I agree that it is not the place of lay-people to judge the Pope...

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: SpiritusSanctus

I agree that it is not the place of lay-people to judge the Pope...

It is not the place of cardinals or a council to judge him, either.

Thanks for the correction GV- how about 'determine legitimacy of office"?

Yesterday I had the fortune of seeing John Vennari at our chapel where he gave a very good lecture for a couple of hours. Afterwards there was a brief question period where someone asked if he would ever consider the see of peter to be vacant. He said no. 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*

Now me speaking, it is also possible to wait for another Pope to condemn him or convene a council to condemn him like Honorius.  


Laymen cannot condemn a Pope, Lay cannot even condemn a Bishop, but if they utter things that contradict the magisterium then we must use our intellect to discern right from wrong and disobey that which is wrong.

"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, who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction, and outstandingly that of St. Cyprian (lib. 4, epist. 2) who speaks as follows of Novatian, who was Pope [i.e. antipope] in the schism which occurred during the pontificate of St. Cornelius: 'He would not be able to retain the episcopate [i.e. of Rome], and, if he was made bishop before, he separated himself from the body of those who were, like him, bishops, and from the unity of the Church.' According to what St. Cyprian affirms in this passage, even had Novatian been the true and legitimate Pope, he would have automatically fallen from the pontificate, if he separated himself from the Church.

"This is the opinion of great recent doctors, as John Driedo (lib. 4 de Script. et dogmat. Eccles., cap. 2, par. 2, sent. 2), who teaches that only they separate themselves from the Church who are expelled, like the excommunicated, and those who depart by themselves from her or oppose her, as heretics and schismatics. And in his seventh affirmation, he maintains that in those who turn away from the Church, there remains absolutely no spiritual power over those who are in the Church. Melchior Cano says the same (lib. 4 de loc., cap. 2), teaching that heretics are neither parts nor members of the Church, and that it cannot even be conceived that anyone could be head and Pope, without being member and part (cap. ult. ad argument. 12). And he teaches in the same place, in plain words, that occult heretics are still of the Church, they are parts and members, and that therefore the Pope who is an occult heretic is still Pope. This is also the opinion of the other authors whom we cite in book I De Ecclesia.

"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. For even bad Catholics [i.e. who are not heretics] are united and are members, spiritually by faith, corporally by confession of faith and by participation in the visible sacraments; the occult heretics are united and are members although only by external union; on the contrary, the good catechumens belong to the Church only by an internal union, not by the external; but manifest heretics do not pertain in any manner, as we have already proved."

Quote from: LordPhan

Yesterday I had the fortune of seeing John Vennari at our chapel where he gave a very good lecture for a couple of hours. Afterwards there was a brief question period where someone asked if he would ever consider the see of peter to be vacant. He said no. 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*

Now me speaking, it is also possible to wait for another Pope to condemn him or convene a council to condemn him like Honorius.  


Laymen cannot condemn a Pope, Lay cannot even condemn a Bishop, but if they utter things that contradict the magisterium then we must use our intellect to discern right from wrong and disobey that which is wrong.

Bishops cannot condemn a Pope...

Honorius was always Pope and the very acts of his "condemnations" are put into doubt by theologians such as St. Robert Bellarmine himself.

Modern controversies on the subject
The condemnation of Pope Honorius was retained in the lessons of the Breviary for 28 June (St. Leo II) until the eighteenth century. Difficulties made themselves felt when, after the Great Western Schism, papal infallibility began to be doubted. Protestantism and Gallicanism made vigorous attacks on the unfortunate pope, and at the time of the Vatican Council Honorius figured in every pamphlet and every speech on ecclesiastical subjects. The question has not only been debated in numerous monographs, but is treated by the historians and the theologians, as well as by the professed controversialists. Only a few typical views need here be mentioned.

Bellarmine and Baronius followed Pighius in denying that Honorius was condemned at all. Baronius argued that the Acts of the Council were falsified by Theodore, a Patriarch of Constantinople, who had been deposed by the emperor, but was restored at a later date; we are to presume that the council condemned him, but that he substituted "Honorius" for "Theodorus" in the Acts. This theory has frequently been shown to be untenable.

The more famous Gallicans, such as Bossuet, Dupin, Richer, and later ones as Cardinal de la Luzerne and (at the time of the Vatican Council) Maret, Gratry, and many others, usually held with all Protestant writers that Honorius had formally defined heresy, and was condemned for so doing. They added, of course, that such a failure on the part of an individual pope did not compromise the general and habitual orthodoxy of the Roman See.

On the other hand the chief advocates of papal infallibility, for instance, such great men as Melchior Canus in the sixteenth century, Thomassinus in the seventeenth, Pietro Ballerini in the eighteenth, Cardinal Perrone in the nineteenth, have been careful to point out that Honorius did not define anything ex cathedra. But they were not content with this amply sufficient defence. Some followed Baronius, but most, if not all, showed themselves anxious to prove that the letters of Honorius were entirely orthodox. There was indeed no difficulty in showing that Honorius was probably not a Monothelite. It would have been only just to extend the same kindly interpretation to the words of Sergius. The learned Jesuit Garnier saw clearly, however, that it was not as a Monothelite that Honorius was condemned. He was coupled with Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, the Ecthesis, and the Type. It is by no means clear that Sergius, Pyrrhus, and the Ecthesis are to be accounted as Monothelite, since they forbade the mention of "one operation"; it is quite certain that Paul and the Type were anti-Monothelite, for they prohibited "one Will" also. Garnier pointed out that the council condemned Honorius for approving Sergius and for "fomenting" the dogmas of Pyrrhus and Paul. This view was followed by many great writers, including Pagi.

