Author Topic: Why I believe they Pope(s) is a heretic, but do not call myself a Sede (Read 20263 times)

SJB · « **Reply #15 on:** June 08, 2011, 09:29:28 AM »

Quote from: Van Noort, Christ's Church, on Papal Infallibility, objections

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.

stevusmagnus · « **Reply #16 on:** June 10, 2011, 10:28:31 PM »

Quote from: LordPhan

Anyhow in his explanation he stated the possibility of all the bishops coming together and forming a council whereby the say to the Pope you have said X, this is the definition which declared X to be heresy, now knowing this do you still believe X to be true. and if he answers in the affirmative and dosn't renounce X then he is declared deposed. *Whereby X representing a heretical position*

Quote from: SJB

Vennari is wrong.

Here is a Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine:

Quote from: On the Roman Pontiff, Bellarmine
"Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope; however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only over the link that unites the person to the pontificate. In the same way that the Church in uniting the pontificate to such a person, is not, because of this, above the Pontiff, so also the Church can separate the pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that it is above the Pope.

'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,

"He can be judged and punished by the Church" This is what Vennari was saying. The Church judges whether or not the Pope has become a formal heretic, not Joe Sede on the street.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #17 on:** June 10, 2011, 10:37:53 PM »

I wonder what the definition of The Church IS? Certainly not Vatican II.
The great schism, the great apostasy spoken of in the Bible.

Cristian · « **Reply #18 on:** June 11, 2011, 07:18:47 AM »

Quote from: stevusmagnus

Quote from: LordPhan
Anyhow in his explanation he stated the possibility of all the bishops coming together and forming a council whereby the say to the Pope you have said X, this is the definition which declared X to be heresy, now knowing this do you still believe X to be true. and if he answers in the affirmative and dosn't renounce X then he is declared deposed. *Whereby X representing a heretical position*

Quote from: SJB
Vennari is wrong.

Here is a Doctor of the Church, St. Robert Bellarmine:

Quote from: On the Roman Pontiff, Bellarmine
"Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first. For if the Church deposes the Pope against his will it is certainly above the Pope; however, Cajetan himself defends, in the same treatise, the contrary of this. Cajetan responds that the Church, in deposing the Pope, does not have authority over the Pope, but only over the link that unites the person to the pontificate. In the same way that the Church in uniting the pontificate to such a person, is not, because of this, above the Pontiff, so also the Church can separate the pontificate from such a person in case of heresy, without saying that it is above the Pope.

'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,

"He can be judged and punished by the Church" This is what Vennari was saying. The Church judges whether or not the Pope has become a formal heretic, not Joe Sede on the street.

Definitively you didn´t understand Bellarmine´s argument.

s2srea · « **Reply #19 on:** June 11, 2011, 09:26:23 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

I wonder what the definition of The Church IS? Certainly not Vatican II.
The great schism, the great apostasy spoken of in the Bible.

Thats fine Myrna, however, in this case it would be a council of cardinals and bishops. Have faith that one day our Lady's Immaculate Heart will prevail and the opportunity will come forth for these men's actions to be judged in an official manner. For now, we can see they are acting stupid and wrong, be have no authority to make official the determination of the office. So the "The Church" would mean those in the church with authority to do so, not you or I.

Quote from: Cristian

Definitively you didn´t understand Bellarmine´s argument.

Actually, it is you and others who take this great saint out of context.

ServusSpiritusSancti · « **Reply #20 on:** June 11, 2011, 09:50:36 AM »

Here's Bellarmine's quote again. Pay close attention to the underlined part.

"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."

His quote says that a Pope may be judged and punished by the Church should he fall into heresy. He never said that laypeople can judge or punish the Pope.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #21 on:** June 11, 2011, 09:59:53 AM »

Quote

Thats fine Myrna, however, in this case it would be a council of cardinals and bishops. Have faith that one day our Lady's Immaculate Heart will prevail and the opportunity will come forth for these men's actions to be judged in an official manner. For now, we can see they are acting stupid and wrong, be have no authority to make official the determination of the office. So the "The Church" would mean those in the church with authority to do so, not you or I.

I could be wrong reading your note here with my wee brain, but it sounds as if you do not believe the new church has authority at this time. Since the Church is a Divine Institution, and guided by the Holy Ghost forever as long as time exists, so too "The Church" is existing TODAY pure as always, as God has promised.
We live in the age where His words are being fulfilled, "When I return, will I find Faith upon the earth" (parphasing)

Our Lady's Immaculate Heart prevails daily, each time the Mass of All Times is offered in spite of Vatican II.

In the meantime beware of sheep in wolves clothing.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #22 on:** June 11, 2011, 10:09:59 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Here's Bellarmine's quote again. Pay close attention to the underlined part.

"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."

His quote says that a Pope may be judged and punished by the Church should he fall into heresy. He never said that laypeople can judge or punish the Pope.

What does he say about a heretic being elected a pope? Speaking of a heretic prior to election, i.e. freemason or enemy of God with the intention to destroy. Can the laypeople judge a heretic who was never qualified to be a pope?

Cristian · « **Reply #23 on:** June 11, 2011, 10:34:39 AM »

Quote from: s2srea

Quote from: Cristian

Definitively you didn´t understand Bellarmine´s argument.

Actually, it is you and others who take this great saint out of context.

How?

Cristian · « **Reply #24 on:** June 11, 2011, 10:41:22 AM »

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

Here's Bellarmine's quote again. Pay close attention to the underlined part.

