Indeed... Once again we see that Pax is making things up to suit his agenda.
First off, I don't care if he was a heretic or not. I'm not the one who thinks papal heresy affects his chair (unless the Church deposes him). It is irrelevant to my "agenda" whether Honorius believed the heresy, or simply kept quiet.
Secondly, there are 9 ways to be an accessory to someone else's sin - silence being one of them. And since the pope has the SUPREME duty to condemn error, and Honorious did not, then it's logical to say that his silence accepted the heresy, in some degree - and the pope to a higher degree is guilty, since his duty is greater. As St Thomas Moore, a lawyer, always said of the law: "Silence gives consent". Thus, it is just that Honorius is connected to heresy and rightly condemned.
But really, it doesn't matter if he was a heretic officially. He's not one in the same manner as the V2 popes, but you're the one who thinks this matters, not I.
Also, I notice another contradiction in your position. Whereas you reject Vatican II Council and the conciliar Popes on the basis of not having defined any "dogmas" or ex-cathedra statements; you are rather quick to condemn Pope Honorius of formal heresy when it is obvious that he did not engage the infallible Magisterium, defined any doctrine, or pronounce an ex-cathedra statement.
In conclusion, Cantarella, your above statement then is retarded. You're saying that Drew has a contradiction because he treats V2 popes the same as Honorius. I explained that the treatment being the same is not a contradiction. Then you said the situations AREN'T the same, and my explanation is wrong. Well...YOU'RE THE ONE WHO SAID THEY SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME IN THE FIRST PLACE.
You even contradict yourself in a matter of posts. Amazing.
Topic: Is Father Ringrose dumping the R & R crowd? (Read 443288 times)