A theory put forward by Pennacchi at the time of the Vatican Council attracted an unnecessary amount of attention. He agreed with the Protestants and Gallicans in proclaiming that the letter of Honorius was a definition ex cathedra; that the pope was anathematized by the council as a heretic in the strict sense; but the council, not being infallible apart from papal confirmation, fell in this case into error about a dogmatic fact (in this point Pennacchi was preceded by Turrecremata, Bellarmine, Assemani, and many others), since the letter of Honorius was not worthy of censure. Leo II, in confirming the council, expressly abrogated the censure, according to this view, and substituted a condemnation for negligence only (so also Grisar--see above). There is evidently no ground whatever for any of these assertions.

Bishop Hefele before 1870 took the view that Honorius's letter was not strictly heretical but was gravely incorrect, and that its condemnation by an ecuмenical council was a serious difficulty against the "personal" infallibility of the popes. After his hesitating acceptance of the Vatican decrees he modified his view; he now taught that Honorius's letter was a definition ex cathedra, that it was incorrectly worded, but that the thought of the writer was orthodox (true enough; but, in a definition of faith, surely the words are of primary importance); the council judged Honorius by his words, and condemned him simply as a Monothelite; Leo II accepted and confirmed the condemnation by the council, but, in doing so, he carefully defined in what sense the condemnation was to be understood. These views of Hefele's, which he put forth with edifying modesty and submission as the best explanation he could give of what had previously seemed to him a formidable difficulty, have had a surprisingly wide influence, and have been adopted by many Catholic writers, save only his mistaken notion that a letter like that of Honorius can be supposed to fulfil the conditions laid down by the Vatican Council for an ex cathedra judgment (so Jungmann and many controversialists).

Well, having Bellarmine and Baronius on one side and Gallicanists, Protestants, anti-Infallibilists and Modernists on the other side...which one should we choose?
Obviously the Catholic Encyclopedia is also not always a source of perfect orthodoxy, depending on who wrote which article.

SESSION XVI.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1010.)

[The Acclamations of the Fathers.]

Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian! Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches!O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!

Many years to Agatho, Pope of Rome! Many years to George, Patriarch of Constantinople! Many years to Theophanus, Patriarch of Antioch! Many years to the orthodox council! Many years to the orthodox Senate!

To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!

To Paul the heretic, anathema!

To Peter the heretic, anathema!

To Macarius the heretic, anathema!

To Stephen the heretic, anathema!

To Polychronius the heretic, anathema!

To Apergius of Perga the heretic, anathema!

To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!

May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecuмenical Council!

This council had been held in Constantinople against the Monothelites, and had been presided over by the legates of Pope Agatho. After Leo had notified the emperor that the decrees of the council had been confirmed by him, he proceeded to make them known to the nations of the West. The letters which he sent for this end to the king and to the bishops and nobles of Spain have come down to us. In them he explained what the council had effected, and he called upon the bishops to subscribe to its decrees. At the same time he was at pains to make it clear that in condemning his predecessor Honorius I, he did so, not because he taught heresy, but because he was not active enough in opposing it. In accordance with the papal mandate, a synod was held at Toledo (684) in which the Council of Constantinople was accepted.

Pope St. Leo II, July 3

Prof. Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira

Biographical selection:

St. Leo II (682-683), Pope and confessor, approved the docuмents of the Sixth Ecuмenical Council (Third Council of Constantinople) which had been convened by Pope St. Agatho, his antecessor. That Council condemned the heresy of Monothelism, and namely condemned Pope Honorius who adhered to it. Regarding Pope Honorius, St. Leo II wrote that “instead of purifying this Apostolic Church, he permitted the immaculate to be maculated by a profane treason.”


St. Leo II condemned
Pope Honorius as a heretic
Pope Honorius wrote a letter to the heretic patriarch of Constantinople, Sergius, approving his thesis that Our Lord would have only one will or energy, and not two – the divine and human – and taking a clear position against St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, who was attacking the heretic.

Monothelism was condemned by the successors of Pope Honorius: Pope Severinus (640-640) formally condemned it, Pope John IV (640-642) and Pope Theodore I (642-649) excommunicated Pyrrhus, patriarch of Constantinople, for defending the same error. Pope Martinus (649-655) was imprisoned by the Emperor Constans II, and died a martyr because he did not accept Monothelism. Pope Eugenius I (654-657) also rejected this doctrine. The Ecuмenical Council of Constantinople (680-681) condemned Monothelism and Pope Honorius as a heretic. This condemnation was elaborated by Pope St. Agatho (678-681). The docuмents of this Council were ratified by Pope St. Leo II.

Referring to the defection of Pope Honorius and to Monothelism as a continuation of Monophysism, Dom Guéranger made this prayer to St. Leo II:

"What craft was displayed by Satan in this campaign prolonged for two centuries, noiselessly, the better to secure success. What exultation rang through the abyss when one sad day saw the representative of Him who is the essential Light appear to side for a moment with the powers of darkness! A cloud seemed to have come between Heaven and those mountains of God, where He dwells with His Vicar; it is probable that the social aid of intercession was weaker just then than it should have been.

"Be ever at hand, O Leo, to ward off all similarly dangerous situations. Uphold, in every age, the Pastor who rules Christ’s Church, that he may keep himself aloof from the darkening mists that earth exhales. Keep ever alive in the hearts of the faithful flock that strong prayer, which should continually be made without ceasing for him by the Church; and then Peter, were he even chained in the depths of the darkest dungeon, will be reached by the Sun of Justice and clearly see his way in the pure ray; then will the whole body of the Church be filled with light."