (and, as we will see, this is to be done during an “imperfect” ecuмenical council).” — John F. Salza & Robert J. Siscoe — True or False Pope? p. 331

  St. Thomas quoted by Pope Gregory XVI in Chapter 5 of The Triumph of the Holy See snd the Church Against the Attacks of the Innovators ... Translation - "To his authority belongs the promulgation of the creed, to whose authority it pertains to DETERMINE WITH FINALITY the matters of faith, so that they may be held by all with unshakable faith." This point was defined by the First Vatican Council: Pastor Æternus defines the pope as the supreme judge in all cases that refer to ecclesiastical examination: «iudicem supremum … in omnibus causis ad examen ecclesiasticuм spectantibus »

V I: Translation - «Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment. The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone, nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon. And so they stray from the genuine path of truth who maintain that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman pontiffs to an ecuмenical council as if this were an authority superior to the Roman pontiff.»


 VI: “So, then, if anyone says that the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in those which concern the discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that he has only the principal part, but not the entire fullness, of this supreme power; or that this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful: let him be anathema.”

     Since the pope, while in office, is the supreme judge with universal primacy of jurisdiction, he alone is the final and infallible judge in matters of faith and morals, against whose judgment no one may appeal, not even to an ecuмenical council.

Another straw man argument from Fr. Kramer.  No one has argued that what a Pope has "determined with finality" to be a"matter of faith" can be appealed to a council, or denied that the Pope is the supreme judge in matters of faith, and possesses universal jurisdiction.   But none of those things preclude the possibility of a Pope falling into heresy when he is not (a) acting as supreme judge (b) in a matter of faith (c) by rendering a definitive judgment to the (d) universal Church.  If did so, the bishops could gather at a council to discus the matter, and if they were to find him guilty of heresy, they could convict him of heresy with a discretionary judgment, before he ceases to be Pope.

According to Bellarmine (and St. Alphonsus), if a heretical pope did not publicly separate from the Church, the conviction of heresy is a condition that is required for him to lose the pontificate and jurisdiction.

Bellarmine:  "But it is certain (whatever one or another may think) that an occult heretic [i.e., a formal heretics whose heresy is not notorious], if he be a bishop or even the supreme Pontiff, does not lose his jurisdiction, or dignity, or the title of head in the Church, until either he publicly separates himself from the Church [“bursts forth into schism,” as Bellarmine wrote earlier], or, being convicted of heresy, is separated against his will.”  (De Ecclesia Militante, cap. x)


Do you agree or disagree with Bellarmine, that a Pope who falls into formal heresy - i.e., commits the mortal sin of heresy and loses the virtue of faith - yet does not "publicly separate himself from the Church," retains his"jurisdiction, dignity and title of head of the Church" until he is "convicted of heresy."    

Don't dodge the question.

Fr. Kramer: "The objection that says in deposing a heretical pope a council’s judgment would not exercise power of jurisdiction over the pope as a superior is specious, and fatally flawed insofar as every judgment hinges directly on the power of a true jurisdiction, without which the act cannot consist, since the basis and foundation of judgment is jurisdiction, so that a judgment lacking jurisdiction would be incurable and irreparable * ; and, furthermore, no judgment whatsoever pronounced by a council would have any juridical effect unless it would be confirmed by the pope and promulgated by his order.

No, a discretionary judgment does not "hinge directly on the power of a true jurisdiction."  It is the same form of judgment used by an arbitrator: it is a legitimate judgment, but it lacks any or coercive power.   Popes have willingly submitted to discretionary judgments in the past, and at least one promised in advance that he would obey whatever decision was rendered against him.  

Van Noort in his ecclesiology manual also speculates about the possibility in a nuclear age that the Church could be reduced to a small remnant gathered around the pope.  ....  Hypocrits.

Quote it.

PaxChristi2's Sententia Hæretica: "Another straw man argument from Fr. Kramer.  No one has argued that what a Pope has "determined with finality" to be a"matter of faith" can be appealed to a council, or denied that the Pope is the supreme judge in matters of faith, and possesses universal jurisdiction.   But none of those things preclude the possibility of a Pope falling into heresy when he is not (a) acting as supreme judge (b) in a matter of faith (c) by rendering a definitive judgment to the (d) universal Church.  If did so, the bishops could gather at a council to discus the matter, and if they were to find him guilty of heresy, they could convict him of heresy with a discretionary judgment, before he ceases to be Pope."

No council can ever "convict" a pope of heresy because a conviction is a JUDGMENT of a matter under dispute, but the pope is the supreme judge of all disputes on matters of faith. It pertains to the absolute fullness (totam plenitudinem) of power of the pope’s supreme primacy to judge all doctrinal disputes with definitive finality. An imperfect council cannot definitively judge a doctrinal question against the pope with FINALITY. Hence, there is only definitive finality of the Church’s judgment of a doctrinal question when the pope judges the dispute with finality by the exercise of his primacy; since it pertains to the authority of his primacy to determine with finality all matters of faith. Therefore, no council can ever validly judge a pope guilty of heresy, because the final determination of the Church’s judgment pertains exclusively to the exercise of the primacy of the supreme judge. Without that finality there cannot be a valid judgment that would be juridically binding the whole Church. Its juridical validity would radically depend on the pope’s ratification, without which it remains null and void. Such would be the judgment of a council that would attempt to judge a pope for heresy – it would be absolutely null and totally void. Thus, all theories, without exception, FORMULATED BEFORE PASTOR ÆTERNUS, which would propose that a true and certain pope, can be judged guilty of heresy while he is still in office, are heretical deviations against the dogma of papal primacy. The only way a pope is removed from office is by death or abdication. The pope can abdicate voluntarily; or (if possible) he would abdicate tacitly by manifesting himself obstinate in heresy, as St. Robert Bellarmine, Don Pietro Ballerini, and Pope Gregory XVI have taught. It pertains to the nature of a papal abdication that it does not depend on the acceptance, judgment, or declaration by anyone. Only its juridical recognition would be necessary to establish the de jure vacancy of the Apostolic See by means of a declaratory sentence, which would only be juridically valid if the see were already vacant as a matter of fact; since any declaratory sentence against against a reigning pontiff would be utterly lacking any jurisdiction. Hence, the doctrine proposed by John Salza & Robert Siscoe directly and heretically oppose the dogma of the Primacy defined in PastorÆternus.