"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."

His quote says that a Pope may be judged and punished by the Church should he fall into heresy. He never said that laypeople can judge or punish the Pope.

No, he doesn´t say that. He says that if a Pope is manifest heretic he would cease to be member of the Church and therefore he would cease to be Pope and therefore that person, who was a former Pope could be judged by the Church in the same way as the Church judges any other person. He is rebuking specially Cajetan´s argument who said that the Pope has to be deposed instead of losing the office automatically. What we, sedes, are doing is merely recognizing that BXVI cannot be the Pope since he is manifest heretic (first part of Bellarmine´s quote) and therefore he lost the office (or, to be more precise, he never had it).
We are not judging the Pope. Actually in Bellarmine´s argument the Church doesn´t judg the Pope either, but rather a former Pope.

You see the difference?

MyrnaM · « **Reply #25 on:** June 11, 2011, 11:08:50 AM »

At least Spiritus will give a reply, while others here on this thread, and other threads just make a snide remark and leave.

In my opinion, they lost and you won, Christian.

s2srea · « **Reply #26 on:** June 11, 2011, 11:50:41 AM »

Quote from: MyrnaM

I could be wrong reading your note here with my wee brain, but it sounds as if you do not believe the new church has authority at this time. Since the Church is a Divine Institution, and guided by the Holy Ghost forever as long as time exists, so too "The Church" is existing TODAY pure as always, as God has promised.
We live in the age where His words are being fulfilled, "When I return, will I find Faith upon the earth" (parphasing)

Our Lady's Immaculate Heart prevails daily, each time the Mass of All Times is offered in spite of Vatican II.

In the meantime beware of sheep in wolves clothing.

Quote from: MyrnaM

What does he say about a heretic being elected a pope? Speaking of a heretic prior to election, i.e. freemason or enemy of God with the intention to destroy. Can the laypeople judge a heretic who was never qualified to be a pope?

Myrna, you're right, we must beware of 'wolves in sheep's clothing'. I think what brings all of us together is our Catholic Faith and being aware there are wolves in sheep's clothing out there to destroy souls. But on this matter, which I know little about, it is my understanding it is a technical issue. So the Church being a Divine Institution has the ability to try (as in law, trial). That would mean, in the case of BVI, sitting him down, and asking questions- sort of like a civil court. He would be asked to account for his intent and actions. If any of what he has done would be found to be anything but Catholic, he would be made to repent, make amendments, and come back to the fold. But notice, they only way, 'officially' to declare him 'out of the fold' is through this council. So all we can do for now is hold private opinion and follow only what is Catholic.

Quote from: Cristian

No, he doesn´t say that. He says that if a Pope is manifest heretic he would cease to be member of the Church and therefore he would cease to be Pope and therefore that person, who was a former Pope could be judged by the Church in the same way as the Church judges any other person. He is rebuking specially Cajetan´s argument who said that the Pope has to be deposed instead of losing the office automatically. What we, sedes, are doing is merely recognizing that BXVI cannot be the Pope since he is manifest heretic (first part of Bellarmine´s quote) and therefore he lost the office (or, to be more precise, he never had it).
We are not judging the Pope. Actually in Bellarmine´s argument the Church doesn´t judg the Pope either, but rather a former Pope.

You see the difference?

Which is why I personally do not hold the opinion of sedes to be wrong or right, because it is an opinion.

s2srea · « **Reply #27 on:** June 11, 2011, 11:51:26 AM »

Some of us can not be attached to the computer and respond as quickly as we'd like, unfortunately.

Cristian · « **Reply #28 on:** June 11, 2011, 12:57:46 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

So the Church being a Divine Institution has the ability to try (as in law, trial). That would mean, in the case of BVI, sitting him down, and asking questions- sort of like a civil court. He would be asked to account for his intent and actions. If any of what he has done would be found to be anything but Catholic, he would be made to repent, make amendments, and come back to the fold. But notice, they only way, 'officially' to declare him 'out of the fold' is through this council. So all we can do for now is hold private opinion and follow only what is Catholic

How do you reconcile this with canon 1556? "The Holy See cannot be judged by anyone"

Quote

Quote from: Cristian
No, he doesn´t say that. He says that if a Pope is manifest heretic he would cease to be member of the Church and therefore he would cease to be Pope and therefore that person, who was a former Pope could be judged by the Church in the same way as the Church judges any other person. He is rebuking specially Cajetan´s argument who said that the Pope has to be deposed instead of losing the office automatically. What we, sedes, are doing is merely recognizing that BXVI cannot be the Pope since he is manifest heretic (first part of Bellarmine´s quote) and therefore he lost the office (or, to be more precise, he never had it).
We are not judging the Pope. Actually in Bellarmine´s argument the Church doesn´t judg the Pope either, but rather a former Pope.

You see the difference?

Which is why I personally do not hold the opinion of sedes to be wrong or right, because it is an opinion.

But opinions can be wrong or true, right?. Besides if you accept the possibility BXVI may not be the Pope, that is, if you have serious reasons or doubts about he being the Pope, in practice, you should act as if he were not the Pope, since as the saying goes "a doubtful Pope is not Pope".

Cristian · « **Reply #29 on:** June 11, 2011, 01:00:15 PM »

Quote from: s2srea

Some of us can not be attached to the computer and respond as quickly as we'd like, unfortunately.

Oh no problem at all, we are here on this forum to discuss charitably in order to find the truth, not to win or to lose a discussion!

:cheers: